Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

[imenja]

I just read _The DaVinci Code_, and while I do know better than to base an understanding of history or theology on mystery novels, I'm wondering about the assertion that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Do others here know the existing status of scholarship on that question? How plausible is the idea?

[saltpoint]

1. Possible but not confirmed.

There are no texts for the life of Jesus of Galilee, so we surmise our way through his ministry.

He could also have been in love with the young John, the Beloved One.

[asthmaticeog]

2. That idea first became widely popular

with the publication of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," a book whose scholarship and claims are now disputed even by some of its own co-authors. Nothing to see here.

[dogman]

3. Don't know but noticed this.

http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/falsani/cst-nws-fals09.html
Snip>In the meantime, happily, Cardinal George already has two doctorates. So I'll defer to his assessment of Brown's scholarship
Snip>"All I have to say is, nobody ever told me to keep secret the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene," George said.

[Az]

4. Makes for a nice story

But so too does the bible. For the record I am unconvinced that a historical Jesus existed. So the notion of Jesus and Mary being in a relationship together falls into the story category for me until better evidence comes along.

[Gman]

13. So would you argue that

the Gospel writers collaborated to create this "story" of a fictitious Jesus? What would be their motivation to do so? I don't know because I haven't looked too far into it, but aren't there other documents including the dead sea scrolls that talk of Jesus? Would they have been party to creating this fictitious Jesus? What would be the motivation of all these writers to collaborate to create a biblical Harry Potter? Wouldn't that be a lot like the MASH episode where Hawkeye and BJ created the fictitious Major Tuttle on paper so they could donate his military salary to an orphanage? Eventually, everyone in the 4077th believed the story and claimed to be Tuttle's best friend and had stories to tell about him when in fact he never existed.

I think its pretty hard to say Jesus never existed. There seems to be plenty of documentation saying he did. Beyond documentary evidence, proving through physical evidence is much harder. But, proving Jesus' existence through physical evidence is like proving the existence in 30 A.D. of Josea Blow (a.k.a. Joe Blow) who lived a nondescript life in the 1st century. The physical evidence that Josea Blow existed was not preserved and neither was the physical evidence of Jesus' existence preserved. There were no pictures taken. However, while there there may be no documentary evidence of Josea Blow, there is of Jesus.

Now, whether or not you believe what it is written about what Jesus did and who he really was is another thing. But I think its pretty hard to deny that he really did exist.

[Az]

14. Just as a suggestion

Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. We know he wrote in Greek. Student of the Greek language typically learned by reading and copying the works of Homer. It was common practice (very common) for writers to copy and modify the works of others. This is how many of the great works came about. They were improvements on other stories.

There are selveral examples of parallels between Mark's Gospels and Homer's stories (Odyseus and Illiad). Instead of Homer's heroic suffering warrior Mark created a pacifist suffering hero.

For the record I do not deny that Jesus existed. I am just unconvinced that he did. A subtle but important difference. I believe the evidence is inconclusive and tainted by centuries of believers working on the record and destroying what they do not agree with. He may or may not have existed. But there are potential explanations beyond demanding he had to exist.

[saltpoint]

16. I don't think Jesus was an invented figure.

I believe the divine Jesus was an invented idea and then it was rammed down people's throats.

Jesus is admiral as a man who was very perceptive and intelligent and who rose against the corrupt and brutal Roman imperial governors.

They killed him for it, but I admire the courage.

[Az]

17. Perhaps

The story certainly is of a commendable person. Just not convinced he existed. Maybe someone similar and reworked into a story or legend. Maybe even a guy named Jesus. Odd there isn't more evidence of his existance though.

[saltpoint]

19. Agreed.

There's so little to go on.

[Gman]

20. What you describe is the difference between faith

and not believing. I'm not saying you're wrong. It just fits. Believing and faith are based on taking something as truth without or even in spite of proof. Some have faith that Jesus was divine. Some don't.

[saltpoint]

22. The absence of reliable texts --

-- and the sheer distance in time and culture put great strain on the capacity for "faith."

I respect people who are inspired by the example of sacrificial figures in history but I believe the greatness is there, in and of itself.

The divinity of one figure is not in my opinion superior to that of any other. Why not worship Antinuous? His was the last religion of the ancient world.

[imenja]

23. there are religions that survive without such texts

Many traditionalist--so-called pagan--religions survive with no text at all. To seek an empirical answer for matters of faith is like using a mathematical theorem to understand great literature: it misses the point and overlooks deeper meaning.

[saltpoint]

25. No, it does not miss the point.

The original poster asked into "the existing scholarship" of a particular question.\

My responses and posts here have kept within that concern.

As always, it's those with "faith" who have interpolated.

[imenja]

30. so you don't have faith

You don't have faith. That is your decision. But to expect others to believe and think precisely as you do is egocentric. Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, including Christians. Throughout history, people have adhered to one religion or another. To imagine that everyone but atheists and agnostics is benighted strikes me as unreasonable.

[Az]

33. Mark Twain on Faith

Faith is believing what you know ain't true. - Mark Twain

In my opinion. Faith is a template that people rap themself in defining what they should believe according to their religion. Sometimes their beliefs coincide with their faith and they are happy. More often there are differences between what a person believes and what their faith tells them to believe and stress is derived from this.

People learn what they are supposed to believe. They are not born with faith. It has to be taught. With all the faiths in the world it becomes clear the faith alone indicates nothing of truth. Only one's adherance to the beliefs they are taught to believe.

[imenja]

41. false consciousness?

Faith is taught, as is everything else we do and learn: how to play sports, walk, read, history, mathetmatics, music, etc... That does not make it wrong. Ultimately we can never resolve such a question through debate. We will, however, all learn the answer at some point.

[Az]

46. Slightly off my point

I think. I am trying to say faith is not what we believe. Rather it is what we believe we are supposed to believe.

Belief is what we internally come to the conclusion of based on the things we learn and experience. Faith is that which we are taught to believe, whether we believe it or not.

That is we learn what we are supposed to believe. We combine this with what we actually believe. We feel stressed if our beliefs do not match what we understand we are supposed to believe.

The faith we are taught may be right. It may be wrong. In and of itself it bears no dependence on truth. There are faiths in the world that are directly contradictory. Yet they are held by individuals with equal fervor. Thus we cannot look to the strength of one's faith as a measure of its truthfullness.

Faith is a very effective social tool. It brings people into line with one another and forms a cohesiveness within the society. It provides strength to those in doubt. It reassures those who need hope. It can be a rock for people to anchor themself to in a storm.

But it need not be truth.

[imenja]

48. I disagree with your distinction between belief and faith

I believe faith comes from inside, from the soul. It is not external. Most importantly, it is not in my view "what we are supposed to believe." Religions impose a certain set of beliefs on their followers, but faith transcends those religious teachings. It's universality demonstrates that it is not premised on a certain set of beliefs.
I also disagree that faith bears no relation to truth. Reason can lead to truth, but truth ultimately depends on something more profound, a sense of justice that is not purely intellectual. If by truth you mean empirical evidence, I concur that faith is not dependent on such proof.
Faith, I would argue, is more than a social tool. I still think your argument implies a kind of false consciousness, that there is something mistaken or artificial in faith. While we commonly use the worth faith to refer to religious beliefs, it need not be religious in nature. I would imagine atheists of good conscience maintain a certain faith--a belief in justice, in a greater good, even when evidence from the world around us may suggest otherwise. Marxism, an ideology that is far from religious, maintains such a faith in a more just economic system. I think this faith is something quite different from what we are told we should believe.

[Az]

49. A simple question then

Can someone have faith in something that unknown to them is untrue?

[imenja]

51. the unknown

Can someone have faith in something that is unknown? Yes, God by nature is unknown. We place faith in that which is ultimately unknowable. The idea of God and specific precepts of religion are of course learned, but so is most everything we do or think. Faith, I would argue, is more than the sum of that knowledge. Faith is an eternal connection that comes from the soul.

[Az]

52. Not what I asked

Can a person have faith is something that is untrue? Even if they believe it is true.

[imenja]

56. ?

If they believe it is true how can you say it is untrue? The question doesn't make sense to me. It supposes an absolute knowledge you or someone else holds over the believer. Is the implication that people believe in God, even though there is, in your opinion, none?
I guess I don't understand your question.

[Az]

59. The earth is flat

For a great period of time people had faith that the world was flat. They were wrong. It does not take absolute knowledge to learn this. Just enough knowledge.

Furthermore whether a thing is true or not is independent of us knowing whether it is true or not. Thus people having faith in a flat earth was not unusual in its day.

The question "Can someone have faith in something that is untrue" attempts to clarify what we mean when we say the word faith. Clarity is preferred in such detailed conversations. If we are talking about wildly different things then our discussion will fail.

Some would posit that faith is holding to the truth. My contention is that faith is unconnected to the truth. The subject of faith may or may not be true. This further leads us to my position that faith is a template that we learn. It is part of our beliefs but it specifically is what we believe we are supposed to believe.

There are struggles some go through with faith. They know what they are supposed to believe but they do not believe it. Thus they feel stress and depression until they are able to either reconcile their belief and faith or rid themself of their faith.

[imenja]

61. a belief

The earth is flat is a belief, an idea, not faith. Matters of faith are by nature subjective. You can't claim to know whether they are true or not, since no one holds absolute knowledge. I applaud your concern for clarity, so I offer one here. If you substitute empirical evidence for truth in your above statements, then I can agree that faith is unconnected. But as I said previously, truth in it's greatest sense should not be reduced to empiricism alone. You seem to maintain a faith in empiricism that I do not. I know it to be a product of the modern world, the last 250 years. It offers many insights, but it's path to knowledge is not absolute.


My original point is still appropriate here. Such matters cannot be resolved by debate. You believe religion and faith in general is untrue. Fair enough. That is of course your choice. You must recognize and respect, however, that others see it differently.

I quote your point above: "There are struggles some go through with faith. They know what they are supposed to believe but they do not believe it. Thus they feel stress and depression until they are able to either reconcile their belief and faith or rid themself of their faith."
That may be the experience of some that come from strictly religious upbringings where they feel pressure to believe in something they do not. That is unfortunate. Religion, I believe, should not be forced on others, though clearly it has been imposed throughout history. As adults in a secular society, we have the choice to believe or not. The experience above is not universal. People have different experiences with religion. It is, however, unfortunate that it occurs at all.

[Az]

64. Freedom vs Choice

We have the freedom to believe what we may. Choice is a trickier topic. Can you choose to believe that you can walk through walls? I know I can't. I can attempt to imagine myself walking through walls. But this doesn't change the fact that if I actually try to do it I will seriously worry about bumping my nose.

Choice plays a roll in belief. But it is nowhere near as direct as most seem to suggest. We make choices concerning paths we take. This brings us to new experiences and events. These impact us in ways and change the nature of what we believe. You cannot idlely choose to change what you believe. Try it.

Concerning faith and truth. Just because we don't currently know the truth of a matter does not mean that there is not a truth present. Truth is independent of knowledge. It is independent of consciousness. The truth simply is. We seek to discover it. We are still working on it. Not all faith reflects the truth.

Religion and force. There are numerous ways religion spreads. Force is one of many. From the moment that inspires a religious belief to present time its spread is dependent on methodology rather than the truth of the event.

Once a belief enters the social consciousness its spread is dependent on those that wish to spread it. If they do so by an ineffective means it will not spread and it will whither and die. If it is effective then it will spread. It will survive.

Thus force is going to play a part in the spread of religions. It is a very effective method. Particularly so if you have the control of society to carry it out. The efficacy of force is so advantageous that many beleifs struggle with each other for control of the society so they may use its power to force their doctrine on others. There are other ways. But not many rival force.

[imenja]

65. delete

delete

[imenja]

66. confusion

for some reason I'm having trouble placing this post in the right place. Sorry for the confusion

[imenja]

67. cultural hegemony

As Antonio Gramsci points out, culture is a far more effective tool of oppression or spreading ideas in general than military force. Both comprise force in the way you describe it, but the former has the advantage of providing at least the illusion of choice.
Many of your points are very good. I do object to the analogy between walking through walls and religious belief. I like your point that truth is independent of knowledge.

[Az]

68. Could you clarify

the objection to the wall example. I have no desire to create disharmony with a mere example. If I could improve upon it I will gladdly do so. What specifically is your issue with it?

[imenja]

69. walls vs. God

Walking through walls is clearly pointless, ridiculous. To believe one can do so would be absurd. A belief in God is not absurd. You may be skeptical that it is a well-founded belief, but there is no proof it is untrue. That science and other reason-based knowledge cannot prove God doesn't mean she doesn't exist. That may just as well be a limitation of existing scientific knowledge as anything else. We know and can prove a person can't walk through walls. The same holds for your analogy about the earth being flat.
Most importantly, God need not be proved. Religion is a question of faith, and faith (as you rightly point out) is not dependent on empirical evidence. From my perspective, it is unimportant whether the Bible is literally true. I expect that much of it is not. The Bible's importance is as a foundational text for a religious belief system. It's importance is cultural and spiritual and thus has value. This, I believe, is as true for other religions as Christianity. All relate to the unknown, that which ultimately cannot and need not be proved.

I very much appreciate the non-confrontational manner with which you express yourself and your desire for an open exchange of ideas.
I wish that was more common on DU.

[Az]

70. Would you not say

That some individuals belief in god is not as strong as others belief in walls?

Belief is not tied to what we can demonstate. It is what our minds accept as true. Reason and emotions both play a part in this. But Reason is only a tool to temper what we cannot emotionally resolve.

I do not reason that the wall exists as a solid obstruction. In fact I understand from reason that the wall is actually mostly empty space. It is only because of repulsion of electrons that I cannot pass through it. And this repulsion relies on coincidental occurrences of near collisions from minute particles. Only the enormous quantity of particles raise the odds sufficiently to stop my progress through the wall. Reasonably it is only statistics that stop us from being able to pass through walls. Yet we do not expect to see someone walk through a wall any time soon.

Reason is not our primary means of dealing with the world. It is the tie breaker. When we have doubts or conflicting beliefs we bring in tools to help us break the impasse. Reason is not the only tool we use. Some use fate or guidance from the spirit world (which they believe exists). Some look for signs of import.

It is interesting to note that in studies of various societies the more stress related to occupation the more likely it is to find increases in superstitions and reliance on appeals to various forces of nature. Fishing communities that rely on coastal fish show a far lower occurence of such practices than those that rely on deep sea fish. Deep sea fishing carries with it an increase in danger.

When the mind is placed in a state of stress it seeks reassurance for its descisions. It uses all manner of tools. But their use and function all center around raising the emotional certainty about a path or concern. Reason is such a tool. But it can be outweighed by other tools that may not be as well founded on realistic propositions.

[imenja]

71. not being a scientist . . .

I don't follow your point about electrons and walls. I know, however, I can't do it. I would imagine the statistical result of such an experiment would be 100% for those not being able to walk through walls, unless it was a very poorly constructed wall.
You may be quite right that religion serves a purpose in alleviating stress. Is that so bad? That doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means some have a greater need for religion than others. I would like to gently point out that "superstition" is a pejorative term. We commonly use it to refer to practices, like West African religions, that differ from our own.
I agree than belief and faith are different terms, but I would flip the definitions that you use. I believe something to be true because I think it. I believe George Bush is a terrible president. I believe the Democrats offer a somewhat better alternative. I believe Marxism is a useful tool for examining history. I believe post-structuralism introduces interesting questions. And faith--while mine is not as strong as I would like it to be, certainly not as strong as that of many others, it comes from an instinctual, inner place. It is based on the soul's communion with God and not dependent on a certain set of ideas. Our BELIEFS in religion, however, are framed by what we read and hear.

[saltpoint]

39. Since I haven't made any such claim --

-- I will assume you mispeak.

The original poster did NOT include "faith" as an article of consideration in the "status of existing scholarship" and I did NOT exclude it in my responses.

Your oversight.

[imenja]

40. I was the original poster

and you are quite correct that I asked about existing scholarship on the subject. I did not specify historical or theological. I would have been happy with a response about either. While I appreciate your contributions, I disagree with your assessment of them. You responded: "I believe the divine Jesus was an invented idea and then it was rammed down people's throats." Your opinion, valid as it is, does not provide evidence from or reference to any scholarly works. Nor does it even mention the issue of existing scholarship. You responded based on your own beliefs.
You further made the point that "The absence of reliable texts and the sheer distance in time and culture put great strain on the capacity for "faith." It may strain your capacity for faith, but not that of many others, including prominent theologians (Martin Buber, Soren Kierkegaard, among many others). Like Kierkegaard, I believe faith operates on a fundamentally different plane from scientific reason. You insisted it does not. Again, that is your opinion. I pointed out that disagreement and what I perceived an assumption on your part that thinking that disagrees with your own was inherently wrong. You are quite correct that this diverges from my original post, but when you responded about your own personal disbelief (that the divine Jesus was "rammed down people's throats"), you, by suggesting it's antithesis, raised the issue of faith itself. I respect your views. I ask you to respect those who disagree with you.

[saltpoint]

43. imenja:

I do respect people who disagree with me.

But "faith" is your agenda tonight.

Not scholarship.

If you wanted a to-do over "faith" you should say so up front.

You didn't.

You laid your "existing scholarship" line out on the table and then ambushed anyone who didn't agree with YOU.

Contemporary Christianity is seldom practiced as a replication of the ministry of Jesus. Too often it is a pile of right-wing hate campaigns, and "true Christians" say very little about that misrepresentation.

I will start respecting Christians in the modern era when they start behaving as compassionate people. Remaining silent while monsters like Phelps and Falwell run loose at the mouth is not worthy of ANYONE's respect.

[imenja]

44. Agenda?

I asked a question. Your response prompted another reply.
I have no agenda other than to raise questions and issues when I find them appropriate. Since you chose not to reply to what I asked, I responded to what you did write. I'm sorry you find that
so discomforting that you feel a need to accuse me of having an agenda. I raised a simple disagreement with you. How that constitutes am "ambush" I can't begin to imagine.

Additionally, this particular forum is devoted to religion and theology. You should not be surprised that such issues come up in a discussion of Christianity or the Bible. Christianity is fundamentally a system of faith, and for a few academics it is a subject of research. I would welcome any discussion of that scholarship, yet you yourself have raised none.

While I agree with your assessment of Falwell and others like him, hatred is clearly not a providence of Christians alone. I also find it odd that you somehow raise that as a counterpoint to my post, since I have never offered anything but criticism of those men. Apparently they have shaped your understanding of Christianity.

It is odd for me that I get caught in a discussion like this since I very rarely go to church, though I (like 82% of Americans) do identify myself as Christian. I respect all religions--Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and even the absence of faith. It bothers me when I see others dismiss the beliefs of others. I have mounted similar defenses on these boards about Jews and Muslims. Without respect, there can be no understanding.

[saltpoint]

47. Well then I'll concede every point you want.

That is, every single point, no matter what.

You are absolutely, positively right, completely right, unquestionably right, and I had absoluately NO right to criticize you.

After all, for your purposes on this post, scholarship is the same as faith. No one could conclude differently based on the trajectory of your argument.

So you are right, always right, and I worship the ground you walk on. Damn, you Christians sure have a open minds.

[imenja]

60. scholarship

All I asked is for you to respect the views of others. Clearly that is impossible for you. An ambush seems to be an argument you are intellectually unequipped to respond to or even consider.
As for scholarship--I pointed to Kierkegaard and Buber. Yours: "the I don't believe....and Jesus was rammed down people's throat" of thought. Let's see--existentialists or the rammed down your throat school of thought. That's a tough one. They are both so erudite.
Scholarship takes on various forms: from science to history, and theology. I realize your academic knowledge is all encompassing, but somewhere along the line you missed the fact that ideas of faith are a subject of inquiry for some scholars--not only the Christian existentialists, but St. Augustin, Thomas Aquinas, Bartolome de las Casas, Antonio Vieira, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, Geronino de Mendieta, Joseph Campell, and countless others.

[saltpoint]

72. Your grocery list of philosophers is great --

-- if you are having a little picnic in the backyard.

Look, erudite person of faith: your own post began with a question into the SCHOLARSHIP status of an idea.

As soon as you got a few fish on the line, you sunk the hook of FAITH and stunk up the place.

You abandoned your original premise to promote your personal faith. What deceit.

Are there serious scholarly inquiries into the nature of faith? There most certainly are. I've read them. So what? That wasn't the POINT of your post -- as stated -- but it WAS your private agenda. You couldn't WAIT to turn it into a pageant of your personal FAITH in THE LORD.

Any number of us don't give two shits about Jesus as a divine entity and I would suggest that you keep your PERSONAL relationship with him to yourself. We're free to call him a fraud and you a fool on the basis of OUR personal beliefs, not to mention scholarship.

Otherwise, it quite certainly IS a matter of ramming it down people's throats.

If you want a thread on faith, start one. Don't ambush people just because they live free and independent of your magic prophet. I consider that sort of "relationship" to be a behavioral disorder, akin to young children with imaginary playmates.

[imenja]

90. YOU raised faith

by professing your own disbelief. I've not rammed anything down your throat. Nor have I tried to promote anything but a rational response. Throughout my posts I have noted that I believe you and everyone else are free to maintain whatever beliefs you like. It's you who have insisted you have the absolute knowledge about the nature of life and God. I would never be so arrogant as to presume I hold the answers on such issues or to imagine the world should think (or not think) precisely as I do, as your post demonstrates.

Here's a bombshell: If you don't want to read about people's ideas of faith, don't contribute to a message board on religion and theology. There have been some very interesting discussions on this thread about the relationship between faith, truth, and knowledge. You have contributed to none of them.


I began this discussion with a respectful disagreement, but your response reveals an inability to deal with genuine disagreement. I took special care to offer complimentary terms, because I guessed your ego was fragile. You instead responded with vindictive.

To enter into a discussion of scholarship, you actually have to have read something on the subject at some point in your life and be able to make reference to it. It's obvious you have not. To say the word scholarship over and over again does not suffice.

Your proclamations are redundant. It's clear you "don't give a shit" (your words) about anything.

[saltpoint]

95. Your posts here are anything but rational.

You flail about in this arena because you can't reconcile your idiot Jesus who performs magic tricks raising the dead, etc. with the fact that many people on DU and elsewhere accept the rigors of adult life without the imaginary playmate.

My points have been pointed, but you haven't refuted any of them.

You've just come back to "faith." That's your construction. Examine my original response to your original post. You will find nothing in it that is hostile or "faith-based."

You encountered people here who disagree with you and you haven't been able to persuade them, except to wobble around in the bubblebath of your own private faith.

Not persuasive at all.

And by the way -- it was you who asked about "the existing status of scholarship" -- not me.

Own it.

[opiate69]

50. The fact that some religions survive without texts...

is certainly not any indication that they are valid.

[imenja]

57. And who determines validity?

And who are you to say they are not. If they are part of a people's culture and belief system, they are valid. Who holds this absolute knowledge that determines what is or is not valid?

[saltpoint]

74. Genital mutilation is part of some cultures'

belief system and value system.

I happen to find that repulsively violent and wouldn't hesitate to say so.

I find it INVALID.

Do you just welcome whatever comes down the pike?

[imenja]

83. that is a human rights violation

It is not a religion. It is a practice. People are free to worship their own God in their own way, as long as it doesn't harm others. Genital mutilation violates the rights and well-being of others, as is evidence by the fact many women seek to escape it.
I don't believe everything that comes down the pike, but I know enough to recognize people have their own belief systems that differ from my own. I'm not so arrogant as to assume I have the right to tell them what to think or how or whether to pray.

[Az]

86. You know where this is going don't you?

Circumcision is genital mutilation. Yet it is still largely socially acceptible (I myself am circumsized). Should we be reporting Doctors for performing this procedure? Should Mohels be arrested?

[imenja]

91. hey, it's a matter of choice

sue your parents if you want. I don't offer answers on such issues. Female circumcision, however, is practiced on adolescent girls, not babies. I'm not saying that makes it better, but it leaves many women unable to enjoy sex. Male circumcision does not. I have never heard of men fleeing the United States or Israel to avoid circumcision, but I suppose it's possible. If you find it offensive, don't submit your son to it.

[Az]

97. Its an interesting topic

Personally I am not inconvienianced by my circumcision (that I know of). But it certainly was an action on my body without my consent. Does being a teenager some how make control of one's body a more poignant issue?

The trouble comes when we start placing one religions practices as some how more acceptible than anothers. We don't hear the complaints of babies concerning circumcisions because wailing and crying are not readily acceptible forms of testifying in court.

Good. What is good? What or who defines it. For those of us that presume that humans define what is good for humans, we see such acts as mutilating a baby or a teen as wrong. But for others their universe is predicated on the notion that they have no ability to define good or evil. This is for some set in stone.

There is a terrible struggle in the world between these positions. We don't have the means to wipe one side from the earth without a price to terrible to bear. So we have to find a way to coexist. This is the social contract we all must adhere to or chaos and ruin will come to our society.

Thus we object to teen girls being cut because they can vocalise their opposition. Because babies are notoriously bad witnesses and no lasting damage is done we allow it. But what if the religion that supports mutilating young women is the right one?

This gets to a very critical notion about the nature of authoratarian gods. If they define what is right and wrong, good and evil, what will life be like under their rule if we do not like their idea of good.

The bible speaks of God enjoying the smell of burning goats and other sacrificial animals. Now this isn't directly a moral situation, but I hardly consider the pervasive stench of burning goat carcassed to be a good smell. But then I don't get to define what heaven smells like. Its God's heaven. And God likes the smell of burning goats. What else does God like that I don't like?

The point here is that if goodness is not something we can appreciate and understand then it is a prison. It becomes the shackle which binds us. It becomes the blade that mutilates genitals. It becomes the rationalisation to hate others because they are different. It becomes evil to those that are not beholden to its doctrine.

[imenja]

99. nicely expressed

I agree these are difficult issues. The line between imposing one's beliefs and guarding against human rights violations is not an easy one. We sometimes relinquish such choices. While some may find female circumcision abhorrent, it is not a basis for US asylum application based on human rights. Gloria Steinem observes, when women's rights are infringed, it's cultural difference. When it is against men, it's a human rights violation.
Another point about circumcision. In this country, some men feel self-conscious about being un-circumcised because circumcision is so common. My sister weighed the pros and cons when she gave birth to her son and decided for circumcision. I remember feeling that I would have chosen otherwise, but it was not my decision to make. Unfortunately babies can't articulate their choices, while young women can.

[opiate69]

87. Do me a favor then...

"I'm not so arrogant as to assume I have the right to tell them what to think or how or whether to pray."

Convince the rest of the Christ-groupies that... That's all I as an atheist ask. (And, I feel relatively comfortable in stating that most of my heathen bretheren wish for nothing more, either.)

[saltpoint]

89. Hi, opiate69.

Sorry to butt in here, but I liked your post and wanted to say so.

I really am non-Christian, not anti-Christian, and would like nothing better than for Christians to do as you suggest in your post.

----
also: I like your ID name.

[opiate69]

104. HI, Old Crusoe! Thanks...

And that's a really cool moniker you got there yourself! Cheers. :toast:

[imenja]

93. I'm not responsible for them

I speak only for myself. Lord, I don't even go to Church, so it's not like I'm going to run into great quantities of them. You'll need to speak to them yourself.

[opiate69]

105. Uh-huh...

But, you identify yourself as a Christian (IIRC...) so shouldn't you police your own? In any case, we try to tell them that, but ew're the bad guys because we want to "take the reason out of the season", "remove god from schools", yada, yada, yada... so, maybe the nxt time you hear of an atheist group trying to force back the swelling tide of christianity forcing itself into our government, you'll stand beside us?

[imenja]

109. I control only myself

I am not responsible for the 82% of Americans who identify themselves as Christians. The Christians I know behave respectfully. They are progressives who embrace women and gay clergy. They volunteer at homeless shelters and nursing homes. They traveled to Central America in the 1980s to work with the victims of Reagan's war. They excavate tombs of the disappeared--some their own family members--killed by right wing military dictatorships. They volunteer their time teaching migrant workers English. I control none of these people. They do quite well controlling themselves.

Should I hold you responsible for the great numbers of Americans who arrogantly refuse to respect the views of others? You really need to do something about your cohorts on Fox news and right wing radio. That assertion is just as absurd as the one you suggested.

Decency begins at home. The first place is to start is the mirror. If everyone took responsibility for their own behavior, the world would be a much better place.

[saltpoint]

88. AZ is exactly on target --

-- circumcision is a religious practice. Jewish boy babies are circumcized. In some Islamic cultures, girl babies are victims of genital mutilization.

I don't condone these practices, I don't encourage these practices, I find them INVALID.

That's my point, in reponse to your point.

You do seem to accept whatever comes down the pike without making critical distinctions.

Does "FAITH" triumph over the responsibility for making such distinctions?

I say it doesn't.

[opiate69]

78. So, you're saying that you are a polytheist?

You believe that every god that is worshipped, in every society on thisplanet, actually exist?

[imenja]

100. polytheism

I thought I posted this earlier but I discovered the window was still open and it hadn't posted. It's probably redundant now.

I believe all religions are valid and should be respected. My personal belief is that there is one God but many paths to reach her. I am not so arrogant, however, as to imagine my view of the world or faith is the only one possible. Different cultures adopt different religions, and some are polytheistic (though that term itself is a misnomer but most of those religions worship one central God above the others). It is part of their culture and worldview and therefore should be respected. I don't expect you or anyone else who isn't inclined to accept my or any other religion. I wouldn't presume or even attempt to persuade anyone that God exists. My own faith doesn't depend on your accepting it. Why some atheists feel a need to enforce their own worship of empiricism on others, I do not understand.

[Az]

101. Why

You are walking down a street when suddenly you notice a house on fire. Inside the front window you see a man sitting there watching TV. He seems oblivious to the fire. What do you do? Do you stand there and watch him die in ignorance? Or do you rush in and save him?

This problem works both ways. It is why believers attempt to sway nonbelievers and it is why atheists attempt to impose their empericism on others.

In the mindset of someone that feels compelled to disrupt other's beliefs believers they are doing good for them. In our increasingly complex world there are increasing dangers that come from what they believe is delusional thinking. There is a state of continuous war in the middle east due to competing beliefs. Ireland has been torn asunder for decades because of competing beliefs.

Some fear that such beliefs pose a real danger not only to the beleiver but to the rest of the world as well. We have the ability to destroy the world multiple times. And there are people ruling nations that look forward to the end of the world.

Others look to the limitations being placed on their freedoms and grow concerned that it is the believers in these religions that are imposing them on unreasoned grounds.

History is rife with people of faith destroying and oppressing those that do not agree with them. This worries some of those that do not share the dominant belief of a nation seemingly out of control.

Many atheists were raised in belief. When they found their way clear of belief it was as if blinders had suddenly been lifted from their eyes. They felt freed. They see others still beholden to what they now believe to be a big lie. A prisoner held by a lie is still a prisoner. And like the person walking down the street there is a natural desire to help them.

For all these reasons and more, various atheists and nonbeleivers struggle against what they percieve as a threat to humanity. Most, if not quite all, understand that they have to balance their impulses with the rights of others within society. But just as a caring Christian does not wish for an atheist to suffer eternal damnation an atheist does not wish for a Christian to live the entire life within a lie. How they act on this natural impulse makes a world of difference.

[imenja]

102. Religion: oppression vs. liberation

It's crucial that we accept that fact that none of us knows the answers to these questions. Atheists do not know God is a lie. They believe it. Our culture banishes the spiritual (despite it's public obsession with Christianity) in favor of the empirical. After living in Brazil, I have developed a respect for that which I cannot explain. There the supernatural is part of daily life; it is present everywhere. Even non-believers of the Afro-Brazilian religion of Candomble accept it's power. Another poster recently quoted a line by a Brazilian in an Umberto Eco novel: "I don't believe in Candomble, but it believes in me."
Religion has been used as a source of oppression, but it has also been appropriated as a tool of liberation. Countless revolts of slaves and peasants have drawn upon religion as a source of ideological empowerment: The 1835 Muslim Revolt in Bahia, Brazil; Nat Turner's rebellion; the Hidalgo Revolt (1810) in Mexico; Tupac Amaru (1780-82); and early revolts by the Maya and Nahuas in sixteenth-century Mexico. Christianity (and other religions) contain a subversive element that the oppressed have appropriated for their own purposes. All men are equal before God: a profoundly radical notion in societies built upon rigid hierarchies. The Spanish abandoned efforts to create a native clergy in their American colonies because the first native priest used Christianity as an ideology to promote the liberation of indigenous peoples. The mestizos and Indians who followed Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla sought to reinstate Catholic rule in Mexico because they believed their Spanish oppressors had attacked the Church (which they had, since they sought to impose the power of the Crown firmly above that of the Church as part of their imperial reorganization of the late 1700s). Think of the importance of the black Church in the American Civil Rights movement. Additionally, many Jews have felt persuaded to engage in activism because of a sense of social responsibility that stems from their faith. The oft repeated argument that religion has caused only harm misses much of human history. While there is no question that some have used it as a tool of oppression, it also has acted as a ideology that empowers liberation (think of Exodus).
I'm ultimately a libertarian on such issues. When it comes to politics, however, I am not. I would prefer atheists use their persuasive skills to convince voters to support progressive candidates over Republicans.

[Az]

103. No need to convince me

I am an atheist. I am not all atheists. You asked why some atheists attempted to force empericism and I offered some reasons I know some hold.

I know and understand that not all that comes from religion is oppressive. I know it can do wonders. I know that it is part of community.

In my belief all beliefs come from humans. Thus religion is a human creation. Not consciously or deliberately created. Its far more complex than that. But as it comes from humans it is fully capable of guiding us to both the heights and the depths to which any individual is capable of.

The trouble with it is we, its creators, take no responsibility for it. We have come to believe that religions are our guides instead of our creations. There are philosophies that set aside dogmatic or authoratative beliefs and instead attempt to discern the best path for humans to follow. These take a more responsible path. This may not be suitible for everyone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. There's a lot of irony in your remark:

"Christianity (and other religions) contain a subversive element that the oppressed have appropriated for their own purposes. All men are equal before God: a profoundly radical notion in societies built upon rigid hierarchies."

Given that hierarchy literally means "rule by priests", I think you should remember that many religions also claim a definite order of people.

[imenja]

122. of course

The distinction I made was between the sort of oppression imposed by the Church and the way the poor have interpreted Christianity as an ideology of liberation. Societies based on hierarchies, rule by the upper class and it's collaborators in organized religion, have faced opposition that draws from the very ideology used to oppressed. That, I find fascinating.
Christianity provides one example, the Declaration of Independence another. The idea that "all men are created equal" was intended in narrow terms. It, however, contained the seeds of something far more radical. As Bernard Baylin observed, it spawned a "contagion of liberty" whereby slaves and free women invoked the language of the declaration to advance their own liberation.
The law has worked in similar ways. A tool of class dominance, it can and has been used by the oppressed to challenge their subservience: the enslaved, for example, used the legal system widely in Cuba and Brazil; indigenous people used the extensive colonial court system set up by the Spanish to advance their own concerns.
None of this is to say such structures have not worked primarily to oppress the poor. Clearly they have. People, however, are resourceful and have on many occasions turned mechanisms of domination to their own advantage.

[opiate69]

106. Why should any religion be respected?

What is it about religion that makes "respectable" the default? It is a belief system, and nothing more. If I started a belief system claiming that purple unicorns who inhabit Saturn's rings created the universe and dispense their divine knowledge through the use of psychedelic mushrooms and sex, would my religion also qualify for this respect? And, you say that you believe there is one God. Unless you consider Zeus, Mithra, Kali, Osiris, Ammun Ra, et al to be different aspects of that god, then I submit you too are an atheist. I simply believe in one less god than you.

[Az]

107. Its always good to see an old friends quote get used

Used to be in a debate group with the guy that coined that phrase you closed with. :D

[imenja]

108. because it is part of who people are

I respect people's religious choices because I respect others. We respect because to do so is to behave humanely. To disrespect others says nothing about the target of that respect. Rather it reveals a profound absence of character on the part of the person who disrespects. It's not very complicated. Either you behave like a decent person or not.
How you can presume to look into my soul and know more about my faith than I do suggests a kind of arrogance I can't begin to comprehend. Nor do I want to. One need not be religious to behave morally, but to behave as part of the human race one needs to determine some sort of moral compass that guides behavior.

[opiate69]

111. Alcoholism, spousal abuse, willful ignorance, hate, intolerance..

are all "part of what people are" as well.. Do they deserve your respect also? It is my belief that respect is something to be earned. And, as far as me "knowing more about your faith than you do", I've said it before but it bears repeating: Believe whatever your heart desires. But don't expect the rest of us to fall in line. And don't presume that you have the inside track on morality, or that you, of all people, know the "real truth™" and the rest of us are simply misguided fools.

[imenja]

114. intolerance

exactly. What I don't understand is your intolerance. I've never suggested you fall in line. I challenge you to find one post here where I have done so. You are the one imposing your own beliefs and prejudice, not I.

[Az]

115. Imagine the life of an atheist

Our position is null. We would not exist as a group were it not for the existance of believers. They dominate society. They place us regularly on the shallow end of the moral pool. We are considered evil by many. Shunned by more. And considered arrogant and angry by most.

And yet the stories and claims of those we differ with are miriad. We are every theists challenge. We are hit with more proclomations of god than you can imagine. Every argument in the book and thats just for starts. Then the wild claims for God start coming in as well. Some more nonsensical than the others. Eventually it wears down even the most tolerant individual. One claim after another and none with sufficient merrit to be considered evidence.

Yes, sometimes atheists snap. We are besieged by those telling us what to believe. We recieve condemnation in all stripes and forms. And sometimes, some of us, decide to return what we get. And sometimes some of us lose sight of the individual we are returning the anger to and wind up giving it to someone that does not deserve it.

[imenja]

117. fair enough, but I'm not Gerry Falwell

and I don't like being treated as though I am. I am an individual with my own ideas, as you are and as opiate69 is. When dealing with people, we should take them as they are, based on what they say, not project on them our own resentments about society at large. To do so is to behave with prejudice. I respect the views of atheists. All I ask is the same.

[Az]

120. You are fully correct

You should well expect respect. Which is why I continue to try to tear down the walls between theists and atheists. We both deserve respect. And the only way to make people realise that is to get to know each other better.

[imenja]

118. stats on religious identification

By the way, according to a poll I heard discussed on CNN yesterday, 13% of Americans consider themselves atheists or identify with no religion at all; 82% are Christians; the remaining 5% are comprised of Jews, Muslims, and all other non-Christian religions. Imagine what it is like to be in that 5%, particularly those who practice a religion lumped together as other.

The poll of course may be flawed. That Jews are less than 5% surprised me, but I suppose secular Jews may have chosen the no religious affiliation option.

[Az]

119. Indeed

Not to pit one minority against another, but the atheists situation is still a bit more complex. A minority religion still has the social advantage of having a support structure.

It has to do with the impetus behind how you arrive at your belief. For an atheist it is usually a solitary unlead journey. They simply fall away from belief in gods and find themself alone. They may bump into a fellow atheist occaisionally. But there is no guidance. There is no teacher.

For any structured religion there are going to be advocates attempting to spread the word. Once in contact with them you become part of a community. No matter how small a community it is more comforting than no community at all.

Atheists sometimes eventually find their way to communities. But that is a journey that comes after their realisation that they are an atheist.

[imenja]

121. community

Catholics might dispute your point about a religious community, since Catholic churches are notoriously poor at providing community support for their parishioners, but I see your point. The society at large is dominantly Christian, and more acerbically so all the time. Those of us who don't share the views of the TV Christians are as uncomfortable with what goes on as you are.
The main reason I don't go to church is that I've reached my limit with the Catholic church and have yet to decide where I would feel most comfortable. My main problem with organized religion is that each church seems to preach a kind of superiority of faith and unique insight to God that practitioners of other religions are too benighted to see. You may note that this was precisely my argument with some posters on this forum.

[Az]

123. The Post Modern dilema

Tolerance. It certainly seems an ideal. Its one I try to hold to. But it seems to have a rather significant flaw. It doesn't do very well promoting itself or promoting progress. The very idea of doing so dismisses the value of other systems. Thus over time a post modern society stagnates.

A belief promotes itself because it believes it is correct. If it did not believe as such then it would cease to exist. This has been the course followed by societies and beliefs for the bulk of history. But as our societies increased their reach and ideas from differing cultures began to intermingle something happened. The increase in diversity created stress within the society that could not tolerate intolerance any longer. Thus the hold of dogmatic views over society came crashing down.

Great advances resulted from this age of enlightenment. But it did not change the nature of religious beliefs assuming they were correct. Some managed to fuse the notion of multiple beliefs being correct together. But the institutions that created the beliefs in the first place are dedicated and founded on the notion that they alone are correct.

Thus we have a post modern society stagnating and the voices of dogmatic institutions rising up from the malaise. The social contract is becoming increasingly irrelevant. People are disregarding the views of others. The situation is headed towards open social warfare. It is becoming a necessity of survival to promote one's own beliefs over anothers. Simply because others are doing it as well. Thus as more and more abandon tolerance each must strive harder to promote their own views.

Ever read the story of the red shoes? It doesn't end well.

[opiate69]

130. Actually, imenja, this is something I wanted to post earlier..

but had to leave for work before I could. I respect the fact that you claim to be a christian, but don't go out and try to "convert" everyone you come across "in real life". And I hope you realize that I, in turn, do not spend my leisure time standing in front of churches with "God is a lie" picket signs. Realistically, the only reason I'm even debating here is because this forum is, well... it's a debate forum. You could eventually deconvert, and it really would mean nothing to me, just as if I converted (or, reconverted as it were) it would have no effect on you.. but, this being a forum for the exchange of ideas, I think our conversatoins have been fruitful and educational. And if I offended you at any point, I do sincerely apologize. It is not my intention to make enemies.

[imenja]

131. I appreciate that

and I thank you for the clarification. As I said in my post early today about Falwell, I don't like being lumped together with people I share nothing in common with. I'm an individual, as you are, and I like to be treated as such. I don't mind being challenged on my own opinions, but I won't defend those of others. I would imagine you feel the same.

[saltpoint]

128. Not heretofore a believer in any faith --

-- I might be REAL interested in the one you mention on Saturn.

At last! A fun religion.!

_______
Seriously: your point is a bull's eye. The idea that "religious" people are somehow morally superior to non-relgious people is offensiv e.

And inacurate.

[saltpoint]

127. With respect, imenja --

-- Christianity does in fact require agreement by all.

Sign on with the magic Jesus or you burn in the eternal furnace. That's the deal.

"I am the Truth, I am the Light; No one comes to the Father but by me."

That's an absolute, not an option.

-------
ed.: sp.
(poster agrees to take typing course)

[opiate69]

31. "I think its pretty hard to say Jesus never existed."--NOT.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

[imenja]

58. of course, a website

how silly of people to believe in God when there is a website that makes clear how uninformed they are. Thank goodness you can clear up this mass hysteria now that the web is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

[opiate69]

77. Well, it is a well-researched website..

and you are free to begin debunking the assertions on it any time you wish. Or, you can continue to claim that Jesus was an actual historic figure, and not a plagarizatoin of several prior messiah myths.

[imenja]

85. frankly it doesn't matter to me if he is a historical figure

I learned in a class on ancient Rome taught by a very prominent historian that Jesus did exist, but if there turned out to be no evidence he did, it doesn't bother me. The importance of the New Testament is as a foundational text for Christianity. The life of Jesus, real or imagined, teaches us many important lessons. What is unfortunate is that few of us--and here I include myself--follow his example. Unlike the fundamentalists, I don't believe faith depends on empirical evidence. It is a communion between the soul and God. Religion is simply a framework for ideas to describe that faith.

[saltpoint]

92. No fundamentalist I know --

-- believes faith depends on empirical evidence.

They latch onto an abstract majical figure and then ram it home.

Empirical evidence is not in the mix.

Their entire approach is to interpret daily human events against the backdrop of a decidedly non-empirical fantasy Christ, more of the hellfire variety than the suffer-the-children variety.

[imenja]

94. correction

I misspoke. They believe in a literal interpretation of the bible--the particular English translation they use. I do not.

[saltpoint]

96. Ah, then.

Maybe I've contributed to the forum just a wee bit after all.

[saltpoint]

98. I'll take the web --

-- over Christian dogma any day of the week.

---
edit: sp.

[imenja]

21. All three Abrahamic religions recognize Jesus as a prophet

but only Christianity sees him as divine. I thought historians recognized an individual who fits Jesus of Nazareth's description did indeed exist, but I myself have not read that body of scholarship.
If your interest is historical, a skeptical view is appropriate. But religion or spirituality is premised on faith, not evidence. As Kierkegaard says, it requires a "leap of faith." Divinity cannot (or in my view should not) be proved empirically any more than love can be proved.

[saltpoint]

81. Yes -- all three traditions see him as a prophet --

-- and only Christianity sees him as divine.

I would say that suggests a character flaw in Christianity.

What is the incentive to have a magical figure, someone beyond the temporal, beyond natural law?

One possible answer is that Jesus was not divine at all, that it was a version of his ministry adapted well after his life and subsequently crammed down people's throats.

[dkofos]

5. I have seen a couple shows on History or discovery channel

To me it is as plausible as the virgin birth.

The first 200 years of Christianity are totaly different than what is being passed off as Christianity now.

Don't take my word for it, start reading.

[Dervill Crow]

84. Right on!

I would have to say it is much MORE plausible than the virgin birth. Mithras comes to mind - I don't remember the exact details, but Jesus's birth to a virgin and the death and resurrection seemed to follow the same story line.

Those shows on the History Channel present documentation (dang, wish I could cite sources!) that Mary Magdelene was up there with Jesus and head and shoulders above the rest of the disciples in terms of having a following, and the early church wasn't having any of that and that's why she is portrayed as sort of a groupie. Paul's epistles make pretty clear how women were thought of at that time. Thank god/dess lots of christian denominations have made some progress.

[pnutchuck]

6. The symbols really exist in his paintings as the book describes

but what they actually mean is a debate.

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/artists/leonardo_da_vinci/index_leonardo.html

The painting is at below the text.

[Gman]

7. It just seems to me that

if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, the Gospel writers would have presented her as much more of a player than is done. There would have been some mention of the marriage just as there is mention of Jesus' birth, fleeing Bethlehem as a child, teaching the scholars, saving the party at the wedding at Cana, temptation in the garden and the desert, death, resurrection and other events. It would have been a big deal. Are we to believe that Jesus secretly married Mary Magdalene because her reputation was not wholesome and He didn't want people to know because of what they would think? That wasn't the style of someone that preached the New Way which bucked centuries of Jewish tradition. If Jesus would have married Mary Magdalene he would have in fact, practiced what he preached about loving and forgiveness. And that would have been what the Gospel writers would have written.

[pnutchuck]

9. I don't know what to think, after learning about the Council of Nicea

I just debunked Christianity all together. As a previous thread stated, the first 2OO or more years of Christianity is basically unknown. History is written by the winners...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

12. It just seems to me that....

Books written thousands of years ago, about things that happened centuries earlier, translated several times, through several different languages might just be the tiniest bit inaccurate. Now - if someone were to translate directly from the originals to English, I 'might' give them some credence. When I found out that the original words used to describe Jesus's birth as 'virgin' really meant Mary was unmarried when she got pregnant, it kind of threw a big kink into the whole story, for me anyway.

[Gman]

18. Dr. George M. Lamsa

I highly suggest you read some of the books from Dr. George M. Lamsa. He translated the bible from the actual original Aramaic, his native language, into English.

You may also want to learn about Dr. Rocco Errico who studied under Dr. Lamsa and is continuing his work.

Here's an Amazon link to some of Lamsa's books. (I didn't put the backslash in the word "here's". It's a bug in PHP.)

We have an out of print copy of a book by Lamsa called "The Man From Galilee". Lamsa's translations really make you think about how far, in many cases, the interpretations of the bible are from actual translations.

[dogman]

75. Why don't the gospels mention his brother?

If you find the story behind the gospels you'll find there has been a lot of misinformation. Most of these gospels were written long after the death of Jesus. They are based on mythology that was popular at the time. They are not biographical and were reformed with the times and cultures of the people who transcribed them. People who look on the Bible as the word of God have a very strong faith that was instilled in them and does not allow them to think logically or intellectually about this subject. It's like Polar Express, if you don't believe in Santa Claus, he will not exist for you.

[Az]

76. All

The oldest of the Gospels was attributed to Mark. And this was penned at least 50-70 years after the story it preports to be about.

[IndianaGreen]

150. And the Gospel of Mark has no resurrection

just an empty tomb that the women fled because they were afraid. No one knows why the Markam Gospel ends so abruptly.

[Warpy]

8. In the first place, Magdalene was never identified as

"the woman taken in adultery" and saved from public stoning.

In the second place, the Magdalene Gospel does exist, although it was left out of the bible by the Council of Nicea. It's available onine, and very touching, as it's barely literate, as would be written by a woman of the time who became literate late in life.

That she enjoyed a special place among the disciples has rarely been questioned, but to assume she was Jesus's wife requires the same leap of illogic that identifies her as the adultress saved from stoning.

As a plot for a work of fiction, it would be plausible. As scholarship, it is not.

[tjdee]

15. Yeah, it never says that.

It seems common knowledge that Mary Magdalene is the stoned woman, but in the bible it never says that.

Could be I missed it?

[ashmanonar]

10. just reading an intersting book

called Uriel's Machine...which describes how the monolithic structures in Britain, France, etc are tied to judaism...

quite interesting stuff, which indicates that although it was NOT a virgin birth, Mary's birth of jesus was actually on the winter solstice, and perhaps in a "barrow" which had fertility purposes (in essence, birthing the child by the bodies of famous leaders to ensure that the baby would be the leader reborn)...the "morning star" venus is given to be the Christmas Star of legend that the magi (astronomers) followed...

the book is too complicated to really talk about here, i suggest that everybody go buy it!

unfortunately doesn't talk about mary magdalene, but does look deeper into other parts of the bible (john the baptist may have been born in a cave (ie barrow with fertility purposes), in a similar ritual birth as jesus'...

[ashmanonar]

11. incidentally, i much enjoyed the davinci code

but yea, i have my doubts about its veracity...

[JVS]

24. No. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would have mentioned it

[ashmanonar]

28. and the church has NEVER changed a thing in the bible in 1700 years of

history? please...a male-dominated "patriarchal" church is obliged to change things in order to maintain their dominance in the church...(not to mention the fact that the bible wasn't originally written in english...it has been translated AND transliterated over the centuries)

[JVS]

34. Back in the day they didn't say " this bible is getting old let's buy...

new one." Texts were copied by hand and they were a monstrous pain in the ass to copy, which means that one codex would often be in use for centuries. It would have been very difficult to enforce a change in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, because that would require going around and making sure everyone from Portugal to Armenia and from Ireland to Egypt was in on the new changes. It would have been a monstrously difficult task. .

Also, to justify such an accusation you'd need a better motive. How would a wife of Jesus threaten the patriarchal church? The ratio of difficulty to threat does not seem to justify the effort of a cover up.

[ashmanonar]

35. well

you're right, at least mostly...but i think that a wife of jesus would remove the image of the "holy son of god" that the church makes of jesus, if jesus HAD had a wife what would that mean to these clergymen who were all male and supposedly celibate?

[JVS]

36. Well seeing as the celibacy rule only came into the West and was...

in the 12th century IIRC, and that we even today have surviving manuscripts of the Gospels that pre-date that period, combined with the fact that if the Western church had attempted to alter the Gospels at that date the Eastern Orthodox would have jumped all over them (to claim the high ground in the East/West schism), I'd have to say that chances of this having been done are very slim

[ashmanonar]

38. ok, fair enough n/t

[Solon]

37. Its much simpler than that...

the Bible, as it is known today, did not exist at all until a little after 300 C.E. There are many books that were cut out of the Bible when it was formed, from the old Testament(Book of Tobit), to the New Testament(Book of Thomas, Book of Mary). Also, there are many differences between Bibles of Different denominations, especially after the Protestants came about. Not to mention translation errors and other happenstances that occur, plus the fact that NO known Gospel was written contemporary, or even within the same decade as Jesus' death. This doesn't require anymore of a conspiracy than the simple suppression of other sects to maintain your own power, such as the suppresion of the Gnostics and Coptics. You must remember that for the first 1200 years after the Bible was codified, most people couldn't read in Europe, and most certainly couldn't read Latin. The Church had possession of the Bible during this period, because, as you said, it was too costly for common people to possess, and even if they did have it, they couldn't read it. It wouldn't be hard to change a few things now and again, and that is not neccessarily for nefarious purposes either.

[dogman]

42. You should check out the movie "The Name of The Rose".

It has a back story of the politics involved n the Church at the time the Bible was being transcribed. There is also an interesting book "Who Wrote The New Testament" by Mack. You might come away with a different perspective. However, if you do not want your faith challenged, continue with your assumption.

[imenja]

45. I think I'll read the book

I hear it's very good.

[saltpoint]

73. Great film, great novel.

One of my all-time favorites.

[RUDUing2]

54. why would they have mentioned it? Marriage for a religious jew of

Jesus' age was the normal expected state..it is more likely that they would have mentioned him NOT being married because that would have been viewed as unusual or outside of the norm.

[saltpoint]

82. I agree with your point, but would add just one --

-- very controversial possibility -- that Jesus chose not to marry because he was in love with the young John.

The language in the New Testament supports this as a possibility (not as a definite circumstance), and I think it has as much bearing on his life as we know it as anything else.

[RUDUing2]

110. actually according to the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic books

the *beloved* disciple was Mary Magdeline..the only time a disciple was not mentioned by name was when they referred to the disciple Jesus loved best and kissed on the lips..other references to St. John use his name..if the early church was trying to erase all evidence of women being treated as equals by Jesus and being full disciples then removing her name and using a different designation makes sense..but they didn't have the balls to commit blasphemy by inserting a different disciples name..
Also according to the gnostic writings and other research John was probably a cousin of Jesus and that is why He placed Mary in his care, cause he was the oldest male blood relative of Mary and Jesus..

[saltpoint]

129. You are right about Magdalen as the possible --

-- "Beloved" -- in some of the "lost" gospels.

They weren't "lost," of course -- they were censored, banned, and burned by the holy originals of the Church.

If you read the Secret Gospel of Mark, you will come to an awareness of how much heavy-handed tyranny was at work by the early Church.

[housewolf]

26. Jesus & Mary Magdalene

The idea that Jesus & Mary Magdalene were married first came into public awareness with the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" when it was published in 1982. The authors offer 9+ pages of bibliography as sources of their theories.

Some of the ideas have come forth from ancient documents recently discovered named the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is quite a bit of research being published about these materials.

[caledesi]

27. I would like to kn ow this -

Why was Mary Magdalene never mentioned in the painting of the Last Supper? I never knew she was there. What is this all about?

[ashmanonar]

29. i think one of the better pieces of evidence

is that a single jewish male of 30 would have been considered odd, if he hadn't been married by that time...(around the turn of the millennium)...again, i think the fact that the bible has been "translated" over the centuries is more telling than anything...history can be changed, fairly easily.

[imenja]

32. Has anyone read the lost gospels?

those that didn't make it into the New Testament? How do they portray Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene?

[RUDUing2]

55. most seem to take it for granted that people would know that

Jesus was a married man

[RUDUing2]

53. Read this book..

"Brother Jesus, the Nazarene through Jewish Eyes"..gives the reasons why Jesus was most likely married from a historical and cultural basis of a Jewish scholar writing about a religious jew in 1st century Palestine..

[imenja]

62. thanks very much

I'll locate the book.

[RUDUing2]

63. check the library, it is an expensive book..but well worth

reading. I found it at a college library.

[Peter]

79. Jesus was Caesar, Mary Magdalene was Cleopatra

and they had a son called Caisarion who was killed by Octavianus.

Now before you think I'm totally nuts go to this website and see for yourselves: http://www.carotta.de

The thesis is that the historical Jesus was Caesar.
Jesus is Divus Julius, the deified Caesar, as he has been transmitted through history in a long copying, translating and bowdlerizing process.
This is a fascinating discovery with unpredictable implications and ramifications.
What do you think?

Peter

[saltpoint]

80. Hi, Peter.

What do I think? Well, it's as reliable a version as anything else.

[Peter]

112. Historical Jesus found!

Hello Old Crusoe,

you're a very fast reader. I think that "version" is much more reliable than the countless fairy-tales about Jesus. This is the real thing!

Greetings

Peter

[Az]

113. Other theories

We know that Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. We also know that the Gospels that followed copied largely from Mark. We know that the author of Mark was a student of Greek literature and writing. We know that Greek was taught by having students study and copy the works of Homer. We know that at the time it was common to modify and rework other's writing. There are numerous parallels within Mark's Gospel and Homer's work. It is concievable that the author of Mark created the story of Jesus as a pacifist reworking of Homer's suffering warrior hero. It may have or may not have been based on a real individual the author had heard of.

[Peter]

124. Subject

How about reading the book first?
I'm not sure I posted it in the right category though.
It might be better placed in the 'Politics & Issues' Forum.
Religion is politics after all, didn't you know?

[Az]

125. Wasn't denying the theory

Merely positing the existance of other theories.

Oh and politics are not necissarily religions. They bear some similarities and sometimes both borrow heavily from one another. But there are critical differences. Sometimes.

A government like Democracy does not presume to tell individuals what to believe. There is no dogma to the system. However a system like Marxist Communism does postulate a dogma and even seeks to dismantle competing belief systems. Thus it comes closer to a religion.

[imenja]

126. depends on whose Democracy

George Bush and his neo-conservative advisers clearly seek to impose their view of democracy--which of course revolves around opening markets to American corporations--on the rest of the world. Capitalism posits itself as the true economic system, declaring other alternatives inefficient. It's reach is all encompassing, closing off other alternatives.
Marxist communism contains an idea of permanent revolution--at least in the Trotskyite strand--but it never actualized it's goals. Capitalism has.

[Peter]

139. Jesus was Caesar

Just found a book review of 'Jesus was Caesar' here:
http://www.smallkidtime.com/was_jesus_caesar.htm
Well worth a read!

[justsomegirl]

132. Some resources

Here's a book that Harvard University Press released not too long ago; I recently picked it up, but haven't started it yet. Mary Magdalene: The First Apostle

Margaret Starbird and Elaine Pagels are two scholarly types who have written some compelling books on the topic.

[imenja]

134. wonderful! thanks! n/t

[saltpoint]

133. Imenja, you went awry when you --

-- torched your original post with talk of faiths which do not need texts to be valid, etc.

For scholarship, the texts have to be there. James Stewart talked to a large rabbit named Harvey, but only he could see the bunny.

No text, no scholarship.

You failed to adhere to your own original post on the status of scholarship and instead made this a tangle between people who have "faith" and atheists, agnostics, and other free thinkers. You got challenged. That's the nature of forums.

While there may be scholarly work on the subject of faith, faith is never a substitute for scholarship. Faith is the ANTITHESIS of scholarship.

It is most certainly not a valid method of objective discernment. If someone sees a large rabbit named Harvey right next to her, I really don't see why I need to respect that. I don't see the rabbit and am not obligated to pretend that I do.

A pertinent question might be not whether the rabbit exists, but why does that person NEED the rabbit to exist? Any number of people on earth throughout history do not need the rabbit.

The words got salty in this thread because, in my view, you failed to respect the tone and content of your original post.

Christianity is indeed guilty of cramming a divine Jesus down people's throats. You didn't care for the wording there, but Church history bears me out on this.

[silverweb]

135. How about a REAL monkey wrench in the works?

Have you ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana? He lived in the 1st Century AD and his story is often compared with that of Jesus. I've even read a theory that the biblical Jesus is really a reworked hybrid based on the life of Jesus blended with the life of Apollonius -- and that this was done at the direction of Constantine because he needed to strengthen the Christian story to invigorate popular faith as a unifying tool for his empire.

It's been quite a while (years) since I updated myself on this story, but I did and do find it a tantalizing possibility. Here's one site that gives some background:
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html

There are multiple other sites easily located with Google.

As for whether the biblical Jesus we're familiar with is the true picture or not, whether he was married to Magdalene or not, or even whether he was involved with John the Beloved or not -- who can say? And really, who cares? These things are fascinating to speculate about, but have no bearing on the message of the Beatitudes and other great teachings from the New Testament.

[aneerkoinos]

147. Apollonios

Yep, the Christian Jesus-myth most certainly seems to have strong links with Apollonios, as do the parallels between Paul and Apollonios. A detailed theory, however, can only be creative imagination, since the sources don't offer much to build one.

What seems clear that Apollonios visited India and after returning, renewed religious cults, most strikingly advicing them to give up animal sacrifice.

[youngred]

136. Plausible, Possible

I find myself drawn to the idea of he and Mary Magdelene largely because it fits the early spread of Christianity as a predominantly female religion, it makes him more human, which indeed he was and because she keeps showing up so often in the gospels. Now, whether she had his children and went to France to start the Merovingian dynasty I'm not so sure. But there is a compelling case to be made for the blood=grail hypothesis which in turn sheds quite a bit of light on the Arthurian legends. I find it all very fascinating

[saltpoint]

137. A friendly book recommendation for you, youngred --

-- please consider Marion Zimmer Bradley's THE MISTS OF AVALON, a feminist re-telling of the Arthurian legend.

It's a hefty novel, but an enchanted one.

It will hold your interest throughout, I predict.

[youngred]

138. Read it three times

and very much love it. Thanks though :-)

[Peter]

140. Sensational discovery!

Read here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=danews.story&STORY=/www/story/02-08-2005/0002986805&EDATE=TUE+Feb+08+2005,+09:06+AM
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/echo/rw.html

'Jesus was Caesar': New book by Philosopher and Linguist Francesco Carotta Claims That the real identity of Jesus Christ has Been Discovered


SOESTERBERG, The Netherlands, February 8 /PRNewswire/ --
- Carotta: 'Everything of the Story of Jesus can be Found in the
Biography of Caesar.'
The Italian-German linguist and philosopher Francesco Carotta proves in
his book Jesus was Caesar that the story of Jesus Christ has its origin in
Roman sources. In more than fifteen years of investigation Carotta has found
the traces which lead to the Julian origin of Christianity. He concludes that
the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar.
Carotta: ''The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil war, a
'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar-from the Rubicon to his
assassination-mutated into the narrative of Jesus, from the Jordan to his
crucifixion. Jesus is a true historical figure, he lived as Gaius Julius
Caesar, and ressurected as Divus Julius.''
The cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of
Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however,
never mentioned Jesus and even until now there has been no actual proof of
his existence. Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire,
was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent
death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.
Carotta's new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of
similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that
coincidence can be ruled out.
- Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states
in the north: Gallia and Galilee.
- Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once
across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John
the Baptist, and their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand
and Peter and Andrew on the other.
- Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome
and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their
passion.
- Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship
with one particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.
- Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus
with Nicodemus of Bethany.
- Both have an affinity to ordinary people-and both run afoul of the
highest authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.
- Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as
well: the clementia Caesaris and Jesus' Love-thy-enemy.
- Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first
gets away: the other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it:
Lepidus and Pilate.
- Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and
King of the Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on
their heads: a laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.
- Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified,
but with a stab wound in his side.
- Jesus as well as Caesar hang on a cross. For a reconstruction of the
crucifixion of Caesar, see:
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/crux.html#images
- Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides
(15 th) of March, Jesus on the 15 th of Nisan.
- Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.
- Caesar and Jesus also use the same words, e.g.: Caesar's famous Latin
'Veni, vidi, vici'-I came, I saw, I conquered-is in the Gospel transmitted
into: 'I came, washed and saw', whereby Greek enipsa, 'I washed', replaces
enikisa, 'I conquered'.
Prominent European scholars and intellectuals are jubilant:
'This report is of the same order of importance as the scientific
discoveries of Darwin and Galileo. - Paul Cliteur, Ph. D., University of
Leiden, The Netherlands -
'Reading Francesco Carotta's book has fascinated me, ...leading the mind
of the reader step by step to the solution of an obscure intrigue. This
voyage was like a liberating and exhilarating breath of fresh air.' -Fotis
Kavoukopoulos Ph. D., an international expert in linguistics, Athens, Greece -
-'New connections which have never been seen that way'.
-Erika Simon Ph.D. Germany
Francesco Carotta Jesus was Caesar. On the Julian Origin of Christianity
ISBN 90 5911 396 9 Sales: UK: [e-mail] USA: [e-mail] or
[e-mail] L 24,95, USD 44,95, Euro 32

[Roland99]

141. Go rent or buy Da Vinci Code Decoded on DVD

It's <$10 at http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com

It interviews the authors of the books that Dan Brown used in his research.


Quite the eye-opener!

[Desertrose]

142. ever read "Bloodline of the Holy Grail"?

A royal historian with access to records back to the 1st century AD has put togther a remarkable book. He states that Jesus & M Magdalen were married, had children and traces their bloodline - which continues today. He also discusses the early church (Catholic & others) and how Jesus' teachings were utterly changed by Paul...and much more.

Author is Sir Laurence Gardner.
Here is a link.....http://www.karenlyster.com/body_bookish1.html

[Roland99]

143. I've actually just started reading that book...so far...hmmm...

He comes off seeming like he has an axe to grind. It seems rather judgmental, accusatory, and quite subjective. It's not the book I was hoping it would be.

I'm interested in picking up Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was one of the sources Dan Brown used in his research. The author is interviewed in the DVD I mentioned above.

[Roland99]

145. Well, I'm already adjusting to this book...it's hard to breakdown years of

pre-conceived notions that have been drilled into me.


It's actually becoming very eye-opening. But, there are still some parts where the author throws out all kinds of detailed into about individual people and it's hard to retain that knowledge. I find myself reading some passages a few times. ;)

[Desertrose]

146. I know what you mean about the names...LOL

all those names and everyone had a couple each...I was looking for my highlighter and my pencil for putting some notes in the margins.....its a fantastic reference source.


I'm actually taking a break in the middle of that book and reading "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar" by Margaret Starbird (Bear & Co. '93). Having read all the early parts of "Bloodline", it really helps make more sense of this book....Starbird states that Jesus did actually die and that Jesus & MM only had the one child, a daughter, Sarah, but follows along similar lines.

I still have a gut feeling that Bloodline has more factual info and for me a ring of truth, than any others I've read to date.....

I guess I was fortunate not to have to worry about programming cause somehow even as a little kid, I knew they were only telling me partial truths. Since I was raised St Paul's UCC & Evangelical, I actually got a strong dose of the "Paul" slant how women should be subservient. Uhhm...that did not go over too well with my independent nature :evilgrin:

:hi: anyhow,glad you are reading it...tons of incredible info in that book!!!!

[Roland99]

148. I grew up Catholic...plus 12 years of Catholic school

I'm breaking down the last few barriers and misperceptions.

[sam sarrha]

144. rabi's are usually or always married i believe

[IndianaGreen]

149. Marriages were always arranged, when the couple were children

and they would marry at a very tender age that would shock present-day Americans. In addition, as you pointed out, being married was a requirement to be a rabbi for that would make a man complete. Jesus is referred to as "rabbi" so he must have been married. I will also point out that no one, and I mean no one, in the Gospels or in the Epistles ever mentions Jesus's mother as being a virgin. The Virgin Birth myth was a creation of the Roman Church, long after the Jerusalem Christian community perished in the Rebellion of 70 CE.