If he married and had children... he couldn't very well have ascended into heaven... or is that not obvious?
I included all three things because they kind of go in a sequence...
Jnyusa, were you objecting to The Passion (which I never saw) for factual inaccuracy, or because you perceived it to be anti-semitic?
Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It
That would mean that the Biblical accounts of Jesus life and teachings are false, deliberately deceitful. That would indeed undermine the trustworthiness of the scriptures, which would be of enormous importance to those who view them as the Word of God.If it were proved that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had a child, would that diminish his teachings? Would it alter one iota of the Christian faith?
To people for whom Christianity simply means that they think Jesus was a cool guy who taught some nifty truths, and who take what they like from the Bible and leave the rest, no, it wouldn't matter.
I read the book, and enjoyed it as well as I enjoy any of Dan Brown's stuff... I don't think the man is a wonderful writer, but he's good enough to check the book out from the library and zip through it in a day or so.
Ever notice that the romance plot is EXACTLY the same in all of Dan Brown's books?
Anyway...
I came away with a better knowledge of the layout of Roman and Vatican points of interest, a smattering of fun stuff about codes and decoding, a
about some of his characters (they all TALK alike! he really is quite clunky), and a serious suspicion that Dan Brown has no real love for the Catholic Church.
When I read the part in the forward where he writes "everything in here is fact" I felt exactly equal to.
So Dan Brown is the only one ever who has gotten all of this exactly right? I'm so glad he's around, then... we need someone who has perfect knowledge of all those historical happenings and the motivations of men and groups of men throughout the centuries! Dan Brown Understands ALL!!1
WhatEVER.
And the only organized "Christian" response that I've seen locally is an encouragement to Christians to see the movie and take all their friends. The point is that ANY discussion about Christ is welcome.
If it takes a clunky, unlikely, pretentious novel to open those portals of communication, that's a good thing.
Ever notice that the romance plot is EXACTLY the same in all of Dan Brown's books?
Anyway...
I came away with a better knowledge of the layout of Roman and Vatican points of interest, a smattering of fun stuff about codes and decoding, a
about some of his characters (they all TALK alike! he really is quite clunky), and a serious suspicion that Dan Brown has no real love for the Catholic Church.When I read the part in the forward where he writes "everything in here is fact" I felt exactly equal to
. So Dan Brown is the only one ever who has gotten all of this exactly right? I'm so glad he's around, then... we need someone who has perfect knowledge of all those historical happenings and the motivations of men and groups of men throughout the centuries! Dan Brown Understands ALL!!1
WhatEVER.
And the only organized "Christian" response that I've seen locally is an encouragement to Christians to see the movie and take all their friends. The point is that ANY discussion about Christ is welcome.
If it takes a clunky, unlikely, pretentious novel to open those portals of communication, that's a good thing.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
It's interesting to note that many historians find the fact that no mention is made of Christs married status to be a strong argument in favour of his being married. There was no tradition of religious celibacy at the time, so if Christ was celibate it should have actually been of major note. Most Jewish men at his age would already be married.
In other words, one wouldn't bother to mention a wife, but the lack of one would have been of note.
Just to clarify. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus was unmarried. Nor does it state that he was. To decide one way or another is simply conjecture after the fact.
In other words, one wouldn't bother to mention a wife, but the lack of one would have been of note.
Just to clarify. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus was unmarried. Nor does it state that he was. To decide one way or another is simply conjecture after the fact.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
vison, I think Whistler was saying the concern isn't for believers, but for those the movie will cause to adopt a dismissive attitude about Christianity as a result of accepting the ideas that are presented.Whistler, if there are people that gullible or readily persuaded away from their faith or beliefs, then perhaps they were not very good Christians to start with.
Ok, thanks for that perspective.The Watcher wrote:"Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Whacked out conspiracy theory stuff. If that is where people go for truth, well, then I have an alien baby and my secret lover is Elvis Presley.
(There are lots of people who do believe Elvis is still alive and who do believe in aliens, just sayin'. But I will be glad if this is perceived by the general public as representing a similar level of veracity.)
Jn, I wasn't sure what your comment meant, about the shoe being on the other foot. Did people say you didn't have a right to protest the Gibson movie because you believed it was anti-Semitic? Are those people saying something different now?
Pullman's books don't have anything to say about Jesus or the Catholic Church. Nothing at all. He has something to say about the story of Adam and Eve.
He attacks organized religion. Pullman may be an ardent atheist, but I wouldn't call the stories "atheistic". There is definitely a "divine force" at work in the story, or at least a supernatural, good, pervasive force. Does the theology of the books match Christian theology? No.
But you know, the theology of LoTR doesn't match Christian theology either. ( There is no redeemer in LoTR or the Sil, for instance. ) Of course the theology of LoTR is much closer to Christian theology.
He attacks organized religion. Pullman may be an ardent atheist, but I wouldn't call the stories "atheistic". There is definitely a "divine force" at work in the story, or at least a supernatural, good, pervasive force. Does the theology of the books match Christian theology? No.
But you know, the theology of LoTR doesn't match Christian theology either. ( There is no redeemer in LoTR or the Sil, for instance. ) Of course the theology of LoTR is much closer to Christian theology.
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
To take Alatar's observations one step further, in the FICTIONAL Da Vinci Code, the premise is that a pregnant Mary is ferried away after Christ's crucifixion for her own safety, since she did indeed carry the "holy bloodline." That is the extent of "the heresy."Alatar wrote:It's interesting to note that many historians find the fact that no mention is made of Christs married status to be a strong argument in favour of his being married. There was no tradition of religious celibacy at the time, so if Christ was celibate it should have actually been of major note. Most Jewish men at his age would already be married.
In other words, one wouldn't bother to mention a wife, but the lack of one would have been of note.
Just to clarify. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus was unmarried. Nor does it state that he was. To decide one way or another is simply conjecture after the fact.
I doubt that I will ever get over my astonishment that The Passion was so successful.Jnyusa wrote:Interesting to read what people think when the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm still furious about the abuse Voronwë and I both took on TORC for objecting to the Gibson movie. It was as if the very existence of that movie created an excuse for every anti-Semite on that board to spew their guts in a public forum.
Christians are half the population in the US, and YOU'RE worried?
Oh please. That poor Mosignor really should ask the Jews how successful this strategy has been."We believe we can fight the Da Vinci Code's position from the point of view of scholarship, and we don't have to shut them down," Monsignor Maniscalco said.
As a friend, my advice to all of you who find this objectionable would be to boycott, and by all means write your letters of protest to the producers. You're spitting into the wind, but hey, that's what thinking people are for.
Jn
I haven't seen it, mind you, and probably never will. I don't get it, myself, but then, there's a lot I don't get. 
The one thing I suppose the world should be grateful for is that Mr. Gibson didn't play the lead role himself: he has played the suffering hero in every other movie he ever made and while he is really good at the grimacing, etc., I guess even he thought playing Jesus was over the top. And I also thought the discussion on Torc was revealing, and that what it revealed is the nasty seam of anti-Semitism that still runs through our society.Anyway, I doubt very much that this current movie is going to harm anyone except the people whose pockets are lighter of the admission and the price of the popcorn. If the real stinking scandals of sex abuse haven't brought the whole edifice tumbling down, I don't think a cheesy movie is going to.
Dig deeper.
You're generous, Anthy!
If it takes a clunky, unlikely, pretentious novel to open those portals of communication, that's a good thing.
I don't think that widespread trumpeting of a conspiracy theory known to be pure bunk is a good portal for communication.
For example, Gibson's movie would not be a good start for conversation with the Jewish People about Judaism.
Certain premises about truth have to be shared before conversation can be meaningful. Telling deliberate lies for fun, profit, revenge, or just because you're nuts can't be part of the picture.
Just for the record, I found the book to be not only stupid and wrong but poorly written, S-M gratuitous and sensationalistic (as Gibson's movie was, imo). It is beyond me how the book gained the popularity that it did ... (or maybe those last two do explain most everything).
Jn
If it takes a clunky, unlikely, pretentious novel to open those portals of communication, that's a good thing.
I don't think that widespread trumpeting of a conspiracy theory known to be pure bunk is a good portal for communication.
For example, Gibson's movie would not be a good start for conversation with the Jewish People about Judaism.
Certain premises about truth have to be shared before conversation can be meaningful. Telling deliberate lies for fun, profit, revenge, or just because you're nuts can't be part of the picture.
Just for the record, I found the book to be not only stupid and wrong but poorly written, S-M gratuitous and sensationalistic (as Gibson's movie was, imo). It is beyond me how the book gained the popularity that it did ... (or maybe those last two do explain most everything).
Jn
Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu May 11, 2006 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
My apologies as this thread has moved on considerably since I started writing this thread and also for my hastily expressed thoughts.
------------
I don't remember it either, but apart from enjoying the book as meaningless bit of fun, I doubt I'd remember much of it at all if it wasn't for all the furore surrounding it. It was a good story, but Dan Brown is no Tolkien.
I have mixed feelings on the issue, I am not a Christian and therefore feel no gut reaction to how the church is portrayed, but I do still think that a faith followed by so many deserves a certain amount of respect. But I don't think that this book/film steps over boundaries that I think need that respect or protection, any more than the Danish cartoons did.
So people should go if they want and not go if they don't and within 6 months or so those how were swayed by it will have been swayed by some other frippery that takes their fancy.
I will say though that the book should not be dismissed as being of absolutley no account, during my time in the library it was consistently the most requested book, for the whole year I was there there was a waiting list for it, and we had to discard several copies that were annotated by both those that were pro and anti the ideas put forth. People often wanted to discuss it with us too - and I was astounded at the number of people who believed almost everything in it out of hand (no doubt the same people who believe Braveheart and other such specious nonsense). I am still amazed that it has had the effect that it has.
People are always looking for easy ways to interpret the things they don't understand and this book offers what seems to be an inside track to knowledge that has been hidden, or at least that the book itself claims has been hidden - I think that's what so very cleverly appeals to people and draws them in.
Btw I think that the book that Cerin is thinking of is "The Holy Blood and Holy Grail" which IMO didn't even make a good read. It jumps from one conclusion to the other with no basis in fact whatsoever - again it's appeal seems to have been letting people into the secret.
------------
I don't remember it either, but apart from enjoying the book as meaningless bit of fun, I doubt I'd remember much of it at all if it wasn't for all the furore surrounding it. It was a good story, but Dan Brown is no Tolkien.
I have mixed feelings on the issue, I am not a Christian and therefore feel no gut reaction to how the church is portrayed, but I do still think that a faith followed by so many deserves a certain amount of respect. But I don't think that this book/film steps over boundaries that I think need that respect or protection, any more than the Danish cartoons did.
So people should go if they want and not go if they don't and within 6 months or so those how were swayed by it will have been swayed by some other frippery that takes their fancy.
I will say though that the book should not be dismissed as being of absolutley no account, during my time in the library it was consistently the most requested book, for the whole year I was there there was a waiting list for it, and we had to discard several copies that were annotated by both those that were pro and anti the ideas put forth. People often wanted to discuss it with us too - and I was astounded at the number of people who believed almost everything in it out of hand (no doubt the same people who believe Braveheart and other such specious nonsense). I am still amazed that it has had the effect that it has.
People are always looking for easy ways to interpret the things they don't understand and this book offers what seems to be an inside track to knowledge that has been hidden, or at least that the book itself claims has been hidden - I think that's what so very cleverly appeals to people and draws them in.
Btw I think that the book that Cerin is thinking of is "The Holy Blood and Holy Grail" which IMO didn't even make a good read. It jumps from one conclusion to the other with no basis in fact whatsoever - again it's appeal seems to have been letting people into the secret.
Whistler, the conversation in this thread is almost word for word the conversation that took place on TORC when Gibson's movie came out, only it was the Jews who were worried then about the sheep in the general public taking Gibson's covert message too seriously. The man is infamously anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier.
From this conversation:
Please don't tell me that that movie was historical when half of it was taken from the spiritual adventures of a psychotic medieval nun.
What was the reaction to Moslem objections to those Dutch cartoons? Even on this board, they were poo-poo-ed, they don't appreciate free speech, they're a violent people over-reacting, we're stupid if we give in to this political correctness, and so forth.
It IS dangerous to feed a line of titilating crap to a herd of sheep. I am not in the least hostile to the Christian reaction to this movie but understand it perfectly well. I am just bitten by the irony that the camp which dismissed these kinds of concerns before is now finding them quite serious. It really is different, isn't it, when the target is oneself.
Jn
From this conversation:
Yes, alas they do; but did anyone give a damn when anti-Semitism was what they were being fed?Unfortunately there is a large percentage of the population that believes whatever it sees in the media.
Please don't tell me that that movie was historical when half of it was taken from the spiritual adventures of a psychotic medieval nun.
When this dismissal was directed at Voronwë, it included "So take it somewhere else," at the end.Are people really expecting the general populace to take this movie seriously? It's a summer popcorn thriller, not a history documentary. Surely people get that, no?
Please. When the Jews objected to Gibson's movie they were poo-poo-ed, accused of having too much power in the media, accused of being over-sensitive, and besides THEY REALLY DID KILL JESUS so the movie is true.In Rome recently, Archbishop Angelo Amato, the No. 2 official in the Vatican's doctrinal office, told Catholic communications officials: "If such slanders, offenses and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust, they would have justly provoked a world uprising. Instead, directed at the Church and Christians, they remain unpunished. I hope you will all boycott the movie."
What was the reaction to Moslem objections to those Dutch cartoons? Even on this board, they were poo-poo-ed, they don't appreciate free speech, they're a violent people over-reacting, we're stupid if we give in to this political correctness, and so forth.
It IS dangerous to feed a line of titilating crap to a herd of sheep. I am not in the least hostile to the Christian reaction to this movie but understand it perfectly well. I am just bitten by the irony that the camp which dismissed these kinds of concerns before is now finding them quite serious. It really is different, isn't it, when the target is oneself.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
I tend to be in this camp. In fact, I believe that a Rabbi is required to be married. If Jesus had been single, it would have indeed been an abberation and much more likely to have been put into the accounts.It's interesting to note that many historians find the fact that no mention is made of Christs married status to be a strong argument in favour of his being married. There was no tradition of religious celibacy at the time, so if Christ was celibate it should have actually been of major note. Most Jewish men at his age would already be married.
In other words, one wouldn't bother to mention a wife, but the lack of one would have been of note.
If he married and had children... he couldn't very well have ascended into heaven... or is that not obvious?
It would? Why? Nowhere in the Gospels is any mention made of Jesus' virginity or celibacy or, indeed, his being single. There is nothing about him from the time he was 12 years old until he started his ministry. Those "lost years" have been spectulated on by many. Again, it would have been highly unusual for him to be called "Rabbi" if he were not married.That would mean that the Biblical accounts of Jesus life and teachings are false, deliberately deceitful. That would indeed undermine the trustworthiness of the scriptures, which would be of enormous importance to those who view them as the Word of God.
I do not find it implausible or in any way sacreligious that Jesus may have been married. I do not see why this would preclude his dying and being resurrected or why he could not have ascended into heaven.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Jnyusa wrote:You're generous, Anthy!
If it takes a clunky, unlikely, pretentious novel to open those portals of communication, that's a good thing.
I don't think that widespread trumpeting of a conspiracy theory known to be pure bunk is a good portal for communication.
For example, Gibson's movie would not be a good start for conversation with the Jewish People about Judaism.
Certain premises about truth have to be shared before conversation can be meaningful. Telling deliberate lies for fun, profit, revenge, or just because you're nuts can't be part of the picture.
Just for the record, I found the book to be not only stupid and wrong but poorly written, S-M gratuitous and sensationalistic (as Gibson's movie was, imo). It is beyond me how the book gained the popularity that it did ... (or maybe those last two explain do most everything).
Jn
I can tell, friend, that this brings up really powerful feelings for you.
I can't be in your shoes, as much as I would like to be, so I'll just step back and say I can feel your waves of distress, and that pisses me off. No one hurts my Jn.I'm now somewhat interested in reading that ToRC thread, but, well... maybe not. For the same reasons you're outlining here. I know there's garbage out there, but my brain is only so big; I would rather load it with the good stuff, if I have a choice.
Again, I didn't find the book all that offensive, it just seemed kind of... overblown stuff written by someone who didn't much care for the Catholic Church, and who was trying to be as controversial as he could be. I wonder how much of that stuff he even believes? You gotta admit, no matter what else is true, the man knows how to sell a book.
It was almost a moment of understanding Dan Brown's "come and get me" game plan when I read that he pronounced Christ's divinity as a manipulation of the nascent church.
Hmm. That's interesting. What could he be up to?
So he thinks Christ was married? That's shocking, a bit, but as Alatar says, it doesn't change the way I feel about Christ. I don't happen to believe it, but that's neither here nor there. Everyone will believe what they will.
Oh, and Dan says that there is ritual sex to honor the Goddess. Wonderful. Makes a good story, and he throws in the universal yuck factor of someone seeing their grandfather "doing it". Ewww.
But writing that Christ's divinity was an orchestrated lie? He's deliberately waving a red flag in front of the Christian faith. Really, it's so obvious. Whatever.
And the idea of Christians going and taking their friends was not mine; it was just the reaction I had seen locally in the Christian community.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
If the Passion was Anti-Semitic, I think that's wrong.
If the Cartoons were Anti-Muslim, I think that's wrong.
If this Movie is Anti-Christian, I think that's wrong.
I only think one of those things is true... so I guess that's where we disagree.
If the Cartoons were Anti-Muslim, I think that's wrong.
If this Movie is Anti-Christian, I think that's wrong.
I only think one of those things is true... so I guess that's where we disagree.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
No one hurts my Jn.
I try to watch the back of my friends, too.
I can tell, friend, that this brings up really powerful feelings for you.
Yes, I find the juxtoposition of religion, sado-masochism and sex to be a particularly scary combination. I am repulsed by this at a level so deep it is hard for me to find words to describe it.
Whistler and I had a conversation about this at one point and he helped me to understand the devotion of some Christians to the passion of Christ, as a meditative tool, and a path to humility, etc. At the intellectual level I can understand how this might be so, but popular culture does not address our intellect. Strong images in particular suck us in and leave very deep impressions. The trailers for this movie already set warning bells off in my head, that it would provoke unconscious (and conscious) gut reactions of anti-Catholicism at the very least.
I am not going to see it, btw.
Jn
eta: On a different topic, Jewel said: "Again, it would have been highly unusual for him to be called "Rabbi" if he were not married.
This is a technicality and has nothing to do with whether Jesus was married or not, but the people of his own day would not have called him Rabbi. That term came into usage later.
I try to watch the back of my friends, too.
I can tell, friend, that this brings up really powerful feelings for you.
Yes, I find the juxtoposition of religion, sado-masochism and sex to be a particularly scary combination. I am repulsed by this at a level so deep it is hard for me to find words to describe it.
Whistler and I had a conversation about this at one point and he helped me to understand the devotion of some Christians to the passion of Christ, as a meditative tool, and a path to humility, etc. At the intellectual level I can understand how this might be so, but popular culture does not address our intellect. Strong images in particular suck us in and leave very deep impressions. The trailers for this movie already set warning bells off in my head, that it would provoke unconscious (and conscious) gut reactions of anti-Catholicism at the very least.
I am not going to see it, btw.
Jn
eta: On a different topic, Jewel said: "Again, it would have been highly unusual for him to be called "Rabbi" if he were not married.
This is a technicality and has nothing to do with whether Jesus was married or not, but the people of his own day would not have called him Rabbi. That term came into usage later.
Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu May 11, 2006 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Gibson cast a Jewish actress as Mary and has made no anti-Semitic remarks that I have ever read.
He has never denied the holocaust and claims to have acquaintances who still wear tattoos from the labor camps.
He has refused to be manipulated by the media in condemning the nonsense spewed by his idiot father. If that's a crime, so be it.
He has never denied the holocaust and claims to have acquaintances who still wear tattoos from the labor camps.
He has refused to be manipulated by the media in condemning the nonsense spewed by his idiot father. If that's a crime, so be it.
Yes, alas they do; but did anyone give a damn when anti-Semitism was what they were being fed?
Please don't tell me that that movie was historical when half of it was taken from the spiritual adventures of a psychotic medieval nun.
I've not seen that movie, but in the time of publicity before its release, I (and so I assume others) understood it to be Gibson's attempt to film the Biblical account of those events. So assuming that was the context of those discussions, then it makes sense to me that the people who do not think subscribing to the Biblical account of Jesus' suffering and death makes one anti-Semitic, would have no reason to object to the film. You may recall that when we discussed this in another thread recently, I explained that I had been surprised by the concerns relating to anti-Semitism, about a film concerning Jesus' death.
Of course, that shouldn't have meant that those who did object to the film were silenced or disparaged.
Well, isn't that basically what's happening here? Those who think it is nothing to worry about are poo-pooing those who think it is something to worry about.Please. When the Jews objected to Gibson's movie they were poo-poo-ed, accused of having too much power in the media, accused of being over-sensitive, and besides THEY REALLY DID KILL JESUS so the movie is true.
Of course, no one here is being told to 'take it somewhere else', and Voronwë shouldn't have been told that, either.
But it was a very strong reaction; there were no violent protests here over the Gibson film, and I hope there won't be over this 'Da Vinci' film. Gibson wasn't intimidated from making his film, the makers of this film weren't intimidated from making it, but people are intimidated from commenting on Islam. This difference is due to the conduct of the adherents to Islam.Even on this board, they were poo-poo-ed, they don't appreciate free speech, they're a violent people over-reacting, we're stupid if we give in to this political correctness, and so forth.
I don't think not sharing the specific concerns is the same thing as invalidating other people's right to voice such concerns. I'm sorry that happened to you on TORC.I am just bitten by the irony that the camp which dismissed these kinds of concerns before is now finding them quite serious. It really is different, isn't it, when the target is oneself.