Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: YoMamaBeenLurking on May 15, 2006, 01:54:07 PM
-
Yesterday I saw something on the discovery channel that got me wondering. It was a show where the narrator kept referring to a possible bloodline from Jesus. Something to the effect of a child or children born from a union between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I was nodding off during the show and did not catch the end. The narrator was searching for the Holy Grail. Anyone see this?
-
Yesterday I saw something on the discovery channel that got me wondering. It was a show where the narrator kept referring to a possible bloodline from Jesus. Something to the effect of a child or children born from a union between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I was nodding off during the show and did not catch the end. The narrator was searching for the Holy Grail. Anyone see this?
Read the Davinci code.
Yes though. It's likely if a Jesus existed he WOULD of been married and had children.
-
What evidence is there that Mary Magdalene shared a romance or was married to Jesus and bore his children? Why is she assumed to be young and beautiful? The sources say nothing about her appearance.
-
OK I did not read the book, but did read the thread on it here above and its not covering the subject that I intended this topic to. I guess what I'm wondering is whether or not there is a bloodline that is still intact today. And if there was, would those who were part of it even realize or know that they were? How would the world change if the line was intact and living relatives were revealed? That type of thing.
Just something to discuss.
-
What evidence is there that Mary Magdalene shared a romance or was married to Jesus and bore his children? Why is she assumed to be young and beautiful? The sources say nothing about her appearance.
Who needs evidence when you have faith? Right?
That's your motto isn't it?
-
Who needs evidence when you have faith? Right?
That's your motto isn't it?
This would mean, you don't have the answer to my question, right? :-\
-
This would mean, you don't have the answer to my question, right? :-\
As you'd put it...
"Our evidence is faith!"
Or
"If there were evidence then what point would faith have?"
You're sitting here asking us for EVIDENCE about Jesus's life when your entire worldview isn't based on an ounce of evidence?
-
As you'd put it...
"Our evidence is faith!"
Or
"If there were evidence then what point would faith have?"
You're sitting here asking us for EVIDENCE about Jesus's life when your entire worldview isn't based on an ounce of evidence?
I'll take that as a "yes, Colossus, you are correct."
-
I'll take that as a "yes, Colossus, you are correct."
Correct about what? I'm sitting here proving you're a total hypocrite and you're still trying to make some stupid ass point about there not being evidence Jesus had a wife?
HAHA!
-
Correct about what? I'm sitting here proving you're a total hypocrite and you're still trying to make some stupid ass point about there not being evidence Jesus had a wife?
HAHA!
Actually, you're the one who hasn't come up with an answer to that question. Instead, all you've done is the 3rd grade insult kind of stuff.
-
Actually, you're the one who hasn't come up with an answer to that question. Instead, all you've done is the 3rd grade insult kind of stuff.
Let me explain it short and simply for you...Since you obviously can't comprehend my previous posts.
Give me solid evidence of a God and solid evidence the Bible is accurate and then i'll give you solid evidence Jesus had a wife.
-
Let me explain it short and simply for you...Since you obviously can't comprehend my previous posts.
Give me solid evidence of a God and solid evidence the Bible is accurate and then i'll give you solid evidence Jesus had a wife.
So, let me get this straight... You have "faith" that Jesus had a wife?
-
I don't have the references at the tip of my tongue, but it has been reported that was the basis for the intense hatred of Mary Magdalene by Peter. He always complained that Jesus kissed the disciples on the cheek, while Mary was kissed on the lips.
It has also been reported that this was the real treasure of Chateau le Rennes, that the templars guarded... the knowledge of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, ...and the Merovingian bloodline they created.
The Holy Grail the cup that caught Jesus' blood, was not a literal "cup" or "challice" similar to a wine glass, but rather was Mary Magdalene herself, ...the pregnant wife of Jesus.
-
So, let me get this straight... You have "faith" that Jesus had a wife?
Nope. I don't believe the man ever even existed.
But you can't argue against those who believe he had a wife based on lack of evidence when your whole worldview lacks evidence.
-
I don't have the references at the tip of my tongue, but it has been reported that was the basis for the intense hatred of Mary Magdalene by Peter. He always complained that Jesus kissed the disciples on the cheek, while Mary was kissed on the lips.
It has also been reported that this was the real treasure of Chateau le Rennes, that the templars guarded... the knowledge of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, ...and the Merovingian bloodline they created.
The Holy Grail the cup that caught Jesus' blood, was not a literal "cup" or "challice" similar to a wine glass, but rather was Mary Magdalene herself, ...the pregnant wife of Jesus.
Jag, when you find this reference, can you let me know? I'd like to check it out.
-
Jag, when you find this reference, can you let me know? I'd like to check it out.
:-\ Colossus, I really wouldn't know where to find it at this point.
It wasn't something that meant a great deal to me, ...sort of one of those "hmmm... interesting" kind of things then I went on about my business. I wouldn't wait too long if I were you, ...it's gonna have to be one of those, "if I stumble across it again" kind of things.
-
:-\ Colossus, I really wouldn't know where to find it at this point.
It wasn't something that meant a great deal to me, ...sort of one of those "hmmm... interesting" kind of things then I went on about my business. I wouldn't wait too long if I were you, ...it's gonna have to be one of those, "if I stumble across it again" kind of things.
that's cool. i'll look for it too. thanks. ;)
-
look up the book "holy blood holy grail"....it is where the da vinci code stole its main premise. interesting read and if you are a conspiracy theory person pretty enjoyable, although it turns out the priory of sion was proven to be faked. in fact under oath mr pierre (i think that is his name) admitted he made it all up. check it out on wikipedia, plenty of articles about the stuff
-
the priory of sion
I've read the book. You know it's interesting the reasoning people think the priory of sion didn't exsist is due to the fact thier isn't any historical records of it. but wasn't supposed to be a secret society? I would think there wouldn't be much remaining evidence. (I personally don't care one oway or the other.)
-
well the list of all the heads of the priory of sion was planted by pierre plantard in the some famous french library. he admitted in court he made it all up in 1956 with a few of his friends.
-
well the list of all the heads of the priory of sion was planted by pierre plantard in the some famous french library. he admitted in court he made it all up in 1956 with a few of his friends.
Yep! It amazes me that folks want to accept this as fact now, but if they would take the time to research this stuff they would know that pierre plantard forged those documents and was busted later.
-
So the priory in the books are based on this list? Well, a conspiracy theorist might say Pierre was forced to do claim they were fake!
(not that i believe that) lol
-
I saw an interesting documentary with some British guy who started off investigating "the priory of sion" and the supposed treasure. He discovered the entire region was geometrically precise. Landmarks, fortresses, castles etc, and other man made structures built by the templars, formed a perfect pentagram and displayed such accuracy and precision right down to the cm. They also noticed the same phenomenon in a series of Scandanavian towns as well where the templars had once been. In one instance, a particular church's measurement was slightly off, however when measured against a seemingly useless knob that stuck out from one of it's exterior walls, it was accurate. For years, architects and historians have always wondered why the builders had even stuck a knob there to begin with, ...especially when none of the other structures had one? It served no purpose that anyone could think of, however when used as a starting point or end point for measuring the distances between the various churches the templars built, it too formed the perfect pentagram as well.
-
I saw an interesting documentary with some British guy who started off investigating "the priory of sion" and the supposed treasure. He discovered the entire region was geometrically precise. Landmarks, fortresses, castles etc, and other man made structures built by the templars, formed a perfect pentagram and displayed such accuracy and precision right down to the cm. They also noticed the same phenomenon in a series of Scandanavian towns as well where the templars had once been. In one instance, a particular church's measurement was slightly off, however when measured against a seemingly useless knob that stuck out from one of it's exterior walls, it was accurate. For years, architects and historians have always wondered why the builders had even stuck a knob there to begin with, ...especially when none of the other structures had one? It served no purpose that anyone could think of, however when used as a starting point or end point for measuring the distances between the various churches the templars built, it too formed the perfect pentagram as well.
I just went "hmmmmm"! ;)
-
maybe johnny apollo is in the P of S
-
maybe johnny apollo is in the P of S
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ;D
one never knows. lol
-
Colossus why are you ragging on people about provideing facts about jesus blood line it seems to me that the theory that jesus had a kid is way more logical then someone being able to be put on a cross and rise from the ashes cure lepors and blind people yet you wont proof of a man having a kid with a chick o man the richness, i figure that if you can believe jesus was true which you defiantly have the right to do and all the more power to you then in turn someone else has the right to belive that same man had a kid its hardly a far fetched idea in comparison to your beliefs thats just my 2 cents
-
So back to the original purpose of this thread. How do you feel the world would be effected if the knowledge that there were actual living descendants of Jesus alive today?
-
So back to the original purpose of this thread. How do you feel the world would be effected if the knowledge that there were actual living descendants of Jesus alive today?
They'd make a fortune in royalties and back dated licensing fees for all those little plastic dashboard jesus'. The Vatican would owe them a fortune in licensing fees for all the crosses. Kind of like what Lisa Marie makes on all those Elvis bobbleheads. :P (Not to mention the huge slander & libel lawsuit lauched by the Jews)
-
Colossus why are you ragging on people about provideing facts about jesus blood line it seems to me that the theory that jesus had a kid is way more logical then someone being able to be put on a cross and rise from the ashes cure lepors and blind people yet you wont proof of a man having a kid with a chick o man the richness, i figure that if you can believe jesus was true which you defiantly have the right to do and all the more power to you then in turn someone else has the right to belive that same man had a kid its hardly a far fetched idea in comparison to your beliefs thats just my 2 cents
Sorry, bro. I didn't see your post until this morning. Your argument is fair enough and has been made often. I can understand how you would feel this way. My problem with the claims for a blood line after Jesus is that if people were to take the time to research this information, they would readily see for themselves that there is a huge discrepancy between biblical history vs. all that's being told now. But you have to do the research! In my opinion, not very many people are doing that. Even Christians. I wonder how many people just took Dan Brown's word for what was mentioned in the book and did not research it? I'm willing to bet that the percentage is very high, like in the 90's.
-
Colossus,
The percentage is high because Dan Brown's premise far more plausible than that of the Catholic church.
-
There's alot of stuff that negates Dan Brown's claims in his book. Here's a quick and dirty on some of them:
The Top 10 Errors Found in 'The Da Vinci Code'
compiled by Alex McFarland
Fallacy: The world was once dominated by goddess-based worship. Religion was originally matriarchal and later (under Judeo-Christian dominance) changed to patriarchal monotheism (male dominated). (The Da Vinci Code, p. 124)
Fact: There is no evidence that any significant religious movement had dominant female deities: They were always linked to their male counterparts, and usually in a subservient role. (See, for example, Tikva Frymer-Kensky's In the Wake of the Goddesses (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993) and Craig Hawkins' Goddess Worship, Witchcraft, and Neo-Paganism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
Fallacy: The Bible has been extensively rewritten and revised. Therefore, its original meaning has been lost. The Christian Scriptures "evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions." (DVC, p. 231)
Fact: "Countless translations" is excessive hyperbole and vague generalization. Without a specific charge of what was translated, added or revised, it is impossible to respond to this point specifically. However, consider the following points:
Translation issues for the Bible are not different from translation issues for any other document, and cause no more difficulty. The quote implies that there is some great confusion over translation that is cause for concern.
It is true that there are issues to discuss in terms of translating the Bible from ancient Hebrew and Greek to any modern language. This is a natural function of all translation processes and in no way detracts from offering a "definitive," reasonable account of what was originally written.
In fact, the means of transmission of the ancient texts, the voluminous quantity of manuscript copies, the science of textual criticism and the art of translation ensure that any reputable modern translation of the Bible is an accurate rendering of the original text. This subject has been covered so comprehensively and so well by so many scholars that Brown's misrepresentation of the facts is inexcusable.
Fallacy: "Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert." (DVC, p. 234)
Fact: According to Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, Constantine was never involved in any attempt to eradicate any gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 and contained no gospels, nor any reference to Jesus. They contained portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, commentaries on the Old Testament, some extrabiblical works, secular documents and business records. The Qumran community, which wrote or preserved these documents, had nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.
Fallacy: "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." (DVC, p. 232)
Fact: Although the verdict is out as to whether Constantine was a true follower of Christ, he was not a pagan. He converted to Christianity (regardless of his motives for doing so). And he did not collate the Bible. The Old Testament was compiled even before the time of Jesus. The New Testament began to be recognized by the end of the 1st century. By the 2nd century, church leaders were inserting quotes from the four Gospels into their writings. Athanasius recorded the earliest list of New Testament books in 367 A.D.
Fallacy: The Bible was "hodge-podged" together over time and is not trustworthy. "The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (DVC, p. 231)
Fact: If men wanted to create a new religion, they would never choose one with a God-man as its central figure and a resurrection from the dead as its foundation. (1 Corinthians 15:14, Ephesians 2:20). Further, if men had produced Christianity, it would be man-centered, as are all other religions. In other words, man would earn his way into eternal bliss through his good deeds. Thus, man would get the glory. In stark contrast, the Bible uniformly declares that man cannot work his way to God. There must be a substitute that is acceptable to God according to His holy standard — perfect righteousness. Jesus Christ is that perfect substitute — the one and only way to God. Therefore, God gets all the glory. (Isaiah 64:6, Philippians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:18)
Fallacy: Many "gospels" existed recounting the life of Christ, some of which were suppressed: "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them . . . " (DVC, p. 231)
Fact: The "gospels" to which Brown refers are the Gnostic gospels. They were written from about 250-350 A.D., several hundred years after Christ lived. They were written to reinterpret the life of Christ and His teachings, based upon Gnostic philosophy. There were never as many as 80, and they were never considered for inclusion in the New Testament.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were accepted in the 1st century based upon their authorship and their use in the early Christian centers of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. The Gnostic gospels appeared after most of the New Testament was already in use and accepted by the Church. Eusebius, the first church historian, affirms that the early church rejected these gospels as soon as they appeared.
Fallacy: Christianity as we know it was "invented" by people, rather than revealed by God. "At [the Council of Nicea] . . . many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon — the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments and, of course, the divinity of Jesus . . . Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." (DVC, p. 233)
Fact: The Council of Nicea debated only one issue: Was Jesus coeternal with the Father? (See A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, pp. 152-157.) Although Jesus' disciples were fearful skeptics who initially did not clearly understand who Christ was and what He came to do, after the resurrection they willingly sacrificed their lives for proclaiming that He was indeed God in the flesh. (John 20:19-28, 31; 2 Peter 1:16-18; Philippians 2:5-11)
Fallacy: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. ". . . One particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the (Gnostic) gospels. Mary Magdalene. . . . More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ." (DVC, p. 244)
Fact: None of the Gnostic gospels contain any references to a marriage between Mary and Jesus. There is no support for this claim in the Scriptures or in early church traditions. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul defended his right to have a wife (even though he was unmarried). He cites as support the other apostles, the Lord's brothers and Peter. If Christ had been married, Paul would most certainly have cited Him as conclusive support for being accompanied by a wife.
Fallacy: Christianity borrowed its practices and symbols from the pagan mystery religions. "And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual . . . were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions." (DVC, p. 232)
Fact: A distinction needs to be made between New Testament Christianity and what developed over time as Greek and Roman converts brought certain non-biblical elements into their worship. In particular, the Church at Rome abandoned the biblical feast days observed by the early church in favor of the feast days of the pagan they were seeking to convert. And to some degree, they adopted the vestments and rituals of the pagan Roman priests.
Most mystery religions, however, flourished long after the closing of the canon of Scripture. Therefore, it would be more proper to say that Christianity influenced mystery religions, rather than the other way around. A careful observation of the mystery religion stories reveals there is a vast difference between the events recorded in the New Testament and the mythologies of the mystery religions. The mysteries were rooted in emotionalism and fantasy. In contrast, Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. The mysteries were a combination of many religious systems, worshipping numerous deities. Christianity is rooted in the consistent revelation of one God who ordained the pure and spotless sacrifice of His Son in payment for man's sin.
Fallacy: The book is based on fact. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." (DVC Page 1)
Fact: Contrary to the book's claim that early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex, the Old Testament carefully defined and steadfastly condemned sexual immorality — especially the pagan practice of bringing sex into public worship (Leviticus 10:10-21; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24).
The novel contends that Da Vinci painted the Apostle John as representing Mary Magdalene. However, John's appearance reflects the way Florentine artists traditionally depicted John. (See The Truth Behind the Da Vince Code, Richard Abanes, pp. 71-72). The claims of ". . . hidden documents that detail the truth about Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and their lineage . . . " (DVC, p. 160) are based on forgeries. (See The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, pp. 51-54.)
-
What evidence is there that Mary Magdalene shared a romance or was married to Jesus and bore his children? Why is she assumed to be young and beautiful? The sources say nothing about her appearance.
what evidence do you have it didnt happen othe than some outdated book
-
They'd make a fortune in royalties and back dated licensing fees for all those little plastic dashboard jesus'. The Vatican would owe them a fortune in licensing fees for all the crosses. Kind of like what Lisa Marie makes on all those Elvis bobbleheads. :P (Not to mention the huge slander & libel lawsuit lauched by the Jews)
Hey someone actually responded to the intent of the topic...Will ya look at that.
-
Thy shall not covet thy neighbor's wife (or something to that effect), a sin, right?
Mary & Joseph were husband & wife.
Mary carried & bore the son of God
Supposedly she never did it w/anyone to have the son of God but why is he described as such if God didn't do the nasty w/her?Also if he did (maybe the National Enquirer of the day didn't catch onto the story?) wouldn't that be adultery? ;D
-
you people do realize that dan brown himself said that his book is fiction.
-
I just started reading that little article by Alex McFarland and right off the top it's BS.
Goddess-based worship did dominate the world.
...and if I have anything to say about it, ...will dominate again. ;)
-
I just started reading that little article by Alex McFarland and right off the top it's BS.
Goddess-based worship did dominate the world.
...and if I have anything to say about it, ...will dominate again. ;)
::)
-
Hey mister, don't be rolling your beady little eyeballs at me, ...it's true.
-
::)
-
..that goes for you too. ;)
-
;D
-
Hey mister, don't be rolling your beady little eyeballs at me, ...it's true.
lol!