No, the churches are against it for what it would mean. Jesus is the only perfect person.(Born of a virgin, remember?) So what would it mean if he had kids? It just doesn't match up with what the Bible says that marriage is to be displayed and stuff.
i think the whole issue is just silly.
ok, so jesus has to be perfect if he's to be a sacrifice for our sins. central to christianity, ok, got it.
being born of a virgin doesn't have anything to do with that, at all. that bit is to make him the literal son of god.
what does his own virginity have to do with anything? it's not a sin to get married. it's not a sin to have children with your wife. every other major jewish leader had a wife, and usually kids. moses was married, aaron was married. all of the patriarchs were married. david was married. the idea of chastity as it relates to holiness is utterly foriegn to judaism.
so where'd it come from in christianity? and why no depiction of christ being married?
an unmarried man hanging around 12 other guys and a few unmarried women would have looked a little weird in 1st century judea. ...but it wouldn't have looked weird to the hellenistic greek audiences reading the gospels.
If Jesus had a child, then that would imply that he had sex. In order to have sex, one must be a sexual being with sexual desires. If one has sexual desires, then surely they lust after other people.
jesus specifically said that lust is mental adultery (better source than job, for this issue, i think).
but the question is, do you think he meant uncontrollable physical attraction, or the controllable concious thought that entertains it?
i think that requiring christ to NOT be human is a bit, well, silly. part of the whole idea was that he WAS human (even if he was something else as well) and subject to all the concerns of fleshly existence that we are. and he was perfect anyways. he's an example, if anything, of what we are capable of -- not an unattainable standard held against us.
quote:Curtis has repeatedly declined deigning to provide a response to this rumor, and her physicians — even if they had something to say and wanted to say it — are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality strictures.
This rumor is often lent credibility by people who have heard it repeated as fact by their university professors (especially those with specialties relating to intersexuality). Neither the hearer nor the teller ever seems to be able to provide a credible explanation of how he knows this piece of information to be true, the chain of transmission always tracing back to the notoriously unreliable "Someone else told me about it." As happens over and over, even the most trusted of sources can sometimes take a widespread rumor at face value, then parrot it as fact.
If he came from a virgin, he never got Adam's seed and was perfect from the beginning.
that's actually irrelevent. such a concept does not exist in judaism.
Lets say that you were born of a virgin. You would have to spend your whole life without lying, stealing, committing adultery, murdering (which says the Bible is the same as hating someone), and having no other gods. If you can do all that then let me know.
actually, on those particular charges, i've done pretty well.
Last time I checked he shot down Judaism when he claimed to be the Messiah.
where did he claim to be the messiah?
and no, he didn't.
quote:Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
the concept of the messiah is a jewish concept -- and one which he doesn't actually fulfill, either. (never sat on the throne of david in jerusalem, didn't kick out the foreign occupation)
His virginity has nothing to do with His holiness or lack thereof.
are you sure?
Jesus from an early age expressed that He was about His Father's buisness. Getting married and having little chitlins was not apart of the program.
the first commandment that god gives man in the bible, other than "don't touch my tree," is "be fruitful and multiply."
Jesus existed for one, central purpose - and that purpose is to reveal Himself as the Messiah and to become the sacrificial Lamb to cover sin in the penitent man/woman. Having a typical life did not fit into the parameter of His purpose.
Aside from this, consider how God in His infinite wisdom, could forsee the cosmological and astronomical implications for the Son of God raising children. What happens in the speculation even today?
quote:Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
quote:Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
quote:Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
quote:1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
more over: adam (the father of all mankind) is called "the son of god" by luke:
quote:Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Man 1: "I come from the line of Christ."
Man 2: "No, I come from the line of Christ."
this happens anyways. the merovingian dynasty of france claimed to be from christ's lineage -- and pierre pettard ("priory of sion") forged a few documents to make himself the heir to the merovingian throne, as part of an underground and utterly failed political movement 20 years ago in france. (this is why i haven't bothered reading the da vinci code, btw)
And so, there would be this underlying indication that one man is 'holier' by virtue of association or by bloodline. Don't you think that God would seek to ensure that such a trivial notion wouldn't arise?
the jews have claimed for well over 2000 years to be god's chosen people, separated by god himself. the bible makes this claim directly countless times. i won't quote them here (even though i COULD have quoted one with the above set of quotes) but i'm sure you've read them.
jews are not the only group that sees themselves as more holy than others. christians and muslims do too. and many sub-groups of these major religions see themselves even as more holy than other groups WITHIN that religion.
I mean, look how ridiculous people act concerning the 'Spear of Destiny," or the "Holy Grail," as if trinkets make you holy! This elucidates well the fact that so many still don't know Jesus, even the one's that claim they do. This just further supports that people are fickle and their understanding of God is abysmal.
*shrug* i collect vinyl records. i have nearly every variation of every vinyl release by this one band -- but i know a few people that collect everything to do with them. stickers, posters, books, cd's, cassettes, even stuff they KNOW is fake.
people just like collecting stuff. we like having things, and religion is no different. people want something solid to hold on to of their god, and their faith. it's part of human nature.
Lastly, there is absolutely no evidence corroborating that Jesus was married.
the implications of how jesus reacts to and regards mary of magdala is a good hint. for instance, she's the first person he appears to, after being resurrected.
he's also called "rabbi" and to the best of my knowledge, rabbis (until recebtly) had to be married. i could be wrong. anyone know jewish tradition better?
To even imply it, I suspect, is intended to stir up controversy in order to bring Jesus into disrepute.
why would it bring jesus into disrepute?
it's like middle school: "you're gay!" well, if you are, so what? is it really an insult?
I have no doubt that the "Divinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is an intentional act of heresey
the da vinci code is a work of fiction. something even the author has lost sight of. yes, as i went over above, the claims really have been made. the merovingians really DID claim to be descended from christ. if you go to small villages on the southern shore of france, you WILL find traditions honoring the arrival of mary of magdala and her daughter in a boat.
in order to destroy peoples faith in the historical Christ.
what does being married have to do with whether christ was a real person or not? actually, i think it makes him more believable.
But, there isn't even circumstancial evidence to support the assertion that Jesus was either married or bore children existed.
And this whole thing that Da Vinci had some kind of esoteric knowledge of this assertion is laughable. Why? For one, Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper was an artists rendition, a construct of his mind, as he envisioned it to be. He lived 1,000 years after Christ was alive. People are acting like Christ and the Posse were posing in front of Leonardo or something.
"the last supper" is actually suprisingly inaccurate. i can go into the details, if you'd like, but the most obvious one is the presence of levened bread. being passover...
(also, the "woman" to jesus's right is john.)
Furthermore, if it was so secretive, then why even give 'clues' at all if they wanted to suppress this information?
leonardo was a very subversive kind of guy. apparently, he really disliked the catholic church, and maybe religion in general. i would imagine he might, after the "madonna of the rocks" debacle. they made him completely re-paint it, because he made the infant john the baptist larger than the infant christ. nevermind that jonh was older, jesus had to be bigger because he was more important.
there's actually an interesting idea that leonardo was responsible for the forgery of the image on the shroud of turin, involving a very large camera.
"The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ (Messiah/Anointed One), the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy." -Matthew 26:63-65
which translation is that?
mine says: "you have said"
also, christ ("annointed one") and "son of god" are both apparently ways of refering to a KING. for instance, david was annointed when he was made king, and his coronation psalm (number 2) calls him the son of god.
He could hardly be human then if He didn't have Adam's seed, considering what the word Adam means.
depending on which vowels you choose to add, "adam" can also be "edom." the word, most literally, means the color "red," as in red earth (soil, "adamah") or red blood (as in the marduk creation story in babylon). there was also another prominent character in the bible named edom, who was named for his red hair.
a little less literally, "adam" means man or mankind, yes. without being a son of adam, one is not human. "sons of adam" is actually a somewhat common figurative way to say "mankind" although just "adam" (without an article) might mean this as well in genesis 1.
jesus would certainly have been at least partially related to adam, even by christian claims. his mother was human. the whole bit about "seed" however literally refers to sperm. the idea is that original sin was passed down, carried in semen. and as no human semen went into making jesus, no original sin. you can thank st. augustine for that.
jesus has no writings of his own, jesus didn't do anything physical
miracles and such. he's about on par with isaiah, though. a prophet who didn't do his own writing. people usually had scribes, or their students recorded it. this was true even for plato. the problem with jesus (as well as isaiah) is that the earliest confirmed document containing their words is quite some time after their death.
Yes, He intended mankind to proliferate just like all creatures. I'm not sure what that has to do with Jesus, or even the Rabbi's that chose to be celibate.
were there celibate rabbis?
I guess its as asinine as asking why plumbers don't arrest people. Why don't they? Its outside of their prescribed parameters.
well, no. it's like asking why plumbers don't get married. the answer is: many of them do. arresting people is a pretty specific action that only a select group does. marriage is something a much, much larger segment of society does, and in no way violates anybody's job description.
Again, think about it logically for a moment. If Jesus is God, the Son of God, or even the human Messiah, wouldn't that cause astronomical problems? Those of the line of Christ would have a rather large chip on their shoulder. Those not of the line of Christ might be inclined to covetousness.
Aside from this, consider how God in His infinite wisdom, could forsee the cosmological and astronomical implications for the Son of God raising children. What happens in the speculation even today?
you seem to have this idea that god protects his children from having to deal with life, and temptation. this idea is utterly un-biblical. the third chapter in the whol book deals explicitly with this idea. god makes a garden especially for man, and says "eat all you want, just not THAT tree. that one's mine." had god wanted to protect mankind in that manner, he could have put the tree completely out of his reach.
when god takes the israelites out of egypt, he leads them into the heart of temptation, to fight it. he takes them back the canaan, and tells them "stay away from the idols." had he wanted to make sure that they did, he could have obliterated all canaan before they even got there. remember, he just got done killing every firstborn in egypt. surely he could have easily killed every citizen of the promised land himself.
god does not protect his children from learning the hard way, or from having to make choices.
Translation: ... etc
yes, i get what they mean. the point of all of those is the basica message of jesus. god loves us, and we are ALL sons of god, because he treats us all like his own children.
And this trivial banter presented to us by Pierre Pettard and his wild fantasies only solidify why it would be so tragic had Jesus actually bore children.
no no, you see, the point of that is that it doesn't actually matter whether jesus had children or not, or even whether or not jesus existed. people did it anyways, and WILL continue to claim descent from christ.
Yes, I've read them and I agree with you. I'm just uncertain to how you've managed to tie this in with Jesus having children. Can you explain exactly how you've marrid the two?
your original issue was that one group would claim to be more special than others, and claim power and authority over others, because they came from christ. the point is that the bible actively promotes a very similar idea -- that one group of people is more special than others.
Some Jews see themselves as holier than thou, as well as many Christians and Muslims. Actually, virtually everyone on some level secretly espouses themselves to be more smart, than the average Joe, more capable than the average Joe, better looking than the average Joe. This is the nature of fallen man. No one is immune to it. It takes constant reminders to remain humble. But 'holiness' cannot exist apart from God. Sometimes we lose sight of this, as if our attributes and accomplishments are of our own devise.
right. we do this anyways. saying that christ having children would cause it, and therefore christ didn't have children is just bad logic. we do it anyways. people claim to come from christ anyways. evidently, it IS happening. it doesn't mean christ DID have children, just that it probably wouldn't have affected things much one way or the other if he did.
Ah, never mind. I understand what you arriving at. Yes, people are fickle. They think they need trinkets and whatnot to make things 'real.' Kind of like people visiting the cemetary. Some people feel like they need for their family member or close friend to have a headstone in order to make it 'feel' as though they are speaking directly to them.
exactly. we are very physical beings. we like having real, solid objects.
That's much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Yes, He met with Mary first according to Mark's gospel, but Mary Magdalene was not the only person present during that encounter. Of the four gospels, they make referrence to Mary (the mother of James), Joanne, and Solome being with her, as well as the two men traveling on the road to Emaeus. In all the instances spoken about Mary, not one of them even hints to any kind of sexual/marital relationship. I mean, its literally based on nothing at all.
yes, probably so. if christ WAS married, any such indication was very carefully left out of the new testament.
I think we have to first understand what Rabbi means in the first place. 'Rabbi' comes to us as a synthesis off the Hebrew word, 'rav,' (Ravi) which means 'great', or 'great one.'. In the old days, there were only three types of people. The wealthy 'masters', slaves, and day laborers (which were actually the bottom of the barrel in Jewish society). The term 'Rabi,' progressively had come to those who are learned in the Torah. During the time of Jesus, it was further synthesized to speak of wise men, in general. The Pharisees and Sadducess were considered the privaleged and scholarly type. In an era where illiteracy was more than just prevelant, but rampant, the scribes were esteemed. Many people considered Jesus to a Rabbi, and many are recorded as calling Him that, however, He was not formally trained in the Torah. He was not really a Rabbi in any kind of traditional sense, (though He was, at the same time, the ultimate Rabbi, cuz He's God!)
there is very little upon which we can base ANY claim as to his formal training in the torah. the new testament is quite silent on about 20 years of his life. we have the story of his birth, a few childhood stories, and then suddenly adulthood and crucifixion. maybe he studied the torah, maybe he didn't. evidently, he knew it quite well, as knew some interpretation of it too.
Now, with that out of the way, do Rabbi's have to be married? Not in His day. I don't know of any statute that forces Rabi's to be married. In fact, in Jesus' day it was considered an honorable sacrifice to forgo your personal rights in attempts to be more 'holy.' Kind of like Catholic priests, except that they are now forced to be celibate (which is very unscriptural).
do you have any documentation of this? it would be most helpful.
Because it didn't happen. And spreading falsehood like that is blasphemous against Him.
claiming someone was married is hardly an insult, though. if he WAS married, and you claim he was not, you are also spreading a falsehood.
Yeah, that's what its officially presented as. I happen to believe its an intentional jab at the historical Jesus.
i think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
some years ago, i rented a movie called "revelation." working at the video store, you get bored and start renting any old crappy movie pretty quickly.
the basic twist of the movie is that relic they find is built with the nails that were used to crucify christ. some evil scientists manage to re-hydrate the dried blood on the spikes (the blood of christ) and clone him, creating the antichrist. the person who will have to fight him, of course, is the last direct descendant of the line of christ.
similar idea, a few years before the da vinci code. moderately entertaining, but not really any huge deal. no controversy, nothing. it wasn't a new idea then, it's not a new idea now. people have been writing stories about it for literally millenia.
I already explained that in great detail. Why, though, does it make it more believable?
christianity has a tendency to portray jesus as fully god, ignoring that he was also fully human. over the years, the idea of jesus has slowly reverted to a more gnostic ideal, forgetting that jesus was subject to all of the concerns of flesh, temptation etc. i think there is nothing controversial about suggesting that he lived a fairly normal human life, to a certain point. things may have been a bit different when he began his ministry (we don't all lead groups around israel preaching, performing miracles, and eventually dying for the sins of all mankind). but he probably apprenticed under his father, he ate and slept like a normal judean, had a family (mother and father, brothers), broke bread on passover, went to temple, etc.
the idea of him being married adds to the perspective that he as a real person, not just and obscure religious idol worshipped by christians.
Yeah, and why shouldn't be? I guess some people actually believe that painters were present during the last supper, as if they could give a first-hand account. Its really quite silly to me.
yes, it is. actually, most renaissance and baroque art is highly inaccurate. they quite commonly portrayed religious figures in either the clothing and customs of the day, or in classical greco-roman garb. we do this today, too, just not to such a great extent.
Well, the man was inventing helicopters 500 years before they were invented. With his genius, I wouldn't put anything past him. I mean, I doubt he had anything to do with the Shroud, though I certainly believe it to be a forgery.
yes, leonardo was a few steps ahead of almost everyone else. he practically invented baroque art, before everyone else was painting renaissance art. and he only painted about a half dozen paintings.
the shroud suggestion has to do with the appearance of the shroud in the collection of one of leonardo's patrons, along with a self-portrait of leonardo that looks remarkably like the face on the shroud. it explains a few things, too. for instance, why the figure is a flattened image, instead of a wrap-around image like we would see on a globe projection. previous explanation all produced such an image. it also explains why the image shows up better in negative, and why the proportions don't match front-to-back. such an image could have been made during the day, if leonardo had found the right medium (using contemporary chemistry). camera obscuras were very common.
there are a number of problems with it though. the most obvious being that an image was describe on it before leonardo's time. (might be a different shroud, might not be a real claim.. *shrug*) the other is that the proportions aren't anywhere near accurate. the legs are WAY too long. leonardo was skilled anatomist, one of the first to disect cadavers so that his paintings and drawings would be more accurate.
anyways, as a photography major, i just find the idea that photography was invented 350 years before we think mildly entertaining.
Bilbo appears in person in The Fellowship of the Ring. Need I quote chapter and verse?
such is a later interpretation of the events presented in there and back again, and extension of the philosophy presented therein. some hold that it is the continuing word of tolkien, as given to bilbo's nephew/cousin/heir/whatever, frodo baggins.
(Of course, The Silmarillion is clearly fictional - mythical, e-vun. :D )