?The chalice that held the blood of Christ? it speaks, in fact, of Mary Magdalene?the female womb that carried Jesus? royal bloodline?behold the greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but he was a father.? (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code p.249)
The Da Vinci Code claims: Was Jesus married, and also a father?
?Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion. For the safety of Christ?s unborn child, she had no choice but to flee the Holy Land. With the help of Jesus? trusted uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. Mary Magdalene secretly traveled to France, then known as Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish community. It was here in France that she gave birth to a daughter. Her name was Sarah.? ( The Da Vinci Code p.255)
?The marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record.?
( The Da Vinci Code p.245)
History’s version of the events:
Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus and the first to see the resurrected Lord (John 19). This Mary was of the city of Magdala, a wealthy city. She was healed by Jesus and became one of his supporters (Lk 8:2, 3). The scriptures never said she was a prostitute and it wasn?t Peter who authored the rumor, but Pope Gregory the Great 5 centuries years later.
Read the rest of the article
111 Comments
Feed for this entry
Trackback Address
April 4th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Excellent Article and very helpful! Thanks!
April 8th, 2006 at 7:48 am
how did u know it was Jesus that impregnated Mary Magdalene thats even f she was ever pregnant any proof and why would Jesus have hidden such story I find it very difficult to beleive because its not in the Bible
April 8th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Pope Gregory the Great lived 540 to 604 AD (thank you Wikipedia) so I think there is a typo on the webpage. It should be 5 centuries after Paul not 5 years.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Thanks Sheldon,
Yes it looks like there are two Sheldon’s on this site. I’ll let the site editors know so they can fix the typos.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Hello everyone. yes I believe he was married. I’ve read the book and I’m looking forward to the movie. I can’t say that I believe each and everything that has been uncovered. ( Not with Dan Brown’s book but with holy blood holy grail, and Lawrence Gardners book “The magdalene legacy”) but I do think that some aspects of Mary Magdalene were kept from the public. I actually found a small site that sells Magdalene or the davinci code “bling” and I have to admit I actually bought a cap from them. I think I’ll wear mine out and about to see if anyone can catch it. Here is the address in case anyone else is interested. http://www.cafepress.com/magdalene
I’m so glad I found another forum that has some interesting conversation about this. So far I’ve started to go beyound just Dan Brown’s book, and when I decided to do that, it opened the whole story up. Lots of information and I highly recommend “The Magdalene Legacy” It’s easy to read and understand and it compiles all of Gardners books.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Dear Ann
That site cracks me up! I personally don’t agree that Jesus was married. Can you point me to where you got your factually evidence?
April 13th, 2006 at 7:23 am
I don’t think that every aspect of Jesus’ life was recorded in the bible. Whether he was married or not really is circumstantial because it has nothing to do with salvation. I do not know whether he was or not but looking at the historical context of the Jewish people at that time, it would not surprise me if he was. For many of the male characters in the bible, their female partners are not mentioned. This is not surprising in a culture where women did not have a leading role in society. Women in the bible who are mentioned are usually women who do not fit the traditional “mold” of women at that time. For example, a leader of the church (I forget whose grandma that was…), etc.
I think that we often get hung up on inconsequential stuff and in doing so really turn off people who are seeking truth.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Jayne, I know for sure that there’s much more recorded about the life of Jesus than what we have in our Bible. The question is the authority of the text we have. Women had a prominent role in Jesus’ life. I’m not sure what you mean about “traditional mold”. Are you saying the “ordinary housewife” wouldn’t have been mentioned?
But you raise a good point about being an inconsequential item and it blocking the truth. It’s not something that is huge in the grand scheme of things. What is the saying, “Important but not critical”? IMO, this falls in that box. My theology isn’t changed by Jesus’ marital status. His claim to divinity makes all the difference to my theology and my life.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Jesus was an holy and clean man, the only one who didn’t deserve to die but died for all that deserved to die. Everyone is sinful and there is no way to God because of that but Jesus shed innocent blood to cover our sins so that when we ask for forgiveness Jesus has made our sins white as snow. That is the essence of Christianity.
Although all the details of Jesus’ life were not recorded the significant ones were. When Jesus was on the cross he says in John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” If Jesus was married wouldn’t he asked someone to look after his wife?
April 13th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
The Bible is very clear that Jesus has a bride and it wasn’t Mary. That bride is the church (not organized religion, but all who are true believers in him and in what he said and did).
April 16th, 2006 at 5:00 am
To put it simply, Jesus was never married. He could not have been married or had any sexual relationship and still been a sacrifice for all that would believe and submit to His will. Some think that his being married has nothing to do with salvation, this is totally and completely wrong. If you do your research concerning sacrifices you will find that all sacrifices to God had to be not only perfect but also they were virgins, not having been bred. In Jesus case His perfectness and acceptability as a sacrifice comes in light of His having commited no sin and not having any sexual relationship. His virginity was intact allowing for Him to be a perfect and acceptable sacrifice.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
well, you’re right, and you’re wrong.
here’s what’s right. whether Jesus was married has no bearing upon our OWN progress, the faith we have to evidence, the obedience to the laws of God we have to follow……..
what’s wrong? this, the idea that sex (per se) is evil, “original sin”, or in any way defines who is or who is not holy, pure, etc.
Now, then. Was Jesus married? we don’t know, and maybe shouldn’t, but these items are interesting:
First and foremost…..Jesus is ALWAYS obedient and subservient to His Father, God…who declared way back in the beginning that “it is NOT GOOD that…man should be alone”
Second…..since the wedding at Cana was supervised by Mary, His mother…..it would be reasonable to expect that she is acting in that capacity, as mother of the GROOM…
and a host of other trifles…
but, this one is magnificent, especially on this Easter day….the fact that, no, Christ up on the cross wouldn’t neccessarily have made arrangements for someone to watch over His wife…..because, He was determined to do it Himself, immediately after completing His work….and did so, when he came to see her, FIRST, that Sunday morning, even before He ascended to HIS FATHER. That moment was all she needed, after that, the mundane things like home, food, etc wouldn’t have mattered all that much. Besides, she had a family too in Magdala…..Her remaining life, we know very little about. Children? not likely, although it makes for a good fiction novel in Da Vinci Code
April 16th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
In I Corinthians (written by the Apostle Paul in A.D. 55) 9:5, Paul makes the arguement that he was the right to take along a believing wife, “as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas [Peter].”
If Jesus was married, obviously Paul would have used Him as an example in his arguement.
There is no document written earlier than A.D. 250 that would even imply that Jesus was married, and the “gospel of Phillip” (pg. 246) is so far from being an accurate historical source, as to be laughable.
Could Jesus have been married? Yes. Was He? No.
April 17th, 2006 at 5:09 am
It seems as though the point I was making was totally missed or intentionally overlooked. There was no implication that sex is evil. Quite the contrary sex in marriage is encouraged by God as he tells husband and wife to come together often so the temptor doesn’t enter in. The concept of original sin doesn’t apply here either for the Bible clearly states that the son doesn’t bear the burden of the father’s sin, but the soul that sinneth it shall die. But that is another topic of discussion, here we are speaking of Jesus as a sacrifice for sin for the entire world. Jesus could not be married or have had any sex, fornication, for in doing so he would have made himself impure as a sacrifice. Sacrifices were to be virginal and without blimish. This is the point I was making in the previous message. Jesus was a sacrifice acceptable to God therefore he met the requirements of all sacrifices to God. Do a little research concerning sacrifices and you will see what I mean. To imply or make accusation that Jesus was married or otherwise envolved with Mary is to make God a liar and the entire plan of Salvation a farce.
April 20th, 2006 at 5:21 am
Well look at it this way, we do know that there are many more ancient books and scrolls that talk about Christ and his life its just that we haven?t seen it or don?t know what?s written in them the don?t get me wrong (I?m a catholic) but we have a book that we follow and we do know that there are many bibles out there but we choose to read the one book that was made by some one. The bible is many books put together isn?t that correct so who chose only these few books to form the bible, now again I?m not saying I believe everything that is written in Dan brown?s book as for him I truly find him very smart simply because he turned a political topic into a religious one I believe that if the church is really hiding such information it is more for political value than religious if we knew the truth about Mary the world would not be the same women would be equals if not higher that men example: a girl pope are you getting what I mean?????? J
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Candida said: now again I?m not saying I believe everything that is written in Dan brown?s book as for him I truly find him very smart simply because he turned a political topic into a religious one I believe that if the church is really hiding such information it is more for political value than religious if we knew the truth about Mary the world would not be the same women would be equals if not higher that men example: a girl pope are you getting what I mean?????? J
My response: If the Catholic Church were hiding the truth, we would obviously have to conclude that they were acting against God, would we not? How likely is it that the Church would be able to carry this off successfully for 2,000 years? In all that time someone certainy would have spilled the beans.
Many people make the mistake of assuming that, since the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained to the priesthood that it believes that women are somehow inferior to men. The Church teaches that men and women are equal before God; they just have been given different roles. The male-only priesthood does not denigrate women any more than the fact that men can’t give birth denigrates them.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Let’s be honest. If you believe what the Bible says then you know Jesus is the lamb Pure & without sin. In order to be the Saviour he had to be born by a Virgin and live a sin free life. He would have been defiled if he had sex.
Surley he would not have risen if he had defiled himself.
Obviously he did rise and the veil in the temple was rent in twain on the instant of his death representating that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary to be Saved.
Read the Prophets Matthew - Mark - Luke & John
April 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Of course I do not believe that Jesus was married. Since sex outside of marrigage (fornication) is a sin and Jesus was sinless, He did not engage in sexual relations with anyone. However, sex, in the context of marriage and when it is open to procreation, is not defiling.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Sex outside of marriage is considered adulturus.
Sex between Adam & Eve began after “original sin” when they were expelled from The Garden Of Eden. They also began to eat meat. {check Genesis} before and after.
Jesus had to be conceived outside of original sin. He was not truly a Mortal Man conceived in sin.
Basically it looks like man lives in the flesh even though the spirit is willing.
Eventually outside our body we will not need sex, Just Love.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Sex outside of marriage is adulterous only if at least one of the people involved is married. If both are unmarried its considered fornication. The important thing to remember is not the semantics but the fact that, regardless of what we call it, it is a mortal sin, it separates us from God and, unless forgiven, will land us in Hell.
While I would agree that they did not conceive any children until after the Fall - otherwise they would not have inherited original sin - the command to multiply was given in Gen 1:28, before the Fall. There is no reason to believe that Adam and Eve did not have sex prior to the Fall even though it never resulted in a pregnancy.
The permission to eat meat was given after Noah’s flood (Gen 9:3). dam and Eve were never allowed to eat meat; only Noah, his wife and their descendants. I’m not sure what relevance that has, however.
Jesus was one person with two natures. (This was settled at the Council of Ephesus in 431.) He has a complete divine nature and He took on a human nature when He was born of Mary. He did not suffer from original sin but that is not an intrinsic part of human nature. Jesus’ human nature was sinless, unlike most people. Adam and Eve were also created without original sin and the Catholic Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was divinely protected from original sin (and all other sins, as well).
Sex is not a necessity now. Many people live celibately their entire lives. My point was that it’s not defiling either unless done outside of the marriage union. In other words, it is the corrruption of sex that is defiling.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I have been studying this question since I first read Holy Blood, Holy Grail in 1988 and have lived in Europe and been to Rennes-le-Chateau five times, Montsegur and all the related sites carrying a large field research library with me and adding to it as I traveled. I have read many arguments pro and con regarding the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (or at all) and here is what I think;
On balance it must be allowed that Jesus was likely married. He would have been without authority as a Jewish man (and he was called rabbi even if he wasn’t one officially) who would have been married according to tradition by 16 as all males were - and to girls of 14 and over. Because there is no overt mention of Jesus’ marriage or not, it must be assumed that he followed that commandment, because he is said to have kept all of the commandments in the New Testament. There is some gray area, but the Gospel of Phillip (Gnostic) seems to say that he kissed MM more than once. I reject the claim by people like Bart Ehrman that this is a symbolic kiss meaning to pass knowledge - now that is a stretch without specific evidence of that interpretation in the first century. And then there is the pile of evidence in tradition in Southern France where MM landed in 44CE and lived in a cave in St Baume until her death. Sir Laurence Gardner, eccentric that he is claims that her skull and humerus gilded in gold is all that is left of her bones after the site was vandalized during the French Revolution. Where are they? In possession of an Italian nobleman who must come forward to show us sometime. But as one site says, it is really a question of proving that he wasn’t married because lack of tumult over a single older man going about teaching, would have been noted by someone. Jesus was not an Essene. Evidence is that Essenes were not interested in the current politics and were pretty much hiding out from society not trying to change it as Jesus was. It is more likely that he was a rabble rouser - minor royal of the house of David attempting to raise the population up against Roman occupation by “forcing the end” as described by Joel Carmichael in “The Birth of Christianity.” He miss calculated, was arrested and crucified as were all rebels and criminals against Roman Empire. His brother and original “Jesists” were all killed in the first War of the Jewish Uprising in 64-70CE. No one lived through that and all writings appear one at a time no sooner than 20-40 years later. No one really knows anything, but MM was in Southern France. What she began seemed to have been heretical since it was there where the later Albigensian crusade took place stamping out that alternative Christian view, that seemed to take root there so readily in the 12th century.
As we know, a leader especially a male usually succeeds because he has what we term “charisma.” I have known a lot of men with various levels of this ability to charm people and one thing that I have noted is that they are also very virile and sexual. I would argue that not only was Jesus married, but he had a following of adoring women, the very ones who the Gospels note followed him and gave him and his other desciples money to live and carry on their movement. Women supported this show! Don’t miss that. Wealthy, probably eccentric women of high status whose families were wealthy. They would have been more like religious groupies I think and Jesus a bit more like Jimmy Swaggart than what he was made into a couple centuries later. I have never seen case of powerful, alpha males who did not have some sexual involvements. Historical evendence show that even the Popes, until very recently had sexual lives. Some were blantantly sexual to the point of demented perversion. So we are supposed to think that Jesus was not married and was too holy to touch a woman? Reason and logic and evidence tells us otherwise.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
A couple of quick points (at least quick for me):
There is a tradition of French origin that claims that Mary Magdalen went to France and died there. There is another, earlier tradition that she went to Ephesus to live with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and died there. Proponents of both traditions claim to have relics to support their case. Although I don’t have enough information to be more certain about which tradition is true, it seems to me that it makes more sense that she would have gone to live with Jesus’ mother.
It may have been rare for a rabbi to be unmarried - I’m taking your word on that - but it wasn’t unknown. St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was a rabbi and not married.
The Gospel of Philip is a Gnostic forgery written between 180 and 250 AD. There is no reason to take anything it says at face value. There might be some truth in it but the dangers of being led astray greatly outweigh the value of anything that might be accurate.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I am amazed that no one has touched on the real reason of the “Last Supper” and the use of the “cup” of wine and the bread.
From the King James version of the Holy Scriptures the wine in the cup represents the sacrificial blood that Jesus was getting ready to shed for our sins and the bread was for the sacrifice of his body. He passed the cup & bread around for each of his deciples to partake from and said to do this in rememberance of him. This is called The Holy Eucharist in the Church or commonly called communion.
It is beyond me that any intelligent person can turn “This do in remembrance of me” as Jesus instructed us, into anything other that what it says.
I am sure there were and are many scoffers of Jesus that would love to find a way to discredit him. All you have to do is read the word. Those that have eyes let them see.
This could surely be described better by a theologian and I hope someone will endeaver to focus on this as it is obviously an act of remembrance of what Jesus came here for. To Save Us By The Sacrifice of his Body.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
P.S I am not an historian but I originaly understood that the holy grail was commonly known to some as the cup that was used at The Last Supper. I have never read anything in the Bible regarding the cup being filled with Jesus’ Blood. If there is a scripture to back this up let me know.
April 30th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
What reason would the church have to label MM as a prostitute other than to discredit her for being the wife of Jesus?
April 30th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
also, when were the other books of the bible written. Why must the gnostic be dismissed so quickly. All books were written by humans. All are inaccurate. Unless God himself wrote them down himself, there is room for error. As far as Jesus being married and the painting of the last supper, who cares what da vinci painted, it was his interpetation. If I paint something is it fact. No its my painting, my interpretation. Even though I do believe Jesus was married and the Cathloic church is hiding things, the painting means nothing.
April 30th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Hey confused, thanks for stopping by and leaving your questions. I can’t say I fully know the answers to your questions, but here’s my take…
Why the church labeled MM as a prostitute? To be honest, I didn’t realize that until I read DVC. Maybe the church did that, but growing up in the church, I didn’t realize it. Maybe I missed it, so I can’t speak to that.
You asked about when the books of the Bible were written. Most agree that all of the New Testament was written by 100 AD, give or take a few years. Most of the Gnostic writings were written around 300 AD, give or take. That’s one reason, among others, that the books we have in the NT are regarded as authoritative. It’s more reliable to read testaments of people closer to the date of the event. And if I remember my history correctly, one reason there was a gathering of church leaders by Constantine in the 300s was to confirm (or canonize) what books are authoritative. There’s some good articles on this at Jesus and DaVinci.
As for the deal with Da Vinci’s painting, I can’t agree with you more. It’s not a polaroid of the event! But, what Brown is saying in the book is that Da Vinci knew “the truth” and so he gave clues in his paintings.
Why do you believe Jesus was married and for what purpose would the church have in covering that up?
May 8th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
John 3:16
May 8th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
1 Peter 3:15
May 9th, 2006 at 10:08 am
The Da Vinci Code movie?s premise that Jesus married Mary Magdalene is correct. We, 21st century descendants from the 1st century marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are seeking other descendants.
The Archangels, with whom over 100 true descendants are now working with to create Miracle Waters, have explained that ?Global Dimming? has so decreased the level of spiritual energy upon planet Earth, that one?s mind has to be awakened and one?s Soul activated before one can realize they are a descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Last week, the Archangels of Light recommended that we add a Soul Activation Technique to our on-line DNA test to help us locate other 99th generation descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
A short 4 minute on-line DNA test explains the role of one?s pineal gland, (called the mind, or Soul in the west and the 3rd Eye in the east), in the activation of one?s Soul. The DNA test?s Activation Technique awakens the spiritual energy in one?s Soul enabling people to experience the wondrous movement of spiritual energy in their Soul.
Individuals experiencing the movement of spiritual energy in their Soul during the DNA test will then personally know that they are a 99th generation descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Newly found descendants are recommended to contact members of their family and join us in our weekly worldwide teleconferences where descendants are given additional ancient secrets and taught to fly with the Archangels of Light so we may help the children Ascend.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
If you believe that Jesus was married and fatherd mortal children then you are surely misled in believing that he had royal blood. The thing that makes Jesus royal is that he is the Son of God. Because of this he did not live in the flesh but was one with his Father. If Jesus had faltered in his duty to be the Lamb Of God and save our sins by the shedding of his blood then he would be like mortal man and his mission here on earth would have failed. This surely would not be something to brag about. Of course there are many decendents of Jesus’ family
as he had a very large family but no chldren. If Jesus had children then it would have been told. Why would people choose to believe that a mortal man was the Son of God when many were martyrd for this beliefe. Moses had a wife and family but he was not the Lamb Of God. The whole reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin was to be pure and without sin. Jesus had a mission and it wasn’t that of a mortal man. He was never intended to marry and stay a carpenter for the rest of his life. He was intended to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. He spent his years here on earth to teach us that Love is all you really need. If you read the Bible you will find directions on exactly how to do this. We are all Jesus’ family in the spirit. You’ll find if you seek the truth you will have a spititual awakening. Jesus said knock and the door will be opened. Seek and you will find. I guarantee you if you knock on the door of Jesus he will answer and you will have a true spiritual movement going on within you. Believe me it has not been the word of man that has caused the world to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our saviour It is the work of his gift The Holy Spirit.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am
From the off i wanna make it clear i’m no bible basher or Jesus fan. But yes i do feel someone of influence existed at that time, just not in the way the so-called Bible portrays it.
I’ve been ‘into’ Spiritual stuff since i was 12- back in ‘79- when i read a book about life after death. I’ve always been able to see through the weakness, the absurdities of Human Life here, i felt i must be from elsewhere ( I Am). I’ve since explored thoroughly, was initiated into sacred meditation techniques in ‘86, have had profound experiences now and then ever since- Light and Dark, including an Angelic Activation. I have cured myself of spreading Cancer. I’ve learned to trust my guidance and intuition. I feel this deep inside: We are in the midst of an Awakening that is so profoundly All Encompassing! But it begins inwardly in the individual- in you and me.
Anyway, back to the subject of Yeshua: I feel there was an Awakened One at that time, who caused a bit of a commotion, but such is the usual affect on your average, unenlightened folk! After he departed this Earth the illuminati saw an opportunity and- typically- made their moves.
The gospels are actually recycled Dying Sun-God myths, that the controlling powers used for their own ends, twisting, distorting and exaggerating the Truth, as they most cleverly do. The Real Truth of Jesus/Yeshua is that he represents our Highest ideal, that which we can all aspire towards, and eventually Realise. There is no absolute seperation between us and He, just as Christians think there was no seperation ‘tween Jesus and God the Father. Really, Christians project a topsy-turvy reality, inwardly subject to outer forces further twisted by the Illuminati! Such that profess to wield the only Truth in book form couldn’t be further from it!
The man to whom the Jesus story clings is but one of a comparitive few who have attained the Highest Realisation, who’ve fulfilled their Highest Potential here on Earth. Planet Earth has been THE most difficult place to realise Enlightenment in this Universe! So all praise to those that attained to it within this densest of Vibratory levels, in the darkest of times. Their Dynamic Presence is still available to sincere aspirants, so by all means call upon them.
Self-Realised Godmen and women have been prevalent in India for thousands of years- Yeshua traveled in India- but it’s when one arrives in the west that- in the main- confusion reigns!
One thing is clear to me- Any Being who has attained the status of ‘Christ,’ in this Universe is related to the rest of us, no ultimate difference to those of us ‘not yet’ attained. They are kin to us, sort of Elder Brothers and Sisters in ‘God/dess’- or Oneness. There is- in the beginning and the ending- only One Christ, which is the Over-Arching Spirit or Over Self, an extension of Infinite Love Above ALL, WITHIN ALL- without exception, the Presence of the Creator within us and about us. It is the Christ Spirit which now draws ever closer unto us, calling us to Awakening.
Now, one Elder Brother, the man known as ‘Jesus,’ was a Way Shower, One who attained to the status of Christ. But as i have said, and must emphasize-THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHERS- of Supreme God Realisation. Sons and Daughters of God. Again, “Christ” Consciousness is an attainment open to all who make sincere effort to open themselves to- IT. It is our Destiny.
Those who attain to the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Love and Light, from which all things are manifest- including us (especially us)- embody in themselves the Sacrifice of the lower egoic self, (a most painful Crucifixion!) and because of their unselfish sacrifice for the Salvation- the Enlightenment of all- they will stand forever as Pillars of Indestructable Light, complete embodiments of Infinite Love. Eternal Symbols of Love & Light they are, forevermore an intrinsic part of the fabric of the Cosmos.
“Christ” means “Anointed,” and “Anointed”- the English translation of the Greek word “Christos-” is given to Yeshua on account of his being “Anointed-” with the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of the Living God, or Infinite Love- thus his “Holy” Calling. He and others were anointed unto this end before the creation of THIS world, in realms Beyond Time and Space- and this was symbolically reaffirmed ‘in the flesh’ at the “baptism” by “John the Baptist.” It was after this that he received the “fullness of the Father,” a patriarchal twist on the “Fullness of the Power and Light of God/dess.”
He is ONE, among others, the many and the One, who kept all the “Laws” and “Commandments,” who followed the Inner Voice of Real God from grace to grace, from one bit of instruction to another, unto the total understanding of Heaven and Earth.
Yeshua’s work and mission was not to take away our freedoms and exalt us into Glory by us simply saying we believe on Him, or to say that we know He existed, or, that he is the Son of God. Such an idea is preposterous- yet it is the common belief of many. His entire life was to show us just how the Power of that Inner Light WORKS, and how WE can, by following the same patterns and initiations, receive the SAME Power and do the VERY SAME works he did, even GREATER WORKS!!!!
Ask any Christian if they believe in Jesus Christ, and the emphatic answer is YES! But ask them to actively PROVE this and they will fail- utterly. “Jesus” said: “If you believe in MY NAME, ye can ask anything and it will be done unto you.” Is this statement false? Is this promise a mistake? Is it a lie where he declared, “Verily, i say unto thee, that if you believe on me, the works that I do- shall ye do also- and greater works than these shall ye do- because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will i do, that the Father may be Glorified in the Son. IF YE SHALL ASK ANYTHING IN MY NAME, I WILL DO IT.” Not for one instant are these statements or promises false. They are the most True Promises ever uttered. It is man who has failed- failed to understand or believe in THE POWER OF THE NAME.
The name “Jesus” is the greek translation of “Joshua” or according to ancient Hebrew “Jeshua” or “Yeshua.”
“Jah” or “Yah” means literally, “I shall be.” And “shua” means, “powerful.” Thus Jesus is a promise- the promise, “I shall be powerful.” And the word “Christ” means “Anointed” or “Anointed with light” thus completing the promise and power of the name. “I shall be powerful when i am anointed with light!” Do you believe in that name? Have you ever believed in it? Has anybody you know ever fully understood or believed in the powerful name of “Jesus” Yeshua Christ? If anyone does believe- TRULY- in that name, then they would fulfill that name within themselves, and can do the works that “Jesus” did. But mankind has not understood and thus hasn’t received the powers that are it’s BIRTHRIGHT. Instead the majority believe that a great Personage, who is the only fulfillment of that power, is the One who is to “save” them and lift them up into Heaven and all that is necessary for them to do is sit back, wait and let Him do it- all of it!
How ridiculous. Enlightened Ones would not do YOUR work for you and could not come near such people, for exposure to the True Blazing Light of Spirit would consume them utterly! Those people, you “Christians” should stop fooling yourselves and everyone else, stop paying lip service to someone you DON’T REALLY BELIEVE IN! You merely believe in a distorted, topsy-turvy version of the Truth, insidiously manipulated for controlling purposes. I understand why you are as you are, but still, you are all being Pathetic. Well, most of you. Sorry, but it has to be said.
WAKE UP!
WAKEY WAKEY!!
Wake up and smell the Roses.
Until we Realise en-masse, until we Awaken the Christ that lives NOW within us, that beckons us, the millions of religious sheeple will continue to dominate our lives, directly or indirectly, their naive second hand mutterings, childlike musings, book quotings- ad nauseum- will hold sway. Uurrrggghh, perish the thought!
Take a leap of Faith!
May 16th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Truth is that you are apparently into “spiritual stuff”.
Looks like you’ve inherited many different beliefs with many truths.
The one thing you have ignored is the “Blood”.
Jesus is the only prophet I have read about that shed his blood for our sins and then came back from the dead to show us the way. If you check further you will find other historical evidence in writing to prove that Jesus did live.
One of the things I must say is if you read your above discription of Christians, you will see that there is no love portrayed.
Check out your beliefs and see if hurtful criticism unto others pertains, because if it does maybe you should check out Christianity.
Hey and have you ever read John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Also: Read Acts and find out about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
and look at the remarkable wonders that Christians have access to. By the way the Holy Spirt is the gift that Jesus left us to comfort us also known as The Comforter to christians.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Augustus,
The story of Jesus dying for our sins and rising three days later was actually taken from a pagan religion long before Jesus ever lived. I’m not sure which one, I will do some research over the next couple of days to get the info out. The story was just retold with Jesus. If you research pagan religions, you will find that most of the stories in christianity were stolen and retold. The story of Jesus being born in a manger under a bright star, and the three wise men with gifts, is also a pagan religion story told long before Jesus.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Here is one good website to start.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
May 17th, 2006 at 1:18 am
usure your so right
The truth is,
the Church was formed to serve people just like this, those who are unable to grasp nuances and unable to think beyond a certain scope, those who are unwilling or unable follow what is perhaps the singlemost powerful and significant of all Christ’s (and Buddha’s, and the Tao’s, etc.) teachings: that is, to seek God within. Not in a priest. Not in a building. Not in an organized institution. Within you.
Let us calmly relish how we are reminded, once again, that belief and faith and the dusty ancient oral-tradition stories that attempted to define them are, and always have been, and always will be, suspect, and fluid, and problematic, and wonderful, and dubious and malleable as pita bread on a warm summer’s day.
It may not matter that the vast majority of “true” believers won’t be swayed in the slightest by this discovery, that it wouldn’t matter if Christ’s body were unearthed tomorrow and Jesus were found to have an “OM” symbol tattooed on his sacrum and an Astarte pendant around his neck and an ancient iPod with lots of old Sabbath and Leonard Cohen songs. Most staunch Christians would still adhere to current codes like nervous kittens huddling in a leaky life raft.
But here’s what does matter, now more than ever: We do not always know what we think we know. The Bible certainly does not always say what we think it says. Faith and divinity and even entire religions are not static and fixed; they should move and dance and inbreed and adapt with time, with culture, with intellectual evolution. Simple enough? Did you already know? J
Hell, it’s only been about 65 years since the publication of the last earthshaking, goddess-cranking Gnostic tract, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, a truly landmark find that rocked the Christian world and sucker-punched the misogynist Church and revolutionized Magdalene scholarship and inspired Tom Hanks to grow his hair long so he could appear in “The Da Vinci Code,” much of which was based on the discovery of Mary’s truly astounding gospel.
It’s a breathtaking piece of writing that essentially paints Jesus’ favorite consort as quite deeply informed of a rich and particularly mystical version of Christ’s message — one that, it must be said, essentially defies just about everything the modern Church stands for, in how it extols the virtues of finding God, once again, not through a church or priest or blind faith but by raw self-exploration and unique individual spirit. You gotta love it.
And all this only 60 years after the big daddy of recent biblical discoveries, the massive Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic gospels, an astonishing collection of delicious, banned writings from one of the more mystical, pro-sexual, pro-women, open-minded sects of early Christianity, one of many that offered radically differing versions of Christ’s story and message, but which, like the rest, eventually lost out to the more militant and dogmatic Church many of us know and recoil from today.
(Remember, like history, religion is written by the victors. It is then revised by the powermongers, leveraged by the fearful and wielded as a nasty weapon by the conservatives. Same as it ever was.)
Is it not perhaps the single greatest fallacy of all time? That mankind is somehow a meek and inferior quasi-deity ever struggling to live up to some hideously puritanical idea of the sacred and the enlightened? That morality and religion are somehow clean and flawless in their messages and that God is somehow scowling down every day, watching and taking notes?
Or that the Bible — make that all bibles, of every shape and kind, from any culture, are merely ever-shifting kaleidoscopes through which you may observe the world and absorb some lovely wisdom and moral color, but which you should never, ever mistake for real life? Can I get an amen?
tha truth is there look at it
tha truth
May 17th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Documents written during his lifetime which mention Jesus: There are none that date from the period 7 BCE to 33 CE.
The Gospel of Q: This is believed by many theologians to be a collection of sayings, “which included moral teachings, prophetic admonitions and controversy stories, plus a few miracles and anecdotes.” 1 These had been transmitted orally and are generally believed to have been first written down by his followers circa 50 CE. Unfortunately, the gospel does not include any dates for Jesus’ life. If Jesus had been executed circa 30 CE, then many who saw and heard him preach would still have been alive and could have verified that the gospel was accurate. But a case can be made that the gospel was assembled out of sayings from the 1st or 2nd century BCE.
** Epistles from the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
bullet Liberal theologians believe that some of these were written as late as 150 CE, up to 4 generations after Jesus’ death, by authors who were not eye witnesses of his ministry. Those writers could have based their letters on traditional sayings attributed to Jesus which dated from an earlier era. An analysis by G.A. Wells showed to his satisfaction that the authors definitely believed in the existence of Jesus, but did not cite any evidence that he lived in the 1st century. 17 They were vague about the location, timing and nature of his birth. Paul does not describe Jesus as a miracle worker, healer or teacher. Paul blames Jesus’ death on Satan and demons, rather than the Roman government. (2 Timothy does blame Pilate and “the Jews” for his death. It thus ties the execution of Jesus to a person known to be alive in the 1st century CE. However, this epistles was written long after Paul’s death, and may have picked up the concept from the synoptic gospels which had been widely circulated by that time.)
bullet Conservative Christians believe that all of the books which state that they were written by Paul were actually authored by him prior to his death in the mid 60’s CE. Although there is no evidence that he was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry, Paul wrote that he received personal revelations directly from Jesus, presumably in the form of visions. Paul mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. That would be a strong indicator that Jesus had lived in the early 1st century CE.
bullet The canonical Gospels:
bullet Liberal and mainline theologians generally believe that Mark was the first gospel written, and that it was composed about 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were authored up to 15 years later. John was written after Luke. None of the authors identities are known. If these dates are correct, then it is unlikely that any of the authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry. In spite of their claims, they were relying on secondary or tertiary sources, and accumulated church tradition.
bullet Conservative theologians date the gospels much earlier. The Scofield Bible asserts that Matthew was written by a tax collector by that name who was mentioned in Matthew 10:13. Dr. Scofield accepted what he referred to as the traditional date of 37 CE. If the authorship and date are correct, then the gospel represents convincing support that the author was a disciple of Jesus and an eyewitness to his 1st century CE ministry.
bullet The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) overall:
bullet Many liberal theologians view the Christian Scriptures as being composed of some accurate material said and done by Jesus, mixed in with a many descriptions of Jesus’ sayings and acts that never happened. The latter came from a variety of sources:
bullet Religious propaganda directed at enemies of the author’s religious group. (Anti-Judaic passages in John which imply that “The Jews” are responsible for Jesus’ execution is one example.)
bullet Events that never happened, but were added to satisfy prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). (The identification of Bethlehem as the birth place of Jesus is one example.)
bullet Other acts and sayings that were either distorted versions of Jesus life, or which were created out of nothing. These were added in order to bolster the traditions that had arisen within the author’s faith group. (Jesus instructing his apostles to baptize in the name of the Trinity is one example.)
bullet Material copied from other religions in the Mediterranean area in order to make Jesus’ claim to be the God-man. (e.g. the virgin birth, resurrection, status of Jesus as savior are some examples.)
bullet Stories of miracles that never happened but were added to bolster the importance of Jesus. (e.g. raising the dead, or healing people of leprosy, blindness, hemorrhaging, indwelling demonic spirits, etc. are some examples).
bullet Probably some other components that the author has missed.
Some liberal theologians might believe that there is little or no accurate information about Jesus that has survived to the present time. As Bertrand Russell wrote in “Why I am not a Christian.”: “Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him.”
bullet The Gnostics: The early Christian movement was composed of Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians. Gnostics in particular maintained that God could never take human form. Some denied Jesus’ existence as a historical person.
bullet Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus’ as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.
bullet Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage “appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative.” 18
bullet Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the entire passage as legitimate. 8
There exists no consensus on a second passage in Antiquities which refers to Jesus’ brother James, having being tried and stoned to death. Some consider it legitimate; others assess it to be a forgery.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Really good website
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html
May 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Augustus i didnt forget the blood .lol.
Jesus was a xerox God, a copy of Mithras, because Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, 400 years before jesus called The Redeemer, and Mithra’s temple in Rome had a sign saying: “And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood.” The details of Jesus’ story are so close to Mithras’ myth, there had to be copying, right?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Because of seperation there will always be two sides to every story. Maybe satan made the xerox just to confuse us.
I prefer to rely on the history of Christianity.
I don’t have time now to injest your above information and make a reasonable remark but I will ponder this and possibly get back to you.
I do believe our spiritual experiences should be between us and God.
Paul of Tarsus hated Christians until Jesus appeared to him. In fact he murdered Christians. What a contrast.
By the way do you know whether it was Pilot or Herod that died as a martyr after becoming a Christian.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:21 am
How possible on earth can a vigin woman gave birth without any fertilization of a male sperm, while clowning is the only possible way to create life without partner having sex.I hate the fact that religion is against what science bring to life because those who believe in it thing that god is the only one who create life, while scientists can.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:30 am
An Interesting Forum.
I have some points to share.
Jesus was without sin — because he did not sin. Not because mary or even God was his father. He did not give in to temptations.
The Virgin birth– The significance was not in Mary so much as that her spouse/Father of her child was God. She was virgin insofar as she knew not (did not have sexual intercourse) with a mortal man- when she got pregnant with and bore her son Jesus Christ. God the Father was the Father.
Jesus was born of the Father– He had to have God the Father be the husband/spouce/father of Mary’s child for Jesus to be the literal and in fact ‘Son of God’. God had the power over death and the power to resurrect and the power to Forgive. These were the reason’s Jesus was able to be the Creator (father of heaven and earth under the authority of God the Father); Christ (the leader of his Father’s children) the Savior (the one who proferred the powers of the Atonement; and the First Fruit of Resurrection. The scriptures point out both in prophesy of the Old Testament and the testimony of the Apostles in the New Testament- that Christ could not be killed (he had the power over death) and he could only die if he willing gave up his life. The jews nailed him to a cross because he allowed it. He did not die because of an act of violence in the procedure of the Crucifixtion — but rather of a broken heart when he allowed himself to die with the conscience act and will to allow his heart to burst upon his command and declaration ‘it is finished’.
Christ was in fact married. Jesus had to obey every command of the Doctrine of Christ that he as Jehovah had proclaimed by his voice and through directions through the Holy Ghost to the Prophets prior to his comming to earth to gain a mortal body.
Christ was the pattern– He was the just and true example of life in all its aspects. He was obedient to and honored his Father in Heaven (as well as his step-father Joseph the carpenter) And his Mother Mary. He was baptised as was the command of the Gospel of Christ given from the foundation of the world before the man Adam was placed upon the earth. The companionship, guidance and blessings of the Holy Ghost were given Jesus as marked by the showing of the sign of the dove at his baptism. He had to obey and follow every stricture given by the Father that Jesus learned from his parents; the scriptures available to him at the time (copies of scrolls from the Old Testament); and the answers to his prayer and subsequent and thereafter continuing Revelation from Heaven. He had to learn, pray, receive answers from God and follow them. This is no great mystery.
Jesus was not born on earth knowing who he was or his mission. He had to learn and grow just like us. The significance was the fact that he was obedient. When he found that he was the literal Son of the Father– he fulfilled ‘his’ life mission as the Savior and Redeemer of the World. Just as John the Baptist learned became worthy and completely fulfilled his calling as the one to prepare the way for the Messiah and to perform the required ordinance of baptism for Jesus.
Some of the scriptures were changed and removed by wicked conspiring men over the centuries. God does give men their agency (the power to choose good or evil). He will protect and restore that which is necessary to complete his work here on earth. Not all the scribes over the years were accurate or without sin or agendas.
The scriptures we have clearly do note in both Old and New Testament that they do not contain all the works of the God. And the apostles declared that that which they wrote had only the smallest portion of what Jesus did in his life on earth.
Please don’t think that it was un-necessary or in any way a detraction of the divinity of the Savior that he would fulfill the command given to Adam and ALL of his posterity to be joined with a woman ‘as one’ and to be fruitful and multiply. Why would Jesus come to earth — keep and declare that he was obedient and not keep that commandment??? That is ridiculous.
He was the author and finisher of the Faith of man. Man that includes men and women as married and the foundation of family. If the family was un-important to Salvation and Exaltation of man– Why did Jesus simply descend out of Heaven upon the earth and begin his ministry? Why be born as a innocent unknowing little baby. Why have all the trouble of finding a pure undefiled righteous in every way girl Mary to have kept herself from men and have The Father give her the baby that would house the Spirit of Jesus????? Come on.
The pattern was that we - the spirits of us all — come to earth and enter into the physical bodies God helps through natural process of creating mortal bodies inside a woman. We are all born on earth to our mommies and dadies. Jesus came to earth the same way. If he had done anything we can’t or would’nt be able to do– then we could not have followed him!!
We are commanded to follow Jesus. We are commanded to be like Jesus. We are commanded to be perfect as Jesus. If he did anything we are totally unable to do then we could’nt follow him. Each of us are different in our essense as people with different talents and missions in life. Jesus is our leader and his mission was the Atonement and Resurrection. John the Baptist was to be the herald for Jesus and to baptise the Savior to fulfill the law. Peter to be an apostle and president of the church the Savior brought back to earth. Our missions are all different– but the pattern of life and becoming holy to go back to God was set by Jesus.
We are commanded to find a wife and husband respectively and marry then have children. Jesus had to follow the same rules we have to follow. They are in fact the rules he as ‘The Great I Am’ — Jehovah prior to comming to earth set. Why in the world would he not follow what he established with as Father as ‘God’ ordained??
Yes the Savior was married. And his sweetheart met him at the Garden tomb on the greatest day of his life when he completed the task and mission on earth for His life– the completion of the Atonement with the Resurrection. What a beautiful and glorious day– and he could share if but for a short time with his wife and heart of his heart Mary.
I want and try to follow the Master to find and marry and to have children and teach them to be humble prayful and obedient to the point they seek the face of God and enoble themselves to the point they can return into the presence of their Heavenly Father, The Master Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost in Heaven.
Felicitations– Your brother and friend Kevan
May 18th, 2006 at 10:20 am
brotha kevan
Paul and Mark, Matthew, Luke and John all believed Jesus was divine. They believed He was divine. So when Paul and Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, none of whom ever met Jesus, sat down to write about His life, they naturally wrote it as they understood it.
When cops at the OJ trial lied, white Americans saw that the colored guy did it, and the lying policeman was a side issue. Black Americans saw another turn of the racist system out to get them. What people saw depended on the ideas they already had in their head.
Ideas like that run deep. In fact, your understanding of anything is never just about the raw facts. Your understanding always depends on a thousand connections between the raw facts and your basic ideas about how the world works–in the OJ case, ideas about men and women, marriage, race, crime, police, courts, juries, TV. The truth is, you don’t understand anything except in terms of your basic ideas. That’s what “understanding” means — fitting the raw facts into the ideas you already have.
Back in ‘95, the only way anyone could understand what OJ did, or didn’t, do to Nicole, was to fit the raw facts to the ideas they already had in their head. Whatever the raw facts, OJ became a nigger with a knife, or a rich man beating the system, or a brother who stuck it to white oppression.
Back in the first and second centuries, it worked the same with Jesus. The only way the ancients could understand Jesus was to fit the stories about Him to ideas they already had in their heads. And the ideas they already had were ancient Pagan ideas. Logos-God. Saving wisdom. Miracles. Magic. Prophecies. Heaven, hell, eternal life. Godmen. Whatever the raw facts were, Jesus became a teacher of Gnostic wisdom, a charlatan magician, or a walking talking prophecy fulfilling miracle working eternal life improving Pagan mystery religion godman.
Ancient Pagan Gods like Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, and others weren’t just Gods in human form, they were God-men?subordinate Gods, son’s of the great universal God, miraculously conceived, born of a mortal woman, living for a while on Earth rather than in Heaven. Sound familiar? Sure it does. That’s because Jesus is a Pagan godman.
When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God,
we understand that as a myth.
When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.
In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades,
we understand that as a myth.
When Vespatian’s spittle healed a blind man,
we understand that as a myth.
When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth. >>
When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece,
prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true,
we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God,
we understand that as a myth. >>
When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin,
we understand that as a myth.
When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman,
we understand that as a myth.
.
When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman,
we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman,
we understand that as a myth.
When Scipio Africanus (Scipio Africanus, for Christ’s sake) is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman,
we understand that a myth
So how come when Jesus is described as
the Son of God,
born of a mortal woman,
according to prophecy,
turning water into wine,
raising girls from the dead, and
healing blind men with his spittle,
and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades?er, I mean Hell?for the bad folks…
how come that’s not a myth?
And how come, in a culture with all those Sons of God, where miracles were science, where Heaven and Hell and God and eternal life and salvation were in the temples, in the philosophies, in the books, were dancing and howling in street festivals, how come we imagine Jesus and the stories about him developed all on their own, all by themselves, without picking up any of their stuff from the culture they sprang from, the culture full of the same sort of stuff?
May 18th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Maybe it was the power of the Blood that made a difference.
Maybe it was the resurection that made the difference.
Maybe it was the power of the Holy Spirit moving on the world that made the difference.
Maybe because of this thousands were martyrd for their persistant beliefs. What kind of power could make a person give up his life for his religious beliefs?
What could make millions around the world believe?
It is more powerful than can be understood unless you have experienced it.
You can only come unto the Lord through the wooing of the Holy Spirit.
If you harden your heart for too long you won’t be moved by the wooing.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Kevan,
From what I understand, prior to Adam & Eve’s disobedience they were free from sin. When they had children their children were born into sin.(That’s why be get baptized). Jesus had to be born outside of sin so he could not have a mortal father.
Jesus’ mission here was’nt to show us how to be a good family man. His mission here was to fulfill the word and show us the spiritual way. Man can not live by bread alone.
May 19th, 2006 at 9:45 am
I don’t know if anyone has touched on this but I heard a great explaination by Chuck Swindoll as to why Jesus was never married and could not have possibly had children. Jesus did not have Adam’s sin nature because He did not have a human father. He was sinless. As we know..the sin nature or Adam’s sin is passed down through the man..every man. Now, if Jesus had children, they would not be tainted by sin…they would be sinless like Him. God would have never had that in His plan because if even one person was born without sin…why the cross? Why would He allow an entire line of people to enter the world born without sin? The Bible says that “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Kind of makes sense to me.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
hey guys, just back from watching the da vinci code.Film was good, slightly dissapointing but it is the thought provoking element of it that has me on your site at 1am! Having already read the book and vaguely dalved into the ‘truths’ of the da vinci code i was just wondering if anyone has any pointers as where there is to search for most accurate unbiased related info!! as everyones ideas are obviously and understandably tainted! i am very intrested though in whole thing!! keep it up, (keep me up) ha
x
May 21st, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I think the jesus was married. Just by looking at the last supper it truly does look like “JOHN” is a woman. I believe that “JOHN” is mary magdalene.Its hard for me however it truly say if they had a child together but i wouldnt be suprised.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 am
I have heard some very terrifying expanations of our Beloved Savior but yours were very disturbing-Jesus Christ was not ever married or had children all the stuff on this web site if it does not support the Bible You need to have a true experience with the Holy Spirit & you would know all this junk is just people that are not educated enough to under the true Jesus- When time shall be no more “Where is all these people going to be standing as Jesus declares heaven or hell- If there is no heaven or hell where are you spending eternity? People please wake up before you wake up in”HELL”. Sick , stupid people with no background-Onece you experience the Savior -The junk or stupid information would stop!!!!!
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
It seems that the central issue here is the devinity of Jesus. Was he God as well as man? In a nutshell, he would have to be both for his death on the cross to pay for the sins of the human race. (Salvation)
His being a husband and father doesn’t make him more or less a man. And I can’t see how it makes him less able to be devine. There was no sin associated with getting married and having children. He could thus still be sin free and devine.
As for the Gnostic beliefs; it wasn’t a belief in the “Gospel of Mary” that branded them heretics. It was their primary belief; that salvation was possible only through the learning of secret knowledge. This belief would have put strict controls on who could be saved. That is the primary reason gnostic beliefs were considered heresy by the Christian church.
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
She was his wife. The Christian concept that Jesus was God and therefore he was untouchable by anybody is nonsense, because as a Jew he would have had to conform to Jewish tradition at that time?and Jewish tradition said that the male had to marry and have children. And he was also heir to the throne of David. It would have been incumbent on him to produce another heir to keep the bloodline going. Had he not been married and done that, he couldn?t have been the heir to the throne.
And Mary Magdalene came from a very important family?far more important than the Christian gospels tells us. And it probably was an arranged marriage by the two families to promote the aristocracy because Jesus was certainly an aristocrat, not just a humble carpenter
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Truth,
You are coming from the perspective that Jesus was not divine and just a man. If Jesus was divine he wouldn’t need a bloodline.
I have a question to for you. Jesus was born from a virgin , if that doesn’t make you a divine being then what does? If Jesus was divine why would he need to follow the Jewish laws. Jesus was born to set us from all the Jewish old testament laws.
May 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Re: Leah - virgin birth.
His vigin birth was a miracle. That wouldn’t make him divine. The miracles He performed, and then his rising from the dead, these were indications of his divinity. But you can’t prove it. You either believe it, or you don’t.
Re: Truth - Jesus’s blood line.
He was decendent from David through the Virgin Mary. He would not have been in line for the throne of Isriel. By his own words, his kingdom was not of this world.
And again, whether he married Mary Magdalene or not, it has no reflection on his divinity. If he is divine, then he needs no blood line, and if he isn’t, then there is very little significance to his blood line.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Jesus’ kingdom is not here on earth. Even his deciples had a hard time understanding that he didn’t come here to wear royal robes and cut down his enemies. Jesus is the promised savior from the old testament. There are many decendents of the bloodline of the house of David. Because of Gods promises Jesus was born of the house of David through the virgin Mary. Mary had other children James and Martha who too have contributed to the house of David but their father was Joseph.
Jesus preached peace and love. He said that whatever you do to the least of men you have done to him.
If you really want to know more about Jesus start in Genesis and end in Revelations. I am sure you will get the overall synopsis. Either you believe in the Holy word “the two edged sword” or you don’t. Isn’t it easy to see that you can only do Holy battle against evil with the armour of the real truth, “the word”.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Alan,
I think we are on the same page. I was just trying to make the point that Jesus was divine and not just a mortal man.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Mary, Jesus’ mother was a wonderful woman, blessed of God, a virgin, but she was not sinless. She was born with original sin just like the rest of us. In fact, In Luke 1:46-47, also called Mary’s Song, she acknowledges her need for a Savior. “My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”
Mary went on to have other children. The Bible says Jesus’ brothers were named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. His sisters were mentioned but not their names. Sister’s is plural so we know Jesus had at least 2 sisters. As Jesus hung from the cross, He spoke to John who was standing there with Mary, Jesus’mother and Jesus told John to look after her…to take her as his mother. Wonder why he didn’t think to provide for Mary Magdeline if she was His wife..or His children? Why would he begin a marriage and family only to leave them alone. I’m beginning to think Dan Brown has an “axe to grind” with Jesus. If Dan were to believe in the diety of Christ, that would make him responsible and accountable for his sins. It’s much easier to deify self and reject the authenticity of a God-man, then there is no condemnation.
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Rosie, I see that you are very well armoured with the word.
The Bible says that Jesus will come and destroy the anti Christ with a shout.
The truth will set us free!
Thank you for the additional information.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:20 am
The Bible story of Jesus is a contradictory and confusing account. The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things, and often believed he was having a conversation with devils. If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible and believe that it was written by a wise, just, and loving god. Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Unfortunately, there are some even today who would have us return to the teachings and laws found in the Bible.
We are taught in our culture that Jesus is the divine hero, but other cultures have different saviors. Religious beliefs are a function of the culture in which one lives. If we had been reared in a different culture, we would have heard the story of a different savior, instead of the Jesus story. Upon comparing the stories of the different saviors, one finds that the similarities are so striking, it is beyond a doubt that they are more than just a coincidence.
Jesus is a myth just like all the other saviors and gods of old. Atheism is the clear and rational alternative to the confusion, fear, and superstition that are offered by religion. Atheism encourages freedom of thought and inquiry, while religion by its very nature has to encourage unquestioning obedience and blind faith in doctrines. Belief in god myths has brought misery, suppression of thought and inquiry, fear, and has promoted ignorance. The human race no longer needs these myths of old. Just as little children grow up and learn the truth about the existence of the tooth fairy, the human race needs to mature and learn the truth about the existence of god.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
the Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a “popish imposture.” The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:56 am
because I cannot keep it back, because I have nothing better to say than the truth, or what I hold to be the truth. But why seek truths that are not pleasant? We cannot help it. No man can suppress the truth. Truth finds a crack or crevice to crop out of; it bobs up to the surface and all the volume and weight of waters can not keep it down. Truth prevails! Life, death, truth — behold, these three no power can keep back. And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us cultivate a love for it. It is of no avail to cry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or to call to the departing gods to come back. It may be pleasant to play with toys and dolls all our life, but evidently we are not meant to remain Children always. The time comes when we must put away childish things and obey the summons of truth, stern and high. A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will say is the truth, do you know of any good reason why I should not say it? And if for prudential reasons I should sometimes hold back the truth, how would you know when I am telling what I believe to be the truth, and when I am holding it back for reasons of policy?
The truth, however unwelcome, is not injurious; it is error which raises false hopes, which destroys, degrades and pollutes, and which, sooner or later, must be abandoned. Was it not Spencer, whom Darwin called “our great philosopher,” who said, “Repulsive as is its aspect, the hard fact which dissipates a cherished illusion is presently found to contain the germ of a more salutary belief?” Spain is decaying today because her teachers, for policy’s sake, are withholding the disagreeable truth from the people. Holy water and sainted bones can give a nation illusions and dreams, but never, — strength.
A difficult subject is in the nature of a challenge to the mind. One difficult task attempted is worth a thousand commonplace efforts completed. The majority of people avoid the difficult and fear danger. But he who would progress must even court danger. Political and religious liberty were discovered through peril and struggle. The world owes its emancipation to human daring. Had Columbus feared danger, America might have slept for another thousand years.
I have a difficult subject in hand. It is also a delicate one. But I am determined not only to know, if it is possible, the whole truth about Jesus, but also to communicate that truth to others. Some people can keep their minds shut. I cannot; I must share my intellectual life with the world. If I lived a thousand years ago, I might have collapsed at the sight of the burning stake, but I feel sure I would have deserved the stake.
People say to me, sometimes, Why do you not confine yourself to moral and religious exhortation, such as, ‘Be kind, do good, love one another, etc.’?” But there is more of a moral tonic in the open and candid discussion of a subject like the one in hand, than in a multitude of platitudes. We feel our moral fiber stiffen into force and purpose under the inspiration of a peril dared for the advancement of truth.
“Tell us what you believe,” is one of the requests frequently addressed to me. I never deliver a lecture in which I do not, either directly or indirectly, give full and free expression to my faith in everything that is worthy of faith. If I do not believe in dogma, it is because I believe in freedom. If I do not believe in one inspired book, it is because I believe that all truth and only truth is inspired. If I do not ask the gods to help us, it is because I believe in human help, so much more real than supernatural help. If I do not believe in standing still, it is because I believe in progress. If I am not attracted by the vision of a distant heaven, it is because I believe in human happiness, now and here. If I do not say “Lord, Lord!” to Jesus, it is because I bow my head to a greater Power than Jesus, to a more efficient Savior than he has ever been — Science!
“Oh, he tears down, but does not build up,” is another criticism about my work. it is not true. No preacher or priest is more constructive. To build up their churches and maintain their creeds the priests pulled down and destroyed the magnificent civilization of Greece and Rome, plunging Europe into the dark and sterile ages which lasted over a thousand years. When Galileo waved his hands for joy because he believed be had enriched humanity with a new truth and extended the sphere of knowledge, what did the church do to him? It conspired to destroy him. It shut him up in a dungeon! Clapping truth into jail; gagging the mouth of the student — is that building up or tearing down? When Bruno lighted a new torch to increase the light of the world what was his reward? The stake! During all the ages that the church had the power to police the world, every time a thinker raised his head he was clubbed to death. Do you think it is kind of us — does it square with our sense of justice to call the priest constructive, and the scientists and philosophers who have helped people to their feet — helped them to self-government in politics, and to self-help in life, — destructive? Count your rights — political, religious, social, intellectual — and tell me which of them was conquered for you by the priest.
“He is irreverent,” is still another hasty criticism I have heard advanced against the rationalist. I wish to tell you something. But first let us be impersonal. The epithets “irreverent,” “blasphemer,” “atheist,” and “infidel,” are flung at a man, not from pity, but from envy. Not having the courage or the industry of our neighbor who works like a busy bee in the world of men and books, searching with the sweat of his brow for the real bread of life, wetting the open page before him with his tears, pushing into the “wee” hours of the night his quest, animated by the fairest of all loves, the love of truth, — we ease our own indolent conscience by calling him names. We pretend that it is not because we are too lazy or too selfish to work as hard or think as freely as he does, but because we do not want to be as irreverent as he is that we keep the windows of our minds shut. To excuse our own mediocrity we call the man who tries to get out of the rut a “blasphemer.” And so we ask the world to praise our indifference as a great virtue, and to denounce the conscientious toil and thought of another, as “blasphemy.”
May 24th, 2006 at 11:11 am
the most impossible utterances are put in Jesus’ mouth. He is made to say: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do.” No man who makes such a promise can keep it. It is not sayings like the above that can prove a man a God. Has Jesus kept his promise? Does he give his people everything, or “whatsoever” they ask of him? But, it is answered, “Jesus only meant to say that he would give whatever he himself considered good for his friends to have.” Indeed! Is that the way to crawl out of a contract? If that is what he meant, why did he say something else? Could he not have said just what he meant, in the first place? Would it not have been fairer not to have given his friends any occasion for false expectations? Better to promise a little and do more, than to promise everything and do nothing. But to say that Jesus really entered into any such agreement is to throw doubt upon his existence. Such a character is too wild to be real. Only a mythical Jesus could virtually hand over the government of the universe to courtier who have petitions to press upon his attention. Moreover, if Jesus could keep his promise, there would be today no misery in the world, no orphans, no childless mothers no shipwrecks, no floods, no famines, no disease, no crippled children, no insanity, no wars, no crime, no wrong! Have not a thousand, thousand prayers been offered in Jesus’ name against every evil which has ploughed the face of our earth? Have these prayers been answered? Then why is there discontent in the world? Can the followers of Jesus move mountains, drink deadly poisons, touch serpents, or work greater miracles than are ascribed to Jesus, as it was promised that they would do? How many self- deluded prophets these extravagant claims have produced! And who can number the bitter disappointments caused by such
May 24th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Stories of gods born of virgins are to be found in nearly every age and country. There have been many virgin mothers, and Mary with her child is but a recent version of a very old and universal myth. In China and India, in Babylonia and Egypt, in Greece and Rome, “divine” beings selected from among the daughters of men the purest and most beautiful to serve them as a means of entrance into the world of mortals. Wishing to take upon themselves the human form, while retaining at the same time their “divinity,” this compromise — of an earthly mother with a “divine” father — was effected. In the form of a swan Jupiter approached Leda, as in the guise of a dove, or a Paracletug, Jehovah “overshadowed” Mary.
A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.
In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born. In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on his mother Maya, “in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb,” and was born from her right side, to save the world.” [Stories of Virgin Births. Reference: Lord Macartney. Voyage dans 'interview de la Chine et en Tartarie. Vol. I p. 48. See also Les Vierges Meres et les Naissance Miraculeuse. P. Saintyves. p. 19, etc.] In Greece, the young god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the world.
In ancient Mexico, as well as in Babylonia, and in modern Corea, as in modern Palestine, as in the legends of all lands, virgins gave birth and became divine mothers. But the real home of virgin births is the land of the Nile. Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God. Of course no one will think of maintaining that the Egyptians borrowed the idea from the Catholics nearly two thousand years before the Christian era. “The story in the Gospel of Luke, the first and second chapters is,” says Malvert, “a reproduction, ‘point by point,’ of the story in stone of the miraculous birth of Amunothph.” [Science and Religion. p. 96.]
Sharpe in his Egyptian Mythology, page 19, gives the following description of the, Luxor picture, quoted by G.W. Foote in his ‘Bible Romances,’ page 126: “In this picture we have the annunciation, the conception, the birth and the adoration, as described in the first and second chapters of Luke’s Gospel.” Massey gives a more minute description of the Luxor picture. “The first scene on the left hand shows the god Taht, the divine Wolrd or Loges, in the act of hailing the virgin queen, announcing to her that she is to give birth to a son. In the second scene the god Kneph (assisted by Hathor) gives life to her. This is the Holy Ghost, or Spirit that causes conception. … Next the mother is seated on the midwife’s stool, and the child is supported in the hands of one of the nurses. The fourth scene is that of the adoration. Here the child is enthroned, receiving homage from the gods and gifts from men.” [Natural Geneses. Massey, Vol. II, p. 398.] The picture on the wall of the Luxor temple, then, is one of the sources to which the anonymous writers of the Gospels went for their miraculous story. It is no wonder they suppressed their own identity as well as the source from which they borrowed their material.
Not only the idea of a virgin mother, but all the other miraculous events, such as the stable cradle, the guiding star, the massacre of the children, the flight to Egypt, and the resurrection and bodily ascension toward the clouds, have not only been borrowed, but are even scarcely altered in the New Testament story of Jesus.
That the early Christians borrowed the legend of Jesus from earthly sources is too evident to be even questioned. Gerald Massey in his great work on Egyptian origins demonstrates the identity of Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Isis, the mother of Horus. He says: “The most ancient, goldbedizened, smoke-stained Byzantine pictures of the virgin and child represent the mythical mother as Isis, and not as a human mother of Nazareth. [Vol. II, p. 487.] Science and research have made this fact so certain that, on the one hand ignorance, and on the other interest only, can continue to claim inspiration for the authors of the undated and unsigned fragmentary documents which pass for the Word of God. If, then, Jesus is stripped of all the borrowed legends and miracles of which he is the subject; and if we also take away from him all the teachings which collected from Jewish and Pagan sources have been attributed to him — what will be left of him? That the ideas put in his mouth have been culled and compiled from other sources is as demonstrable as the Pagan origin of the legends related of him.
Nearly every one of the dogmas and ceremonies in the Christian cult were borrowed from other and older religions. The resurrection myth, the ascension, the eucharist, baptism, worship by kneeling or prostration, the folding of the hands on the breast, the ringing of bells and the burning of incense, the vestments and vessels used in church, the candles, “holy” water, — even the word Mass, were all adopted and adapted by the Christians from the religions of the ancients. The Trinity is as much Pagan, as much Indian or Buddhist, as it is Christian. The idea of a Son of God is as old as ‘the oldest cult. The sun is the son of heaven in all primitive faiths. The physical sun becomes in the course of evolution, the Son of Righteousness, or the Son of God, and heaven is personified as the Father on High. The halo around the head of Jesus, the horns of the older deities, the rays of light radiating from the heads of Hindu and Pagan gods are incontrovertible evidence that all gods were at one time — the sun in heaven.
May 24th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I was quite surprised when I read “the truth”s comments, so please indulge me as I respond point-by-point to what he/she wrote:
“The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things”
Such as? Even most of those who cannot accept that Jesus is God accept Jesus as a “great teacher” (even if that position is untenable). Which statements of Jesus do you consider “absurd” or “foolish”?
“If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions … It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible and believe that it was written by a wise, just, and loving god.”
We shouldn’t confuse what the Bible *records* with what it *endorses*. There are many things that the Bible tells us about that it does not at all endorse. There are indeed stories of murder, sexual perversions, etc, but clearly these things are not encouraged. If a newspaper reports on a rape that occurred, they are not endorsing the rape.
“Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war”
Mankind doesn’t need to misread the Bible in order to commit atrocities; communism showed us that quite graphically. Here’s a useful example: Imagine a police officer is found to be corrupt. He steals, fabricates evidence, abuses people, is racist, etc. Now, from this can we conclude that all police officers are evil, and/or we should eliminate the entire police force? Certainly not. This one person would not only be acting entirely opposite to how police officers should act by definition (and thus should not be truly considered a police officer at all) they also are not indicative of the vast majority of police officers who provide a necessary service. The same principle can be applied to Christians; I don’t deny that Christians have unfortunately committed some heinous acts, but that does not invalidate the truth of the gospel message.
“Atheism encourages freedom of thought and inquiry, while religion by its very nature has to encourage unquestioning obedience and blind faith in doctrines.”
No one here encourages “blind faith”. Unlike most religions, Christianity is firmly routed in history, and the claim that Christians promote faith against all rationality is false. I came from an atheist background and accepted Christ after a long period of careful investigation. I did not throw my brain away when I became Christian because there was no need to.
“Jesus is a myth just like all the other saviors and gods of old.”
Christianity is different from other faiths in three major ways: The historical reliability of the Bible, the person of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Of course there will be parallels to the old “saviors” and “gods of old”, but a) This is to be expected to some extent since they deal with similar subject matter, b) Does not prove any copying occured, c) The similarities are often overblown or simply false (ex. Mithras), d) The old myths were not rooted in history as the Bible is.
“Just as little children grow up and learn the truth about the existence of the tooth fairy, the human race needs to mature and learn the truth about the existence of god.”
This sort of argument is designed to provoke an emotional reaction; surely there are good philosophical arguments for God’s existence (Kalam argument, argument from design, ontological argument, and many more), so comparing the tooth fairy to God is, well, “absurd and foolish”.
“the Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century.”
Sorry, this statement is not accurate. The Muratorian Fragment, for example, from the mid-2nd century, lists almost all of the accepted biblical texts as canonical. You are correct that the Bible was indeed recognized as a collection of independent writings. The different letters and writings that make up the New Testament are “occational literature”, for example Paul wrote a letter to the Romans to discuss specific issues. Its too long to go into detail here, but suffice to say that the canon of the new testament was not decided “300 years ago”, and was not “collated” by Constantine as stated in The Da Vinci Code. The fact that Greek Catholics accepted the book of Revelation relatively recently only confirms that the early church was correct in accepting it to begin with. The Gospels were included in the NT because (among other reasons) they were the earliest gospel documents that had been in use in the church for quite some time; so-called “gnostic gospels” such as those used to suggest Jesus was married (trying to bring this back to the original topic of this blog entry heh) were written at least 50 years later than the gospels found in the NT, and hence were largely and rightly ignored by the early church.
Sorry for the long reply, but I felt certain issues raised here should not go unchallenged.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
One additional note, since “the truth”s last post was added before I completed my reply:
“The physical sun becomes in the course of evolution, the Son of Righteousness, or the Son of God, and heaven is personified as the Father on High. The halo around the head of Jesus, the horns of the older deities, the rays of light radiating from the heads of Hindu and Pagan gods are incontrovertible evidence that all gods were at one time ? the sun in heaven.”
Sun -> Son? Only in English I’m afraid. The “halo around the head of Jesus”? I don’t remember that from the Bible.
“Nearly every one of the dogmas and ceremonies in the Christian cult were borrowed from other and older religions.”
First of all, my point in my original reply still stands; see points a) to d) in my post above. Moreover, notice that most of the similarities are, when you stop to look at them, stretching quite a bit. For example: “A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.” This is the virgin birth? It’d take quite an imagination to stretch it that far.
Another idea to ponder: IF the gospel stories about Jesus are true, then perhaps some of these early mythical stories are indicative of the hunger & thirst of humankind for a greater truth that was just out of their perception. As the prophets of the Old Testament had a yearning that they could not quite grasp, perhaps some of these ancient stories reflect the vague understanding of those who perceived a small piece of the truth that was yet to be fully revealed: A yearning that was fulfilled in Jesus Himself. :)
May 24th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
When we have a God for a teacher, the highest and surest virtue is unconditional acquiescence. Judaism, Mohaemmedanism and Christianity, in giving us a God for a teacher, have taken away from us the liberty to think for ourselves. Each one of these three religions makes unconditional obedience the price of the salvation it offers, but do you know what other word in the English language unconditional obedience is a synonym of? — Silence! A dumb world, a tongue-tied humanity alone can be saved! The good man is the man on his knees with his mouth in the dust. But silence is sterility! Silence is slavery! Think, then, of the character of a religion which makes free speech, free thought, a crime —
Without belief in Jesus, the Christian religion loses all justification for its existence. As such, it becomes of vital importance to examine what is claimed about the Biblical Jesus and to evaluate these claims. Compounding this ideological importance, recent events in theology like the Jesus Seminar have put into question the deeds of the Biblical Jesus.
What exactly does the Bible claim that Jesus did? The most striking feature of Jesus’ life is the incredible scope of the miracles he is said to have participated in. He is claimed to have turned water into wine and materialized loaves and fishes to feed thousands after thousands, to have walked on water and tamed the storm, exorcised demons and cured the masses, and raised the dead; and he was publicly judged, crucified, and resurrected (for a complete list with verses, see The Miracles of Jesus Christ). He was born of a virgin, was entombed and rose from the dead after three days, and ascended to Heaven.
One problem of these claims is that they are far from original. All of Jesus’ attributes and miracles were already present in earlier myths. Mithraism, a religion that co-existed with Christianity but began much earlier, is the best example of this. Mithra was born of a virgin, his birth was celebrated on December 25th, performed miracles with 12 disciples, held a last supper, resurrected after three days on the spring equinox, and ascended to Heaven.
Also, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna (member of the Hindu trinity), Bacchus, Prometheus, Indra, and a great deal of other deities or legendary characters were born by virgin birth and shared many other attributes with Jesus. Empedocles was reported as preaching, curing illnesses, controlling the storms, and raising the dead. Dionysus had a last supper. Bacchus turned water into wine. Osiris died and was resurrected. And so on and so forth. In fact, some early Christians condemned the idea of the crucifixion because it was considered pagan !
These other myths are a strong indication of the origins of the Jesus myth, if it is indeed a myth. But if Jesus did exist, then these claims would be irrelevant. Therefore we must examine the evidence.
But the problem here is that there is no evidence. No contemporary evidence (let alone credible contemporary evidence) has ever been proposed for the existence of Jesus.
Even the Gospels are widely admitted to having been written after Jesus’ death. According to the evidence we have within the text itself, the earliest gospel - the Gospel of Mark - was probably written between 70 and 75 CE, although Catholic sources claim the date was closer to 50 CE. Either way, it was clearly written after Jesus died, supposedly 33 CE.
As for historical sources, only one of them is reported to have been written during the first century - Josephus’ “Antiquities”, in 90-95 CE. His two short mentions of a man named Jesus who had disciples and did good works are under heavy controversy, and recently, the discovery of the probable original of “Antiquities” shows that one of the two passages was an interpolation. Even if all these objections are false, Josephus cannot be a contemporary source.
Thallus is also reported as having talked about the crucifixion of Jesus, but this is only known second-hand, and critics claim that he said nothing about Jesus.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Such a deafening silence on the existence of any other historical figures would be extremely suspicious. In the case of an earth-shaking messiah who raised the dead and fed the multitudes, clearly we should find masses of testimonies and evidence, but we find none. It is clearly an argument for the non-existence of Jesus.
But the clinching evidence is that even Christian leaders considered Jesus purely as a mythical figure and did not know anything about his life.
“In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus? life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history.”
May 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
may I add that Paul himself didn’t know about the virgin birth. In Romans 1:1-3, he claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was established as a descendant of David.
Considering all these facts, the truth is clear: there never was a Jesus who did these miracles and was resurrected. Jesus started as a myth and later became an object of worship. Regardless of whether we believe in God or not, the religion of Christianity, insofar as it is based on the existence of Jesus, is pure historical absurdity. The doctrine of Jesus’ existence is a Big Lie (i.e. an absurdity repeated again and again to enforce belief).
Here is a short list of writers and historians who lived within the same century as the Jesus myth. Remember that of all these, only one (Josephus) is said to have written anything about it, and it is decried by most scholars as an interpolation :
Caius Suetonius, Josephus, Philo-Jud?us, Seneca, Pliny Elder, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Pliny Younger, Tacitus, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Hermogones, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Appian, Phlegon, Ph?drus, Valerius Maximus, Lucian, Pausanias, Florus Lucius, Quintius Curtius, Aulus Gellius, Dio Chrysostom, Columella Valerius Flaccus, Damis, Favorinus, Lysias, Pomponius Mela, Appion of Alexandria, Theon of Smyrna, Justus of Tiberias
May 24th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Obviously “the truth” enjoys hearing his own voice. His posts above are a mix of halftruths and outright misinformation. A few examples:
“the Gospel story cannot be found” in Paul’s letters
Sorry “the truth” but this is not correct, but I’m glad “the truth” brought this up. Let’s see what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the sam