Page 4 of 9

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:57 pm
by Paganlight
Sorry, Sorry - I was just upset and annoyed that's all. Let's just drop it, and move back to the subject at hand. Andy - I've already apologised, but I do so again - Davisham, I apologise for bringing it up on this board. It's in the past now, so....what's done is done.

OK - been watching an interesting program tonight called the 'Quest for the Grail' - following Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, and looking at things like the painting of the Last Supper, and the supposed female in there - did anyine else watch it? Any thoughts? Did Jesus love Mary Magdelene? If so, is it possible he married her and had children? Just a tjought.

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:31 pm
by davisherm
I think that the possibility exists. And that's why I posted this thread. I was very interested in the article. Like I said before, I'd heard the theory before and this was more information on it. For a Jew of Jesus' age not to have taken a wife would have been abnormal - although there's no argument that he was anything but a normal man. But to have taken a wife and treated her right would have been setting the proper exemple for his congregation.

All that aside;

Historically speaking, it's a heck of an interesting topic. It is, of course, a can of worms for the Catholic church if it's true. Because that would entail that they suppressed information about Jesus and his life. And also about some aspects of his ministry. The article I linked to postulates that there may have been two Christian churches. One that followed Jesus' family and the teachings that he set forth and then the Catholic Church, which pruned Christ's message to what they wanted to say and viciously attacked the other Church; possibly where Heresy first cropped up.

Some argue that this is where the division between Protestants and Catholics come from, and that the King of England used the existing division to get his way about the divorce he wanted.

At any rate, I recommend reading the article. It's good reading, even if it is pure fiction. Myself, I'm undecided. There's a whole lot of superficial evidence to support the theory. But I haven't seen any of it firsthand, so I cannot judge it.

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:57 pm
by Paganlight
Certaintly does sound very interesting - and backs up a lot of what was said on the Grail programme.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:58 am
by Rain ForestMoon
davisherm wrote:.....Historically speaking, it's a heck of an interesting topic. It is, of course, a can of worms for the Catholic church if it's true. Because that would entail that they suppressed information about Jesus and his life. And also about some aspects of his ministry. The article I linked to postulates that there may have been two Christian churches. One that followed Jesus' family and the teachings that he set forth and then the Catholic Church, which pruned Christ's message to what they wanted to say and viciously attacked the other Church; possibly where Heresy first cropped up......
That is all very well as far as a nice conspiracy theory goes, but it ignores the fact that the christian church (be that orthodox, catholic, protestant, or otherwise) was founded - not by Jesus, nor by people who knew Jesus (that is assuming Jesus actually was a real person) - but by Paul.

Paul had never met Jesus, Paul was constantly warring with the people that had known Jesus, and in the end the views of Paul somehow got the upper hand. So, there was nothing to hide, because neither Paul nor his followers KNEW anything about Jesus. They had heard a few bits and pieces, and made up the rest as they went along, weaving a fair bit of Mythraism and Gnosticism into the story.

So, the church had no way of knowing if Jesus (if he actually ever existed) had children or not. There was no need to hide anything, because they did not know anything.

From (my very own) pagan perspective I have to say, however: "Who cares!"

Blessings

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:58 am
by Antonius Varus
It's good to know that people around here are aware of the facts.

I was recently insulted for saying that the New Testament of the Bible was written by men who had no first hand knowledge of Yeshua, nor any true understanding of his teachings.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:42 pm
by Paganlight
Which of course, is completely true - Paul DID write the Bible, not God, or Jesus - and as has been said before, Paul didn't know anything about him!

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:55 pm
by Crazy Healer Lady
Wow. I have stayed FAR away from this topic until now, and I just read it all through.


My two cents are not at all fantastic. I used to be very Xian in my kidhood, carrying my free bible all over and trying really hard to read through it and not understanding why they did all this stuff. All I knew was that I felt God, and loved it. I realize what I was feeling now. I never believed in God in the Man-God of Christianity sense, but as a Source of unconditional Love and Power.
As for Jesus, I have always believed in Jesus. Scientifically he may or may not be probable. He may or may not have been the Son of God. But he was a prophet, the last acceptable, I am afraid, as Mohammed is not acceptable to Xians. But Jesus was a prophet, like all the ones before him that were very much accepted as speaking the words of God. Now, prophets and mediums are considered to be talking with Satan or lesser demons, even if they are speaking with angels. Sorry, a rant there.

Anyways, I agree in that I believe it was entirely possible for Jesus to have kids. He WAS a Rabbi. He WAS human, maybe an Avatar but still human. Humans have needs. Marriage was big back then. I am not sure if I believe he had kids, but I think it is not honouring the origins of Christianity to say that all that happened is known now. (Whoa, deja vu) Of course it is possible that he had kids. One may or may not believe he did, but isn't it reasonable to expect that through all the rewritings, all the time passed, all the knowledge that has been left out, the history of it all, that something like this could be possible?

I will not argue that it happened or it didn't, but I think one would have to be unreasonable to say it isn't possible. Heck, ANYTHING could be possible. The history we are fed in schools is comeplete bull! I mean, in Canada we are shown NOTHING of what we DO know of Russian history until Grade 12 history, and it is an elective. We are still uncovering facts about it, and about all sorts of events around the world.
But, again, if one does not want to consider these possibilities, that is their choice. Does not make them stupid or bad. Their choice.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:22 pm
by davisherm
Paganlight wrote:Which of course, is completely true - Paul DID write the Bible, not God, or Jesus - and as has been said before, Paul didn't know anything about him!
Well, we don't know that Paul wrote the entire Bible.

A number of the books are attributed to him and he obviously had an important role in the early Church. But to say that the Bible was written entirely by him is kind of over stating things.

Just as a question of writing style, there are clearly multiple authors. Paul's style of writing does not appear (that I've noticed) at all in the Old Testament. He's very prominent in the New Testament, of course.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:07 pm
by Paganlight
I'm sorry, that was my fault, I didn't make my post clear - I was merely agreeing with RainForestMoon - I don't think Paul wrote the ENTIRE Bible - not by any stretch of the imagnation.....

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:38 pm
by Brown Eyed Girl
Can i just ask a question... why is it so weird that a man 2000 years ago may of had a kid....?

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:18 am
by Antonius Varus
Nothing weird about it at all my dear, they just find it difficult to accept.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:16 am
by Andy
Antonius Varus wrote:Nothing weird about it at all my dear, they just find it difficult to accept.
'they'

Because it didnt happen! God told followers of christ to not have sex until marrage, therefore his son, who tought many of these rules, would not have had sex.

Please can you have respect for the christian teachings on this, you dont have to agree with them, there is no evidence to suggest that he did.

Thanks

Andy

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:38 am
by Antonius Varus
There's no proof that he did, but there's no proof that he didn't.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:40 am
by Brown Eyed Girl
it is possible that a healthy man got married and had a kid. just as millions and millions of others did. they wern't all recorded thousands of years ago. there ae still many boping around now that arnt recorded.

for all you know he got married and had a kid. and for all we know he didn't

i am not disrepecting you andy i am just saying there is a chance that a man had a kid.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:41 pm
by Rain ForestMoon
Andy wrote:
Antonius Varus wrote:..... God told followers of christ to not have sex until marrage.....
This is simply not true. God said no such thing.

Some of the followers of Jesus (or some of the followers of the followers of Jesus) said that God said not to have sex until marriage.

Control freaks, that's what they are.