Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Was Jesus Married?

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Was Jesus Married?

Hello, guest

Name: JMD • Title: Was Jesus Married? • Date posted: 05/05/07 5:52

Q: The Jesus Dynasty Blog
Tabor's Blog — James Tabor
May 1, 2007

Was Jesus Married?

During my entire academic career stretching now over 30 years I have consistently taken the position that there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had children. As I put things recently in the Preface to my book, The Jesus Dynasty:

“The Jesus Dynasty has no connection to the recently popularized notions that Jesus married and fathered children through Mary Magdalene. While gripping fiction, this idea is long on speculation and short on evidence.”

I was, of course, referring to the notions made popular by the 1982 book by Michael Baigent, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and more recently by the runaway blockbuster bestseller, The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. There have also been a few scholars, influenced by some of the later gospel traditions (particularly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip), who have argued that Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene included some type of sexual intimacy if not marriage. William E. Phipps published a full-scale study in 1970 titled, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (New York: Harper & Row). Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.” I found the treatment summarized by Birger A. Pearson, “Did Jesus Marry?” (Bible Review Spring 2005, pp 32-39 & 47) to be quite convincing.

The Talpiot tomb has caused me to take another look at the evidence, since indeed, the “Jesus son of Joseph” of this tomb appears to have a son, “Judah son of Jesus,” and presumably a wife, perhaps the one known as Mariamene Mara. And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed.

Just recently I noticed something that others have perhaps noticed that I had overlooked all these years. I consider it very strong evidence indeed that Jesus was in fact married, and if married, the possibility that he had a child or children is quite plausible as well.

The seven early/authentic letters of Paul are our earliest direct and unedited witness to the early Jesus movement (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Phillipians, Philemon). Although Paul seldom tells us anything about the life, career, or teachings of Jesus, other than his theological treatment of his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, he is surely in touch with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, as well as others who knew Jesus intimately in his lifetime.

On the matter of marriage Paul explicitly mentions that Cephas (Peter), the other apostles, as well as the “brothers of the Lord,” are accompanied on their travels by their wives, so that not only their expenses are carried by the community but those of their wives as well (1 Corinthians 9:5). One might assume those who made up Jesus’ council of Twelve, as well as Jesus’ brothers, would likely be married with children, but other than Peter’s unnamed “mother-in-law” being mentioned in Mark 1:30, no wives are ever mentioned much less identified by name. One might conclude, incorrectly, it seems, that the “silence” of the gospels regarding wives for the apostles and brothers of Jesus indicates they were living celibate or single lives. We have to accept that the gospels, as theological treatises, simply do not supply us with such details, particularly when it comes to women or children. They are simply not considered important to the story, but it does not mean they did not exist.

Earlier in this same letter Paul had mounted a vigorous defense of celibacy or emaining “unmarried.” Although he does not require it of his followers, he asserts that he lives the single non-sexual life and he strongly recommends it as the most practical as well as the most spiritually devoted lifestyle. He writes, in this regard, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” and “To the unmarried and the widows, I say it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).

In this section of the letter Paul takes up a number of related topics, particularly whether divorce/separation is allowed and under what circumstances, but he is quite careful to explicitly state whether he has specific sanction from “the Lord.” It is quite important to him to bring in the authority and teaching of Jesus when he can to back up and lend weight to what he is saying. I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.” As with Cephas, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, he knows that having a wife as a companion is the norm and pattern in the group. Paul must have known that Jesus was married, and he, as our earliest witness, would surely have been in a position to know. When he can use the teachings of Jesus or the example of Jesus he does. Here is an obvious example where he can not.

____

Dr. Tabor noted this: "And yet, in looking at our New Testament texts, they appear to be devoid of any reference to such an idea. I have been wondering if there might be anything in these records that I might have missed."

Here's something else Dr. Tabor 'might' have missed? another clue to Jesus being married. I’ve certainly come across this theory before:

The wedding at Cana in St. John may be Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s wedding.

Jesus is directly called to this wedding, along with his disciples. Of course his disciples would be there if it were Jesus’ wedding. Why else would they be called along with Jesus to a wedding?

"And both Jesus was called, and his disciples to the marriage."

His mother Mary is there; so it’s family and friends/disciples of Jesus' - sounds like his wedding, doesn't it? Jesus’ mother Mary worried about running out of wine, and is rather forward with Jesus ordering him to replenish the wine.
[whether or not one accepts the miracle of water into wine is beside the point.]

The thing is, why would Jesus’ mother Mary be so concerned about running out of wine? Someone at a wedding, whether you’re a friend or some family member invited as a guest, wouldn’t be so concerned with not having enough wine. So why would Mary care? Why would she take responsibility for this if only a guest?

Well, she would be concerned if it was her duty as mother of the groom, as hostess. That’s the only way it fits, in this context. She acts like the hostess; the servants don’t argue with her and Jesus, they do what is asked.

Jesus' mother Mary is not, at least per the NT record, known to be so assertive and direct, and in authority as she is here at the wedding in Cana. Though it makes perfect sense for her to act this way if it is in reference to Jesus' marriage, and she is the mother of the groom, and it’s Jesus’ responsibility, as groom, to keep the wine stocked.

Right after the 'miracle':

"The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

The bridegroom being Jesus of course.

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/05/07 14:11

A: JMD,
Jesus would have to be married since he was a Rabbi.Do you think it might have been an arranged marriage as was the custom of their time.Matchmaking was big business .Or did he and Mary decide on their own thus breaking from tradition?

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/05/07 14:16

A: I have a copy of your book on order from Amazon.com.Can't wait to read it.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/05/07 17:52

A: Thanks for the quote from Dr. Tabor’s blog,

I’ve been researching the question of Jesus’ marriage every since I read “Holy Blood, Holy Grail“.

I agree that the wedding scenario makes a great argument for Jesus’ marriage. Why would a guest be bothered about if there was enough wine?
It would also fit into 1st Century Jewish culture.

Remember sex wasn’t consider dirty or unnatural until “the church” came into power. Was it St Augustine, it was one of the early Pope’s.

The old testament looks at sex as a gift from God and a very natural part of the human condition. Be fruitful and multiply. There are so many instances of sex and in the bible both good and bad.

Yes, I agree that the lack of comment could be as simple as it was just taken for granted because every one is married. If you were writing about people today there would be a lot of things taken for granted as being the norm and probably wouldn’t be mentioned by historians because it was so common as to be taken for granted. Tooth paste, combs, garbage bags, toilet paper, and so on.

So the lack of mentioning it in the bible would make total sense. Usually the easiest answer is the best answer.

Isn’t it stated somewhere in the Bible that Jesus came down to Earth to experience the human condition. So why wouldn’t he experience marriage too? He could better relate to relationships that way.
“My wife is upset that I’m running around out here with you, she says I better come home and settled down” “I hear ya man. Mary’s been whining about living on the road and wants to settle down too. She keeps throwing it in my face about being a carpenter’s son and I can’t even put a roof over her head.”

Alas, as with everything in the bible you can make a very good argument against Jesus being married.

It wasn’t that rare to be celibate either. The Essences were. So was Paul?

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17

Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practice continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essences ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essences, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honors which they confer on them.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2

These Essences reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5

It also deserves our admiration, how much [the Essences] exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another.

Is Marriage Mandatory? Even this argument can be made from the Gospels both pro and con.

Can’t remember the link that I quoted this from.

“Another, quite different Fundamentalist confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even "unnatural." Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).

So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

"does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).”

Yeah, quoting out of context can be fun!

So I disagree that Jesus was married but…….

If Jesus was from the line of David and a Davidic Messiah then having a male heir would make sense.
(I know…. the Davidic Messiah and Jesus’ true heritage is questionable).
Talk about circular, He was born divine but the gospels make pains to establish his heritage as being from the line of David. (I know to fulfill the Prophecies).

Wouldn’t the Talbot tomb’s “Jesus son of Joseph” be a slap in the face to Jesus? He was born divine? Virgin birth. Sorry off topic, stay focused.

I still can not come away with a yes He was or no He was not.

There is only a small amount of evidence or lack thereof.
Women in the 1st Century were not considered equal to men. Yet Jesus teaches and accepts support from women. Very un-1st Century.

I come away on the sidelines on this. Here are some of my reasons:

In a male dominated society it would be easier to accept Mary as His wife than as an equal to the disciples.
Hints about Jesus’ favor with Mary and a special relationship or special teachings to Mary would create tension between his disciples or out right jealousy. Mostly from the Gnostic Gospels. Yeah, they were probably written hundreds of years after Jesus died. I think The Gospel of Phillip was close to Jesus’ era.

Most of what we get about this attitude comes years after the fact by “the church” leaders who are anti-women. Making Mary the remorseful whore.

Pope Gregory the Great. “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?”

It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears. She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet. For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself. She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance.” “Thus Mary of Magdala, who began as a powerful woman at Jesus’ side, “became,” in Haskins’ summary, “the redeemed whore and Christianity’s model of repentance, a manageable, controllable figure, and effective weapon and instrument of propaganda against her own sex.”

Personal statement here. I’ve been trying to strip away all of the Dogma from my past and trying to
put myself in a 1st century Jerusalem state of mind. Strip away 21st century thinking and try to put the bible into the context of the times.

There was something going on between Jesus and Mary. We are given only small hints of how special she was to Jesus and to his ministry.
Are we looking at it like this: A man and a women can not be friends or equals because of the adherent sexual tension between them. Do we have a 7th grade mentality here?
The only reason Mary was important was because she was married to Jesus and she wouldn’t receive any special treatment other wise? Not that she was a disciple on equal footing with all the others but since she was Jesus’ chick, she was tolerated and Jesus was only giving her special treatment because she was his old lady?

Was there a grand conspiracy against Mary? The answer is Yes. She was considered a whore by the church until 1969. But haven’t women been subservient to men in Judea-Christian tradition?

Did this have to do with the early church wanting to move as far away from pagan worship as possible. Isis, the sacred femine. Again in the context of the 1st century women were not considered very highly.

As with everything else when I try to answer one part of the Bible I come away with more questions. Once I started looking for the Historical Jesus I came away with so many more questions than answers. For me it did start with The Holy Blood, Holy Grail but even that book is so lacking in anything but off-shoot cults and traditions. Good book up until the last few chapters then it becomes full of itself. Remember it’s advertising. The Book that will bring Christianity to it’s knees or some other sensational blurb.

Does Jesus being married change his message? FOR ME PERSONALLY, NO. Does Jesus being unmarried change His message, No.

I feel Jesus being married makes more sense than not being married but I can’t prove it concretely either way.

To reiterate, maybe the simplest answer is the easiest answer.

Jesus didn’t get married because he knew he was going to leave his children fatherless and since he lost his “earthly father” (we lose Joseph early in the Jesus story, I know no proof of Joseph being alive or dead) he didn’t want his children to endure this burden. Maybe he understood that his life on the road would be too hard to raise a family and he was just being thoughtful of other people. He did that a lot.

I’m getting dizzy chasing my tail here….

Ever ambivalent,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/05/07 18:12

A: Couple of things:

I agree with Todd (good post--lots of wiggle room!) that it certainly makes no difference to my faith if Jesus was married. The human experience without marriage and family would be lacking in depth, I think.

Re: the suggestion that maybe he didn't marry because he knew he wasn't long for the world and didn't want to leave his family bereft--do we know when he actually realized what he had to do? Maybe he married early, telling Mariemne that he wasn't sure what kind of future they would have, and maybe she said a little time is better than none.

This brings me to the wedding at Cana--it works, except for the fact that it won't support Simcha's (Tabor's, too, maybe?) that the Beloved Disciple was Judah son of Jesus and a boy of perhaps 10-13. The wedding at Cana occured early in the years of his ministry, didn't it? If so, Judah would have been very small indeed at the last supper and the foot of the cross.

And Todd, about the quote from Josephus: [i]...but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.[/i] The lasciviousness of WOMEN??!! Since when, before 1970, were women as prone to having casual sex as men? Sounds very Pauline to me! Either that, or an excuse for variety! :)

Name: Todd • Date: 05/05/07 22:12

A: Ladyhawk,

You would think that Jesus knew He was special.

Mom was a virgin when she gave birth to Him.
Angels from God named Him.
Angels warned His parents to flee so He wouldn’t be killed.
Angels told His Mom about John the Baptist’s birth.
Angels told His dad to accept the virgin birth.
His King David lineage.

If you believe those traditions I guess Jesus knew He was Special.

I do like your “do we know when he actually realized what he had to do? Maybe he married early, telling Mariemne that he wasn't sure what kind of future they would have, and maybe she said a little time is better than none.” it puts more of a human context to Jesus.
There’s quotes somewhere that’ll prove He knew He was special or divine. Google it and I’m sure there’s thousands upon thousands of sites about it.

Jesus did exist in an earthly body, He was born, He had a childhood, He had friends, siblings, a mom, an earthly dad, He ate food, drank wine, walked from place to place, and probably even went to the bathroom on occasion. He prayed, fasted, was tempted, rose above that temptation, healed people, taught people, loved people and was crucified. What was more human than that?
I know He performed miracles and the virgin birth made Him different from mere mortals but He still existed in some sort of human form. Why not marriage and children?

Personal opinion alert!!
I like the “here as a human but better than a human” vibe to Jesus. In a strange way Jesus being married, having kids, and women being such an important part of His Ministry makes me feel like Jesus can relate to a dork like me. Women have been an important part of my life, my mom, my wife and my daughter. Having kids is the greatest duality of all. Some days they bring the greatest joy and some days errrrrrr…………….
That Jesus could relate on a basic every day human level and still preach what He preached makes Him even more special to me.
Since He was here to save us why not be one of us.

I love the 30 second sound bites “The discovery that will bring down Christianity” about every archeological find and all the controversy it brings with it. Yet the world still spins around and I bet people will go to some sort of church tomorrow. Some are even going to church today, for that matter. Why does it have to ruin religion, can’t it just change our understanding of Jesus and the times He lived in. A different understanding of Jesus and His message. Why not? It seems every era tries to make Jesus fit into the context of their time.

I know a Blasphemy, a Heretical/Heathen, insert your favorite expletive here, to damn me to the deepest levels of Dante’s Hell statement.

Really, does it take away His divinity if He was married? Where is that passage in the bible. Isn’t being born, being in love, having children, and family all gifts from God? Doesn’t the curve ball in Jesus’ saga come from The Resurrection/Transfiguration and no Tomb, no Scroll, no Book, or no Movie is going to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s the Faith part, right.

I’m so glad that the missing early years are gone!
Unless you want to look at The Wandering Jesus Theories. Jesus was everywhere and hung out with everyone from Egyptians, Buddha, The Essences and I believe a young Elvis before The Vegas Years.

The story about being lost and found teaching in the Temple and a couple other things are all the Gospels address about Jesus’ early childhood. I understand that His birth was important and of course His death.
Oh Yeah, His message is up there too.

There’s a Gnostic Gospel that addresses Jesus’ early childhood. Kind of funny and very strange. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/05/07 22:27

A: I get the feeling you're banging your head on the wall, Todd. Honest, I'm not trying to be goof or anything--my question was on the up and up. Did he know ALL of his life what was going to happen? In what way would that make him human? Do we get to know, step by step, where we're heading?

Regarding your points:

Mom was a virgin when she gave birth to Him. (Okay, but do you suppose every year on his birthday they told him the story of how that happened? Maybe they told the rest of the village, too. Can we say "look askance"?

Angels from God named Him. (Lots of people have moms who claim to have had dream about naming them before they were born--doesn't immediately translate into "You're special, and you're going to die a horrible, bloody death for the rest of the rabble out there as a favor to God."

Angels warned His parents to flee so He wouldn’t be killed. (Okay, so THEY knew he was special. Do you suppose they actually burdened him with this knowledge as a child?)

Angels told His Mom about John the Baptist’s birth.
Angels told His dad to accept the virgin birth.
(Right, but again these are things that at least Mary "held in her heart." Probably Joseph did, too. Maybe when he had his bar mitzvah they told him some of it--and in Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord" rumor got to him--but it doesn't necessarily hold that he had the whole picture up front. He waited until he was 30 to hit the road....)

His King David lineage. (Every family in America can claim to be related to Royalty--doesn't necessarily mean any one of us is a threat to the Windsors.)

I guess I just have an idea that if he led a normal human life, he didn't put all this together as a kid, maybe not even as a 20-something, though at some point he must have been assailed with all kinds of unusual thoughts and insights.

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/05/07 22:35

A: Questions will always be eternally prevalent, because the NT was writtten outside of the fence.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/06/07 0:19

A: Ladyhawk,

I’m sorry for being so flippant about your comment. You’re right I am banging my head against the wall but I do like how you can debate either side and still make a case either way. I get to casual about it and that’s disrespectful to other peoples views/opinions.

I think the mysteries of life and how we don’t know is what makes it interesting. Would it make Jesus more human? Wow, I don’t know but could you imagine learning you’re the Son of God? I’m not being funny here. How could you break that to someone and when?

Follow me on this and tell me what you think.

Jesus had to be literate or at least educated about The Torah. We get a glimpse at it from the Gospels. The story of His parents losing Him and finding Him in a debate in the Temple at a very early age holding His own.
Why would a peasant from Galilee be so well versed in the Torah unless He was being groomed, from an early age, to the Priesthood or something. In the 1st Century most Rabbi’s or Priests were born into it but Jesus‘ father is a carpenter. Why bother teaching Him to such a degree unless His parents had a reason.
So His parents could of easily been steering Him in a certain direction until it was time to tell Him. Very plausible.

We really have nothing but speculation about his early life.
Scholars speculate on His early life so why can’t we. Common sense and our own experiences can give us an insight to some basic things about childhood.

I agree with your post, maybe they did wait to tell Him, makes sense why he wasn’t heard from much until His 30’s. There’s discrepancies as to whether or not all of His family believed in His Divinity until after His death, so how can you reconcile that if He or they knew from an early age He was divine. It wouldn’t have come as a surprise to His siblings if you’re told all your life that your brother is divine.

All your counter points to my points make sense to me and there's no reason why your take on it isn't valid. Makes me look at it from a different angle, and that's cool. I'm willing to look at any new perspective.

Here's some quotes that could support hiding Jesus‘ identity.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/-issues/gn24/archaeologychrist.htm

“A-t- the beginning of Luke's gospel, an angel tells Zacharias the priest about the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi. The messenger prophesied by God in the Old Testament would be his son John (the Baptist), who would prepare the way for the Christ. The angel told him: "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John .... He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:13, 17).”

“One of the first people to appear in the New Testament account is King Herod. Matthew takes us to the court of Herod the Great: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him ....
"Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, 'Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also" (Matthew 2:1-3, 7-8).”

John McRay, archaeologist and Wheaton College professor of New Testament, summarizes Herod's reign: "Archaeological excavations have uncovered a surprisingly large amount of evidence pertaining to Herod the Great .... Herod the Great was an Idumean who, in 41 B.C., was granted provisional rule of Galilee by Mark Antony [the friend of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra´s last lover] .... In 30 B.C. Octavian (Caesar Augustus) affirmed Herod's rule over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee .... Herod remained in power until his death in 4 B.C.; thus Christ was born in Bethlehem prior to that date" (Archaeology and the New Testament, 1997, p. 91).

“Having heard that a "King of the Jews" had been born, Herod was greatly disturbed by this potential threat to his power and throne (Matthew 2:1-3). When his scheme to identify the newborn Messiah failed (verses 7-8, 12), Herod lashed out violently.
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under [the approximate age of Jesus], according to the time which he had determined from the wise men" (verse 16).”

The massacre in Bethlehem was not out of character for Herod. A.T. Robertson, chairman of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, shows us Herod's savagery. Dr. Robertson describes Herod's cruelty even toward those in his own family:
"Those familiar with the story of Herod the Great in Josephus can well understand the meaning of these words. Herod in his rage over his family rivalries and jealousies put to death the two sons of Mariamne [his wife] (Aristobulus and Alexander), Mariamne herself, and Antipater, another son and once his heir, besides the brother and mother of Mariamne (Aristobulus, Alexandra) and her grandfather John Hyrcanus. He had made will after will and was now in a fatal illness and fury over the question of the Magi. He showed his excitement and the whole city was upset because the people knew only too well what he could do when in a rage over the disturbance of his plans" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Bible Explorer Software, 1997).
The New Testament description of Herod the Great is thus confirmed by what historians and archaeologists have found concerning his rulership, building projects, political strength and uncontrollable wrath toward anyone threatening his kingship.”

When the King is out to kill you it’s a good thing to lay low,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/06/07 3:02

A: Thanks, Todd. I didn’t think you were flippant so much as frustrated. I was just hoping I wasn’t a complete dope!

“When the King is out to kill you it’s a good thing to lay low.”

Let’s put that in another perspective: When the King is out to kill your CHILD, you’re very definitely going to lay low! Even when you get to Egypt, you’re not going to be spreading a story around that’s going to attract the local gossips. And if, God forbid, somebody gets wind of it, you’re going to play it down, not only in the neighborhood, but also in the family. I somehow can’t see the clan all sitting around the dinner table telling Jesus he was divine and the other kids that they better remember it!

Again, as both you and Shlomo pointed out, we’re just supposing here, We’ve got virtually nothing that tells us what Jesus knew and when he knew it (although there appear to be some charming fables abroad in Europe). We do have the story of the temple, though, and I believe it says somewhere that he was 12 when that occurred.

“Why would a peasant from Galilee be so well versed in the Torah unless He was being groomed, from an early age, to the Priesthood or something….”

Well, do we know who’s doing the grooming? Is Joseph the carpenter telling the local rabbi he wants his son educated for the priesthood, or is the young Jesus so esoterically curious and bright and skilled in reading and writing and the ability to discern the lessons of the Torah that he himself goes looking for more and attracts the attention of elders who want to teach him? The temple story tells us that he was curious enough about the ideas being expressed in the temple to slip away from his parents for purposes of engaging in debate, which would suggest that at 12 he had a very focused interest in spiritual matters. And whether or not his brothers and sisters were told he was divine, they were probably the only kids on the block whose brother was trying to be a rabbi at age 12, so they were at least marginally aware that his calling was of God.

Following that, in his teens, assuming he was divine, he would have found himself at some point becoming aware of things that others seemed to miss entirely. But embodied as he was in the “human experience”, I think it would have been a little while before he was sufficiently driven to start sharing his startling ideas and visions with his parents and perhaps asking questions. (I’m assuming here that he experienced a fairly typical adolescence—and anyone who has experienced raising adolescents knows they make a huge deal out of things that don’t matter and hide the stuff that actually does. It’s in their contract.)

I expect it took him his teens to fully grasp his nature, and to establish the relationship THAT required with the Almighty--and even then, I’m betting it took another decade before he was privy to the whole plan—because he was a human being and it takes awhile to come to grips with that sort of thing and still keep your wits about you. I notice a lot of people seem to think he was very self-aware (read god-like) all his life, but it seems to me if he had been that he would not have suffered so in the Garden on the night before he died, nor engaged so fully in the experience of death the next day. If he always knew who he was and what he was about, he would not have been afraid, would he? He would have known it was but a moment on the edge of eternity.

I do go on. Fun though, to speculate!

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/06/07 4:45

A: Herod the Great was the second son of Antipater and Cypros, he was also the grandson of a Edomite proselyte and was not authorized to be a king. He obtain and kept his position of power through a continuous bribery of Roman leaders. Is there secular evidence or documentation of Herod acutally giving the order to kill all new born baby boys?

Name: Todd • Date: 05/06/07 16:03

A: Ladyhawk,

The Gospels takes great pains to prove Jesus’ lineage, to fulfill the prophesies, as you have pointed out anyone can trace themselves back to royalty. Very true. Watch out England I’m coming for the throne!

Like we’ve been debating, when and how did Jesus become aware of His destiny. It is plausible that Jesus may have been unaware of His true purpose during His youth. I tend to believe He knew of his connection to King David as that would be family lore. As with my family, the stories of who I am related to have been told and retold since I was a kid. So I think at the very least He knew He was from royalty, as would His brothers and sisters. We all like brushes with greatness.

Now the gospels get dicey as to which lineage they are referring to, some have claimed that Joseph’s and Mary’s lineage were switched. The question being, in accordance with Jewish Traditions, would Jesus be granted instant access to the priesthood. To me, that would explain His deep understanding of The Torah.
I still come back to the question could he join the priesthood if His father was a carpenter? Would He have been taken to a “school”, or Monastery, or whatever was the equivalent in 1st Century Jerusalem for education? It would explain why He wasn’t talked about if He was at school, maybe.

Looking at John The Baptist’s lineage you find that:

Quote from this website:
“John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias, a priest of the course of Abijah, and of Elisabeth, one of the Daughters of Aaron. This lineage granted John the automatic priesthood of Aaron, thereby giving him authority to perform baptisms. As Elisabeth and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were cousins, John and Jesus were relatives. It is believed that John was born six months prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. John the Baptist’s birth was considered a significant event, as Elisabeth was thought to be infertile According to the New Testament, John the Baptist’s birth was announced by the angel Gabriel.”

The other point is Jesus’ brother James was questioned by Paul, I believe, as to who Jesus really was and what happened at the crucifixion. I think Paul spent a couple weeks talking to James. Wouldn’t you, in just normal conversation, talk about Jesus’ childhood or some funny antidotes about Jesus’ life? I know when I have meet with relatives or friends, at funerals, conversation naturally goes to the deceased and their lives.
Wouldn’t you think that James would have talked about his Brother and His entire life not just His Ministry. Granted, His Ministry was the most important part but still…..

You know we weren’t alone in our curiosity and you see a need to explain Jesus’ early life: The Infancy Gospel for instance.

http://www.gnosis.-org/library/inftoma.htm

“IV.- 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.”

Yeah it is fun to speculate,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/06/07 17:14

A: The story you quote there in the infancy gospel is one that was cited and used by the novelist Anne Rice in her book, "Christ the Lord." The book actually opens with a very young Jesus performing this shocking act in a burst of anger against a bullying playmate. Almost immediately he realizes he has done something dreadful, and in the novel he runs back and secretly calls the boy back to life. As you can imagine, the neighborhood gets a little uncomfortable after that.

Anne Rice is, admittedly, a weird sort of place to find a luminous narrative of the early life of Jesus, but her book is really sensitive and thought-provoking. Her young Jesus is, at 7, just beginning to understand things. And he is a little frightened.

Maybe Shlomo can help here with regard to how a carpenter's son got such an education in the 1st century, if at the time such a thing would have been impossible. What were the social and educational pathways of the time? Was there a method by which a precocious child of the working class could be taken in for teaching with an eye to the priesthood?

And while we're at it, getting back to the original focus of this thread, how could it be that a woman "of means" as Mary Magdalene is said to have been, be married to an itinerant rabbi who came of peasant stock (notwithstanding the fireside stories of King David)?

I am obviously no Biblical scholar, and I confess I get a little bored when the whole "lineage" thing comes up. It smacks of deus ex machina. The power of what God ostensibly does here is in great part about the symbolism: he did not choose a princess upon whom to bestow his seed, he chose a simple peasant girl of simple faith. That says volumes about artificial constructs of human worth; God obviously meant to make a point, don't you think? And the point wasn't that, when all was said and done, this was a really a hidden prince who deserved a throne. The point was that this locus of power was altogether different from anything men had conceived before.

Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. I can't point to anything to prove it.)

Of COURSE James would have wanted to talk about his brother, and all the things he remembered of him. UNLESS he realized he was talking to someone who really didn't get it, when all was said and done--somebody who was hell bent on making the Truth over in his own image. Perhaps James deliberately held things back, thinking that the less information Paul had, the less trouble he could make. Right. Like that ever stopped a fundamentalist! There is some historical support for the idea that James and Paul did not see eye to eye, I think.

I do realize of course that the idea underlying this train of thought is that there was nothing to tell; that actual divinity did not enter in to the equation. That Jesus' language was misunderstood and that he never meant to say he was actually divine. Certainly that can't be avoided. And just as certainly there are no facts and figures to disprove it. It exists in as much a state of supposition as anything else here, and it falls to the scholars to shed light on it (and perhaps, also, on St. Paul!)

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/06/07 19:05

A: From "Insight on the Scriptures":

"This occasion, with Jesus' visit (as a 12-year-old) to the temple, where he engaged in a discussion with the Jewish teachers that left them amazed, is the only incident of his early life recounted in some detail. Jesus' reply to his worried parents when they located him there shows that Jesus knew the miraculous nature of his birth and realized his Messianic future. (Luke 2:41-52).

Reasonably, his mother and his adoptive father had passed on to him the information obtained through the angelic visitations as well as through the prophecies of Simeon and Anna, spoken when the first trip was made to Jerusalem 40 days after Jesus' birth. (Luk 2:25-38)

Jesus evidently did not make a showy display of his wisdom and superiority as a perfect human, as is perhaps indicated by the fact this his half brothers did not exercise faith in him during his ministry as a human, as well as by the disbelief most of the population of Nazareth showed toward him." (John 7:1-5; Mark 6:1, 4-6)

Re his education:

"He regularly attended the synagogue services each Sabbath. He was educated, as is shown by his ability to find and read sections from the Sacred Writings, but he did not attend the rabbinic schools of ""higher learning"". (Luke 4:16; John 7:14-16)

Name: sam • Date: 05/07/07 1:19

A: Ladyhawk,

You mentioned the following in your last post:
"Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. "I can't point to anything to prove it"
-------------------------------------------
Jesus- said:
"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and THOSE DEFILE THE MAN. Mt-15:18

And you said: "I can't point to anything to prove it." ( that is about Paul).But I am going to bring to you Paul's word which will defile him.
PAUL’S DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOVERY

Catholic online wrote: - “Paul, shows himself to be a profound religious thinker.(unfortunately brilliant scholars spend their whole life time to figure out what he thinking about).
- and he has an enduring INFLUENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY,”
- “Paul was the FIRST TO DISCOVER and preach THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”
While the gospels say: “JESUS OF NAZARENE, WHO WAS A PROPHET...IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, AND ALL THE PEOPLE.”

Who knows better, GOD or Jesus and all the people who been with Him, or Paul? .
Let us go back and use the LOGIC to find the truth:
A- DEVELOPMENT of Christianity.
- Did Jesus fulfill His message, which He brought from the father, or He did not?.
- Was His message underdeveloped, and He left it for Paul and the others to develop?.
- Does the people around Him understand His very simple words, and message?, or not, and was His message not completed, So Paul and the others can fulfill what Jesus did not?.
B- FIRST TO DISCOVER.
(Discover as it came in the Oxford dictionary: “Acquire knowledge or sight of by effort or chance; be first to do this particular case.”)
- let us first look at Paul’s way of life, taken from his words and works:
Galatians- 2:13 “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond any measure and tried to destroy it.”
(From his statement here we understand that he has no KNOWLEDGE about the teaching of Jesus, and he never saw Him,” SIGHT”.)
- then second, let us bring his SIGHT (vision- which came at the time while he was following the Christians to prosecute them) and what he said about it:
2Corinthians- 12:2 “ I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-whether in the body I DO NOT KNOW, or out of the body I DO NOT KNOW, God knows.”
(I think this statement from Paul is very hard to understand, because it does not have any logic in it.”in or out from the body , I DO NOT KNOW”, if you understand it?. If you do, you can explain it to me.)
2Corinthians- 12:4 “Was caught up into paradise* and HEARD INEXPRESSIBLE WORDS, WHICH A MAN IS NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK**.”
(Again here, we can see clearly that there is no logic whatsoever in this statement, Inexpressible words....no man permited to speak !!!, who do speaks unexpressible words?)
* - Here Paul, visiting the beautiful paradise, and not telling us anything about it.
**- Even with permission no one can speak inexpressible words , because the people who will hear him bumbling, they will surely say: ‘he is out of his mind’.
- third, his EFFORT. There was not much effort in making Jesus the son of God. He was born in the land were the Greek and the Roman worshiped their many Gods who had mothers, wives and sons. And he spent no effort when he took out the word man and change it with the word God.
- forth, the CHANCE. Paul’s new idea was rejected by Jesus follower, who knew Him well and understand His message. But Paul took the chance, and his invention which became a first discovery to what Jesus suppose to be worked perfect, but by force.
- fifth, Do you know that WE (Paul and his followers) WILL JUDGE ANGELS?.
(There is any LOGIC in this statement?. Can those men take the place of God in the judgment day?. Can they judge God’s angles?. Is that what Jesus mentions, as it is a blasphemy against the holly spirit?)
Matthew-12:32 “Whoever speaks a word against the son of man (Jesus), it shall be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the holly spirit (God), it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

-Now, let us read these two verses from PAUL letters too:
Galattians-1:20 Now in what I am writing to you, I ASSUR YOU BEFORE GOD THAT I AM NOT LYING.
- A person who says these things is the one no one trust , a person who been trusted, no need for him to assur the others that he is telling the truth and swear to prove it.
Romans-9:1 I AM TELLING THE TRUTH in Christ, I AM NOT LYING, MY CONSCIENCE TESTIFIES WITH ME in the holy spirit.
-Again, Paul testify by GOD, the Holy Spirit and by JESUS CHRIST , and not by the son of GOD?.
- Then, he lies :
Romans 3:7 But if THROUGH MY LIE the truth of GOD abounded to his glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner.
-Is that means that HE is lying, or what?. Because lying never bring the truth , and we will never get the truth through from a person who lie.
-He was judged before as a sinner, and still judged as a sinner after, that is by his own words. And from his own words came this:
Romans 3:8 And why not say, “LET US DO EVIL that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.
-Is that means that HE justified doing evil thing, or what?, and does it ever good comes from evil?. (some Christian they try to justify this, but that is wrong when it said in the first place)
-Questions?, why HE should press on, that HE is not lying so many times?, and HE used GOD, and the Holy SPIRIT as a witness?, is that in itself a very wrong thing to do in the first place?.
- Does He have no confidence in himself?, or it is the others who run the other Churches has no confidence in him?,
Why He should write?:
2Corinthians-11:16 Again I say, LET NO ONE THINK ME FOOLISH; BUT IF YOU DO, RECEIVE ME EVEN AS FOOLISH, so that I also may BOAST A LITTLE.
2Corinthians-11:19 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
-Did any one think or said that he is foolish?, and whom?. Why he want to boast himself instead of being a humble man?.
JESUS said:
MATTHEW- 15:10 “ it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
-It seems always, and clearly, that Paul wanted to press his own views, no matters what, lying, do evil, or by robbing if needed be, and even to use force if needed too, or by calling himself foolish, and in any other means if needed .
So HE said,
2Corinthians-11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
2COR. 11: 8 I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES by taking wages from them to serve you.
- IT IS NOT ONLY ROBBERY BUT A BRIBERY TOO.
1Corinthians-4:20 “For the kingdom of GOD does not consist in words but in power .
-But he did not stop to say what HE wanted to say about himself, but he went much further when he said:
1CORINTHIANS -6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?..
( HE is right, because now, there are saints more than we can count , ten thousands or more)
- At this point, you might ask this question: “how can you write such a things about Paul, and he is after all a saint”.
-FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT I AM DEFFENDING JESUS from the others.
And my answers will comes in two parts; the first is asking you to go back and read the words of JESUS which show you all the truth, and separate HIS words from the others, because I myself every time I wanted to find the truth I go back to JESUS words and no one else. And the second part I am putting it as questions to you: Can you tell me if Paul became a saint by the word of JESUS?. Is he one of the many thousand who became saints?, and by whom?. Did they became saints by the order of a few man (popes & bishops, the rulers of the Christians who burn and kill anyone not following their teachings) those wearing long and fancy robes and sitting on golden chairs, and holding very high positions from which they created by themselves?,
and those the ones JESUS mention them, and if you did forget, then you should go back and read the Bible. Adding to that, what Jesus said about those people:
- “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of GOD in order to keep your tradition”.
-These are not my words, but the words of JESUS , and HE is always right.
1COR 6:3 Do you not know that WE WILL JUDGE ANGELS ? How much more matters of this life?
1COR 1:25 Because THE FOOLISHNESS OF GOD is wiser than men, and THE WEAKNESS OF GOD is stronger than men.
-Can PAUL say that, when JESUS say this :
MATTHEW-12:31 ......But blasphemy against the SPIRIT shall not be forgiven.
12:32 .....But whoever speaks against the HOLY SPIRIT , it shall not be forgive him; either in this age or in the age to come.
-Can we believe that the saints which they created by men’s orders, will judge GOD’S ANGELS, and that is only according to PAUL’S new laws . Are the angels, ‘GOD’S angels?, which been created not from earth?, and they are not from flesh as we human are, and no one can or will see them except those and only ones chosen by GOD, like ABRAHAM, MOSES, MARY, JESUS, and other prophets. And how we human can judge them if we do not see them . (LOGIC, LOGIC, WHERE IS THE LOGIC?)
Can HE use the term foolishness, and weakness attached to the ALMIGHTY GOD , and compare God with people?, I don not think that he has any right to say that, and put himself and the others the human to judge the ANGELS, just to prove that he is above the others, even above GOD’S ANGELS, and just because he wanted to prove that he is right, and behind any judgment from the others, and because all the others are inferior, and they are always wrong ; which HE said about them:

ROMANS-2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
-Here he pointed his finger at those in other churches who are not fit for teaching , and among them thieves and robbers, and did he forget what he said, “I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES”. I think he forget what he said about himself, is that true?.
ROMANS-2:22 You who say that one should not commit adultery? Do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, DO YOU ROB TEMPLES?.
- And again he forget that he is a robber and he admit to it, but his claims against the other has no proof. let us not forget what he said about lying.
ROMANS-2:23 You who boast in the law, through your breaking the law, do YOU DISHONOR GOD.
-Did he forget that himself dishonored GOD by mentioning the foolishness, and weakness of GOD .
1COR. 6:5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that THERE IS NOT AMONG YOU ONE WISE MAN who will be able to decide between his brethren.
-Question? Are they all not wise, and they all are bad out there?, not even one good?. Let us go back to what JESUS said:
LUKE- 6:41 “ Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
LUKE- 6:39 And HE also spoke a parable to them; “A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit?
-Question: Did JESUS used his mighty power which no one on this earth have or will have? ,did he raised the dead?, can HE use his power to punish those who are not believing in GOD with more than A ROD?. But PAUL has to use the force in every way HE could.
1Cornintians 4:21 What do you desire? SHALL I COME TO YOU WITH A ROD, or with love and spirit of gentleness?,
-Either you follow me, or I will be using the ROD, that is PAUL doctrine .
-PAUL asking for rewards, and his service will not be given for free .
1Corinthians 9:7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?.
1COR. 9:18 WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD? That, when I preach the gospel, I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
-Question?, is HE asking for something in returns?. Nothing for free, even in preaching the gospel, and the words of God?. Can you see what is going on in his mind like I do?.
1Corinthians-9:19 For though I am free from all men, I HAVE MADE MYSELF A SLAVE TO ALL, SO THAT I MAY WIN MORE.
-Here Paul prove that he is working for himself and not for the spreading the word of God , (WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD...I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE... & ..THAT I MAY WIN MORE)
-Did you get the clear picture?

1Cor. 9:20 TO THE JEWS I BECAME AS A JEW; SO THAT I MIGHT WIN JEWS; TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW, AS UNDER THE LAW THOUGH NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER THE LAW, AS UNDER THE LAW, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW;
- we should not forget that those who are under the laws are those who follow the laws and commandments that came to moses, and Jesus Himself followed these laws:
"DO NOT THINK THAT I CAME TO ABOLISH THE LAWS OR THE PROPHETS; I DID NOT COME TO ABOLISH BUT TO FULFILL. MT5:17

1COR. 9:21 TO THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW, AS WITHOUT LAW OF GOD BUT UNDER THE LAW OF CHRIST, SO THAT I MIGHT WIN THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT LAW.
- LAW OF GOD.....LAW OF CHRIST!!!!, JESUS FOLLOW THE LAW OF GOD ONLY, THERE IS NO OTHER LAW.
1COR. 9:23 I DO ALL THINGS for the sake of the gospel, SO THAT I MAY BECAME A FELLOW PARTAKER OF IT.
- For the sake of the Gospel... to be partaker of it....I DO ALL THINGS .....SO THAT I MAY WIN MORE. !!!,His word become a part of the holy book, and Christian use his word to support any arguement about Jesus instead of using Jesus word!!!.

1COR. 10:33 Just as I also PLEASE ALL MEN IN ALL THINGS,
not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.
-That is not true if we put his words, and compare them with his other words:
"not seeking my own profit ".....then....."WHAT THEN IS MY REWARD...I MAY OFFER THE GOSPEL WITHOUT CHARGE... & ..THAT I MAY WIN MORE"

JESUS SAID: “.....what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

The following are the sammary of the words which came from Paul’s mouth:
- Use the rod - I will not give for free - what is my reward - offer the gospel without charge - on my own expense- made myself slave - for the Jew, I became a jew - for the one without law, I became as without law - I please all men - I judge the angels - let us do evil - I am not fit to be apostle - I DO ALL THINGS .
- Here I lay down in front of every one the summary from some of Paul’s letters, and this time I will leave it to those who understand the words of Jesus, to judge him by his words, and through his thinking.
- I DO ALL THINGS; Is that means that PAUL wanted TO BE A PARTAKER IN THE GOSPEL no matter what he does , and no matter how he does it?, and why a great and strong person like him has to show himself in so many faces just to win?, can he just be himself, and using only his clear and convincing ideas and vision to win the others, and be able to convince them about the truth, without using the ROD, and without acquiring the THE MANY FACES HE HAVE?. Is HE working for the others, and the gospel, or just for himself?.
1COR. 9:8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or DOES NOT THE LAW ALSO SAY THESE THINGS?.
-Did we forget what PAUL says just before few lines “though not being myself under the law”, then go back to say “the law also say these things .”
What law, and how many laws are there?, there is only one law for the believers, the law of GOD?, from ABRAHAM , to MOSES, and then JESUS came to fulfill, and not to abolish the law of GOD. let us read what JESUS said:
JOHN-7:16 So JESUS answered them and said, “MY teaching is not MINE, but HIS WHO SENT ME.
John 7:17 “If anyone is willing to do HIS WILL know of the teaching, whether it is GOD or whether I SPEAK FROM MYSELF.
John 7:18 “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but he who is seeking THE GLORY OF THE ONE WHO SENT HIM, he is true, ....
John 7:19 “DID NOT MOSES GIVE YOU THE LAW, and yet none of you carries out the law? Why do you seek to kill me?.

- These words been spoken by Jesus, while He was followed by those who wanted to kill Him and kill His followers, among them Paul and the others (Jews & Romans) "Galatians-2:13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, HOW I USED TO PERSECUTE THE CHURCH OF GOD BEYOND MEASURE AND TRIED TO DESTROY IT"
-These are his words, after Jesus death, I do not think he loved Him or His people, and he is nothing but a well educated, and smart and an opportunist who try to gain something when he saw the Christian movement successfull in Damascus, and he claims the vision and shows that he became a good follower!!!, but he went further to make Jesus the son of God, against the other Chritians teachings in the holy land and he succeed by using the force.

"but even if we, or an angel from heaven !!!!!!, should preach to you a "gospel" contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!!!!!!"
-If we...... contrary to what we !!!. Cannot be accepted LOGICALLY, people should understand that, that prove he is not telling the truth.

- "ACCURSED", His follower followed his steps, and they killed and burned and robbed, because they been told that their sins will be forgiven by Jesus, and I do not think that is right from my own point of view.

God bless you.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/07/07 5:11

A: Ladyhawk,

The Infancy Gospel is bizarre. I think it was trying to show Jesus coming to terms with superhuman powers and the responsibility of those powers. Jesus’ “hood” would have been interesting to say the least.

CanuckChick brings up a good point about His siblings not accepting/believing in His divinity and His hometown rejected Him too. Jesus’ brother James sure came around though.

James was considered a very important figure in Jerusalem, he is always deferred to in matters of Jesus‘ new movement. The Tradition of James The Just is he could enter the Holy of Holies, ate no meat, wore no animal type clothes , never bathed and was consider an exceptional person by all accounts, albeit smelly. From secular and non secular accounts. Not smelly but important. Even when he was stoned to death he was praying for the people stoning him. Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.

Here’s a quote from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin-e/shows/religion/jesus/socialclass.htm-l- that puts Jesus’ neighborhood and social class into context.

“Jesus grew up in Nazareth, a village in the Galilee. Now the Galilee, by most of the traditional accounts, is always portrayed as a kind of bucolic backwater ... cherubic peasants on the hillsides. And yet, our recent archaeological discoveries have shown this not to be the case. Nazareth, itself, is a village ... a small village at that. But, it stands less than four miles from a major urban center, Sepphoris. Now, we see Jesus growing up, not in the bucolic backwater, not... in the rural outback, but rather, on the fringes of a vibrant urban life.”

Hypocrite is used by Jesus quite a few times in the NT. Hypocrite has something to do with Greek actors and it’s very peculiar that Jesus would use that word so many times. So the Sepphoris connection makes sense. There’s competing theories as to what carpenter actual meant in 1st century context.

“Tradition has it that Jesus was a carpenter. The term is in Greek "tectone" in Mark's gospel..., "artisan" would be maybe our best translation. But in the pecking order of peasant society, a peasant artisan is lower than a peasant farmer. It probably means usually a peasant farmer who had been pushed off the land and has to make his living, if he can, by laboring.
The difficulty for us in hearing a term like "carpenter" is that we immediately think of a highly skilled worker, and at least in North America, in the middle class, making a very high income. As soon as we take that into the ancient world we are totally lost. Because, first of all, there was no middle class in the ancient world. There were the haves and the have nots, to put it very simply. And in the anthropology of peasant societies, to say that somebody is an artisan or a carpenter is not to compliment them. It is to say that they are lower in the pecking order than a peasant farmer. So it's from the anthropologists that I take the idea that a peasant artisan is not a compliment.”

I agree Ladyhawk that “he did not choose a princess upon whom to bestow his seed, he chose a simple peasant girl of simple faith. That says volumes about artificial constructs of human worth; God obviously meant to make a point, don't you think?”

I think the Gospels are trying to show us how a peasant can be God’s chosen one to spread His word. Jesus even mentions how the poor are better than the rich. In this way it’s showing how the priests and the ruling class shouldn’t be envied but should be pitied. That anyone can achieve the Kingdom of God not just the rich or well connected.

“And while we're at it, getting back to the original focus of this thread, how could it be that a woman "of means" as Mary Magdalene is said to have been, be married to an itinerant rabbi who came of peasant stock (notwithstanding the fireside stories of King David)?”

There’s a theory that Mary Magdalene was a widow and inherited her money from her late husband, thus freeing her to pick up and follow Jesus without any stigma. Again pure speculation but it would fit where she got her money from. Normally Jewish women wouldn’t get any money from their fathers it would go to the eldest son. If she was the only surviving sibling I think it went to an uncle, from there I have no clue. Roman women could buy and possess property and petition for divorce but Mary was Jewish so that doesn’t work. In the Lost Tomb movie Mary’s ossuary has a Greek hybrid spelling but I think it’s safe to say she was Jewish.

Jesus was already on the road and fully into His ministry when He saved Mary from the seven demons. This is the first account of Jesus and Mary meeting. Jesus it would seem was single at this point.
If Mary had no living father or no living husband then I guess she would be free to marry anyone she wanted. If Jesus’ father was also dead than Jesus’ marriage to Mary wouldn’t be an arranged one but one of their choosing.

Mary was given the name apostle of apostle in later Traditions. I believe she was one of the original founders of The Jesus Movement, too. She was a teacher, healer, miracle worker and on a spiritual plane with Jesus that the other apostles weren’t. Wife maybe, but I still can’t understand why obfuscate it. It would not change a 1st century Messiah or negate one either. The whole He’s divine He couldn’t, just doesn’t cut it for me. It’s picking and choosing what parts of Jesus were human and what parts were not. He ate, slept, drank but oh not that!!!!

“I am obviously no Biblical scholar, and I confess I get a little bored when the whole "lineage" thing comes up. It smacks of deus ex machina.” Cool use of Latin.

I hear ya on the lineage thing, my mind starts to drift when they get to about the third “and so begot so begot so” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. It was of great importance to The Jewish people, though.

”Your question with regard to James and Paul is really intriguing. I confess to a real bias when it comes to Paul; I think he rather rearranged things to his own liking. Almost everything in doctrinal Christianity that can lead to extremism seems to have its origins in Paul. I'm beginning to think he was the James Dobson of his time....(but this mostly instinct on my part. I can't point to anything to prove it.)”

Paul is a dichotomy from the word go. I can not reconcile Paul with Jesus. Oh had he never traveled that road to Damascus! My take on the guy is he straddled the line between his Roman Citizenship, he uses it a few times to save his butt, and that of a 1st century Rabbi. He purportedly studied under the Rabbi Gamaliel.
He was, by his own admission, a persecutor of the early movement and yet he comes away as the founder of what now is considered Christianity.

“He describes in Galatians, how three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem, where he met James, and stayed with Simon Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:13–24). According to Acts, he apparently attempted to join the disciples and was accepted only owing to the intercession of Barnabas – they were all understandably afraid of him as one who had been a persecutor of the Church (Acts 9:26-27). Again, according to Acts, he got into trouble for disputing with "Hellenists" (Greek speaking Jews and Gentile "God-fearers") and so he was sent back to Tarsus.”

I think James and the other apostles were going to preach/teach to the Jews or circumcised and Paul was going to teach to the Gentiles or uncircumcised.

“James concurred: "We should not trouble those of the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts15:19–21), and a letter (later known as the Apostolic Decree) was sent back with Paul enjoining them from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:29), which some consider to be Noahide Law.”

“There is some historical support for he idea that James and Paul did not see eye to eye, I think.“

“Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was a law-abiding Jew by taking a Nazirite vow (21:26).”

Paul and Peter (Jesus’ Rock, remember) really got into it.

”Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter (accusing him of Judaizing, also called the "Incident at Antioch" over his reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians in Antioch. Paul later wrote: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong" and said to the apostle: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal. 2:11–14). Paul also mentioned that even Barnabas sided with Peter.”

Yet Paul’s where we get our influence on Christian thinking. He was, arguably, more significant than any other single New Testament author for our Christian thought. Nevertheless, he provides the first written account of the relationship of the Christian to the Risen Christ - what it is to be what is considered today Christian.

I may be going back over some of sam’s thread, I haven’t read it yet, it’s late here.

nite all,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/07/07 12:52

A: Whoa! Well, I asked for it, didn't it? Much to ponder in the responses here; I'll need the day, probably, as other duty calls as well. Question: If we're going to be using scriptural passages in discussion here, is there a particular version anyone needs to see? No sense complicating arguments with sub-arguments over translation. For myself, I have no preference. The onlines are easier, because you can copy and paste rather than re-type, but I don't which are considered better or worse. A good day to all!

Name: JMD • Date: 05/07/07 15:01

A: Wow, there's a lot going on in this thread, especially by Todd and Ladyhawk. I'll respond to a couple things for now at least. I see things differently of course.

Panluna: "Jesus would have to be married since he was a Rabbi."

Not necessarily. As Dr. Tabor noted "Phipps argued that Jesus’ status as a Jewish male, a teacher, and a rabbi, would have virtually required that he be married. I have never found these arguments from silence convincing, knowing that there were forms of Judaism, at least according to Josephus and Philo, that honored celibacy, and that Paul himself mounts a strong argument in defense thereof, even as a Jewish male and “rabbi.”

LadyHawk: "This brings me to the wedding at Cana--it works, except for the fact that it won't support Simcha's (Tabor's, too, maybe?) that the Beloved Disciple was Judah son of Jesus and a boy of perhaps 10-13."

Why wouldn't it work? Though as regards the 'Beloved Disciple', well, Simcha thinks it's Judah son of Jesus, Tabor thinks it's Jesus' brother James, and I think it's Mary Magdalene! Agree to disagree, right? Who knows for certain? And perhaps they are all the 'Beloved Disciple'? Jesus' brother, wife and son would all be beloved to him, right? *shrugs*

Todd: "Wouldn’t the Talbot tomb’s “Jesus son of Joseph” be a slap in the face to Jesus? He was born divine? Virgin birth. Sorry off topic, stay focused."

I don't see it as a slap in the face. That would have been Jewish custom. You don't seriously think it would have "Jesus son of God" on it, do you?

The Son of God business came from Paul; it did not come from Jesus' brother James. And I'd believe James before I'd believe Paul - James was Jesus' brother and knew him, yet Paul never even met Jesus. So then why the hey did Paul (and Peter) take over, and not James, not Mary Magdalene?

Oh right, due to the political agenda of the power-tripping church, who wanted and thus pushed James, as well as Mary Magdalene (no women allowed! we want a masculinized religion!) into the background, hoping they'd just fade away, which thank God/dess they haven't. James the Just they turned into James the Less, and they slandered Mary Magdalene, as we all know, by claiming she's a whore.

Hegesippus, (110-180 AD approx) in his writings noted this: "The succession of the church passed to James, the brother of the Lord."

There are also Gnostic sources/texts which claim this - the disciples, asking Jesus who to turn to when he isn't there?, receive the response from Jesus that they are to go to James.

I don't take the virgin birth literally. Besides, the word that was translated to 'virgin' for Jesus' mother Mary, actually only means 'young woman.' And all the old goddess mother traits were templated onto Mary and she's become the perpetual "Virgin Mary", just like other mother goddesses. (lot in common with Isis - but then, the church took over all of Isis' shrines, dedicating a lot of them to the Virgin Mary - the new goddess.)

As John Shelby Spong, I think it was, noted in one of his books: "A literalized myth is a doomed myth."

I see it in symbolic terms, and, since from my perspective the Holy Spirit is the Feminine of God, well, however would a female impregnate another female? as the Christian belief is the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, right? And isn't Mary referred to as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit per Catholicism? So, that means a gay marriage to me, then! :b

In one of the Gnostic texts, Jesus prays for his earthly parents, Mary and Joseph, and he directs his prayer to his "Father of Truth, and my Mother, the Spirit." And interestingly, in St. John, in the NT, Jesus says that God wants to be worshiped in Spirit [Mother] and in Truth [Father].

All I have time for now. As Ladyhawk noted 'duty calls'.

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/07/07 20:00

A: Okay, that was a LOT of stuff to go through! I tried to hit a little of everything:

CC: Good catch on the educational component. That clarifies things, I think. He went to the little village school, and perhaps, as Todd points out, got a smattering of some more sophisticated ideas from the city down the road, but nonetheless startled the high priests by knowing more than they did!

I’m wondering if the scripture reference to Jesus’ brothers not believing “in him” means (1) that they didn’t believe their parents’ story of his origin and miraculous powers, or (2) that they never heard that story and so were faced with a brother who had suddenly, at age 30, decided he was anointed of God. For them to—at this point—be faced with whether or not to believe in him suggests that the family had not been living with this knowledge all along. Otherwise, they’d have long before resolved the argument around the dinner table.

With regard to “Insight on the Scriptures”, we need to be careful to extrapolate the actual words of the scripture from any subsequent interpretation that seeks to enhance what’s actually been said. The author(s) here is in some ways playing the same game Todd and I are—embroidering what information there is according to instinct, chosen philosophical guidelines, life experience and, perhaps, personal experience of God (not the “God told me to start a war in Iraq and let poor people fend for themselves” kind of experience, but those quietly startling moments of clarity we get from time to time that speak to something other than our own cleverness.)

For instance, the statement that the child “Jesus knew the miraculous nature of his birth and recognized his Messianic future” (based on Luke 2:41-52) is a pretty broad interpretation of “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” It is placing a template illuminated by 2000 years of interpretation over the original story and engineering the plot backwards. All he said was that he must be in his Father’s house—which indicates (1) he knows God is his biological father and wants to be with him in the temple or (2) he recognizes God as the Father of All, and feels called to serve in the temple as an acolyte. There is no room and no reasonable proof for the flat statement that he also recognizes his “messianic future.” That’s embroidery.

Further: In Luke 2:25-38, in which Simeon recognizes through divine guidance the child Jesus as answer to God’s promise of a savior and tells Mary that her son is destined by God for great things, or in the subsequent passage about the prophetess Anna, there is no foothold for the extended notion that “reasonably, his mother and adoptive father had passed on to him the information obtained through the angelic visitation as well as through the prophecies of Simeon and Anna….” It doesn’t say anything like that.

I make these distinctions only because arguments have been fought for thousands of years over things that aren’t even there to argue over. I recall someone once observing that a good portion of what people believe to part of the Bible is, in fact, taken from Milton’s “Paradise Lost”! So let’s be sure of how we arrive at our understandings.

SAM: Yikes! I can see you find St. Paul the same “dichotomy” as Todd and I do. And I appreciate that you are defending Jesus and his own words here. But, truly, I had no idea there was actually so much evidence! I have read some very positive works on St. Paul, but I have to go back to Matthew 7:13: “you will know them by their fruits.” The fruits of Paul’s labors in service to Jesus are readily seen these days in the radical Christian right of America, who use Paul as an excuse to overlook the forthright teachings of Jesus with regard to war, mixing in politics, persecuting and marginalizing minorities, parsing charity, defying natural law, honoring the equality of women, and, while they’re at it, making a whole lot of money off the deal.

I have to say, I tend to agree that the idea of Paul or any of the disciples “developing” Jesus’ message beyond what he taught—which presupposes he didn’t get around to explaining all it properly while he was here—is pretty presumptuous. “Oh, well, (he might say) Christ Jesus was a little rushed and he just couldn’t get the whole package together before he had to move on—but I’m here to tell you that what he really meant to say was this!” Yeah, right. And this from the guy (use of poetic license coming up) that God had to knock off his high horse with a 2x4 to even get his attention!

The entire 1Corinthians:6 passage relative to the saints judging the world seems rather anathema to the simple “Judge not lest ye be judged” thing, doesn’t it? Why would saints, (defined as the people whose lives most clearly reflect Jesus’ teachings) want to judge people, anyway? It would be abhorrent to them. If nothing else, Paul appears to have invented the stunning self-righteousness of the “we’re saved and you’re not” groups who have followed him through history.

TODD: James sounds like an excellent guy, doesn’t he? Anne Rice makes him Joseph’s son from an earlier marriage, and in the beginning he is jealous of his little brother, though he doesn’t admit it. Finally, as episode upon episode grinds home the truth, he can’t stand it anymore and goes and throws himself down before Jesus and begs him to understand how he feels and to forgive him, which of course Jesus does, and from then on, they understand each other—a very strong bond.

It’s odd, isn’t it, that Paul would eclipse this brother who was the acknowledged heir of the movement and a man who lived the Word as closely as was humanly possible.

Points well made on the subject of Mary Magdalene. I have not studied her a lot so am abysmally ignorant, but I have a friend who is very well versed on her story and keeps telling me to get into it, so I guess I should. Do you suppose Paul had a hand in changing her reputation, or did that happen later?

Re: dues ex machina. Seriously, that’s practically all the Latin I know, and I know it because I write fiction and you have to look out for that kind of stuff. You blow your credibility if the reader can see it working. And Paul’s apparent machinations—or at least the fruits of zealotry—are too obvious not to notice, especially with the marvelous examples being set for us these days.

“Yet Paul’s where we get our influence on Christian thinking. He was, arguably, more significant than any other single New Testament author for our Christian thought. Nevertheless, he provides the first written account of the relationship of the Christian to the Risen Christ - what it is to be what is considered today Christian.”

Ah! I hadn’t realized this: so he DEFINED what a relationship with Christ had to be like—and if you didn’t have the proscribed relationship, then you maybe didn’t have one at all? This sounds strangely familiar—like, “if you don’t go to MY church, you’re going to Hell.” Etc. Etc. (I’m a little touchy on this subject: savagely evangelized at 10 by a rabid child zealot whose presentation of the conditions by which I MIGHT be able to escape the wrath of God and Jesus’ indifference took 40 years to fully deconstruct!)

JMD: My reasoning on why the wedding wouldn’t work was the timeline. The wedding was at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry—3 years before his death. That would make him 30 then. To have a child of 10 or 13 he would have to have been married in his early twenties. (UNLESS, of course, Judah was Mary Magdalene’s from the marriage in which Todd says she was widowed—Beloved, then of his step-father, but not a biological child?)

Interesting, isn’t it, how many times the central figure of the young woman (goddess, Virgin Mary what-have-you) turns up in the spiritual histories of the world. Also the sacrificial male. The first time this struck me was many years ago when I was in college and taking a course in Myth. The professor was detailing archetypes in world myths and somebody pointed that the same ones existed in Christianity. This upset a number of people who found that blasphemous, but I remember very clearly thinking that this rather proved there was something to believe in, because the germ(s) of the same Truth existed across the board and across time—the literal embodiment of the Tolkien line: “History became Legend, Legend became Myth.”

Hope no one is offended. I can’t tell you how nice it is to have this sort of conversation with people who don’t SCREAM at you!

Name: Todd • Date: 05/08/07 6:38

A: JMD,

Well JMD, I think we’ve hit every heretical topic in this thread now! The Virgin Birth.

“And isn't Mary referred to as the "spouse" of the Holy Spirit per Catholicism? So, that means a gay marriage to me, then! :b”

Now remember JMD, being gay and gay marriages will get you excommunicated. So where would The Trinity be without the Holy Spirit? Sorry Dan Brown we’ve found the greatest cover up of all time.

The virgin birth poses a conundrum. Theories abound from Mary being raped or having sexual relations with a Roman solider named Panthera to of course the Holy Spirit impregnation. Was she the perpetual virgin or are the siblings of Jesus hers and Joseph's? Was Joseph a widower and brought children to his union with Mary? Have we misinterpreted brother with cousin and Jesus was an only child?

I personally agree with contemporary scholars that Jesus’ brother and sisters are from Mary and Joseph. Joseph could of brought some children from a previous marriage but they were Husband and Wife. A 1st century Jewish couple would have been expected to have children. Too much has been made about women being barren in both the OT and NT. Look at the mess Hagar got into. I also think the Gospel writers would of latched onto Mary being barren after the virgin birth as another way to prove Jesus’ divinity.

The NT makes it clear that an angel told Joseph about it because Joseph, by right, could of stoned Mary to death. That seems to “fix it” in the NT. Either way Joseph was a heck of guy. He could of backed out of the marriage and no mortal would of held it against him. God, on the other hand, probably would have. The gods mated with mortals in many traditions so even this is not unheard of. Yet one more way to prove Jesus’ divinity.

Could be in “symbolic terms” as you say, of course it could. You find that a lot in the Gospels.

Here again we have to ask the question: Were the Gospel writers recording history or were they trying to fit Jesus’ life into the Old Testaments Prophecies. What better arguement can you have, "well my Messiah was born of a virgin from the seed of God".

“Scholars of the historical Jesus dismiss the Virgin Birth and the nativity of Jesus as an Early Christian story to equate Jesus to Moses. In Moses’ time there was the Massacre of the Innocents and to show him fulfilling the prophecy (the return from Egypt and so on).”

The literary devices and parables of the bible leave it wide open to interpretations or misinterpretations. Look how easy it is to quote the bible, out of context, to justify or explain anything.

Since I tend to jump around quite a bit I’ll throw this out there. Is it really the exact words in the bible or the gist of it that really matters. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know all about The Word and The Word is The Word the actual Word given as The Word to be taken as The Word spoken as The Word. But what about the meaning and the lesson trying to be taught by The Word?

Think about it. Religions pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe. An eye for an eye “oh that‘s not meant to be literal“ the part about killing or stoning your children for not honoring thy mother and father “they didn‘t mean it that way“. When’s the last time your local church had a good old animal sacrifice. I know the Gentiles/Jews division. Look at how many people can quote chapter and verse but have absolutely no idea of the meaning of what they say.

So I agree with your statement that the virign birth could be in "symbolic terms". A new covenant between God and His people. A virgin birth would reinforce that bond.

As Ladyhawk put it so eloquently “embroidering what information there is according to instinct, chosen philosophical guidelines, life experience and, perhaps, personal experience of God (not the “God told me to start a war in Iraq and let poor people fend for themselves” kind of experience, but those quietly startling moments of clarity we get from time to time that speak to something other than our own cleverness.)

The gaps are too many and the text, sometimes, too vague not to.

I agree that the Isis tradition/cult has similarities to the NT story actually vice a versa . The flood story and The Epic of Gilgamesh are pretty similar too, I believe. Osiris and the resurrection have similarities too.

Ladyhawk “Hope no one is offended. I can’t tell you how nice it is to have this sort of conversation with people who don’t SCREAM at you!”

YES I AM OFFENDED!!!! YOU *&^%$##@@ HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!

Really doesn’t have much impact by just using the caps lock;]

I’ve been waiting years to be able to have civilized conversations like this.

I have a few things to reply to in your thread but I’ll have to hit those tomorrow,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/08/07 13:10

A: TODD: "Since I tend to jump around quite a bit I’ll throw this out there. Is it really the exact words in the bible or the gist of it that really matters. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know all about The Word and The Word is The Word the actual Word given as The Word to be taken as The Word spoken as The Word. But what about the meaning and the lesson trying to be taught by The Word? "

:D Of COURSE it's the gist. That's rather the irony of all the screaming, isn't it?

"Look at how many people can quote chapter and verse but have absolutely no idea of the meaning of what they say."

And that's the part that's the most puzzling to me. People are just dazzled by all the parts that obscure the message. It's like mass ADD ("Oh, look! A chicken!"). Like everybody has a processing chip missing. For God's sake, people, the book is a history of the evolution of the human mind; about coming out of the dark ages of spiritual awareness and into the light with God.

It's about applying the simplest principles so that we can get along with each other and not solve every problem by going to war on one scale or another. How hard is this?

You gotta wonder how many times a "day" God looks at us and wonders "What was I thinking? These guys are hopeless!"

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/08/07 14:21

A: Good one,Ladyhawk!!!

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/08/07 16:17

A: Ladyhawk & Todd: "I’ve been waiting years to be able to have civilized conversations like this." You bet!

First, I think we're getting our Jameses confused. At least I am. Apparently, there are four James mentioned in the bible.
1) James, the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot)
2) James, the son of Zebedee - brother of John and one of the original twelve apostles.
3) James, another apostle of Jesus and son of Alphaeus. (his other name - Clopas. (James the Less)
4) James, the son of Mary and half brother of Jesus. Not an apostle, but was an overseer of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem. Wrote the bible book bearing his name.

------------------------------------------------
"Wit-h- regard to “Insight on the Scriptures”, we need to be careful to extrapolate the actual words of the scripture from any subsequent interpretation that seeks to enhance what’s actually been said. "

I agree.

--------------------------------------------------

R-e- Paul - At times, he does come off as something of a mysoginist. In my view, however, he redeems himself in his letter to the Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one (person) in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise." (Gal 3:28, 29)

From my read of the bible, woman's role in the family and congregation, is not a lesser one, but rather a different one. Some churches have subverted woman's proscribed role, to the understandable wrath of many.

-----------------------------------------

R-e- "saints" judging the world

Consider 1 Corinthians 6 in this context:
Revelations 14:1 says: " And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads."

Rev 14:3,4 goes on to identify this 144,000 - "And they are singing as if a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been bought from the earth."

Rev 7:4 mentions them again: "And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel."

Jesus' disciples understood the Kingdom to be an actual government of God, though they did not comprehend the reach of its domain. Jesus directly promised his apostolic followers that they would occupy "thrones". Matthew 19:28 - "Jesus said to them: ""Truly I say to you, In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

On his last night with his disciples, Jesus spoke to them of a "new covenant" to become operative toward his followers, as a result of his sacrifice. Luke 22:28, 29 - "However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel."

This is the answer to the petitiion to God: "Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." (Matthew 6:10)

Ok, the Readers' Digest version: The "kingdom" is God's government, with Jesus at its head...a theocracy. God has selected "co-rulers" for Jesus. They have been "bought" from the earth. They number 144,000. Among that number are ones that accepted and followed Jesus when he was on earth.

They will rule over a "great crowd" living on the earth. Rev 7:9 - "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands."

Rev 7:14 goes on to identify this "great crowd" - "So right away I said to him: ""My lord, you are the one that knows."" And he said to me: ""These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.""

-------------------------------------

I'm- a little fuzzy on how the Mary Magdalene Was A Whore story got started. I believe it was a church leader hundreds of years ago. Suited their purposes at the time of maintaining a male-dominated church.

----------------------------------------

Re- the virgin birth - we can go around in circles about this one adfinitum. Personally, I believe that for the creator of the universe, it would be childs-play to achieve the impregnation of a human woman, however he did it.

------------------------------------------

-I- don't want to turn this into a book (Oh wait, I already have!), so will post back re the OT prophecies about the Messiah and laws.

I'm going outside now to shovel gravel, and provide lunch for the local black-fly population.

CC

Name: TFS • Date: 05/08/07 17:09

A: I’m thoroughly impressed with all the information presented in the above. I can’t believe my meager mind wants to expand on your input, but…. :

But first, I would like to address the issue of whether the scales lean toward Jesus being married vs. celibate. A piece that contributed to my acceptance of the probability that Jesus married is that there are so many common denominators found by those who research the subject independently. Most everyone’s experience commences with Holy Blood, Holy Grail and moves on to the DeVince code. Now I add a third, more convincing documentation written from independent research. Last summer this book surfaced and has been doing quite well; The Expected One by Kathleen McGowan. It is now available in several languages. She did her own research for 25 years but couldn’t get her information to market in time to pre-empt the aforesaid. God’s timing? Maybe many people need the first two to prepare for the third. Her information also has more details that fill in more of the missing gaps in the Bible. As I understand it, she chose the Fiction category as she couldn’t reveal all of her resources, quite like the Galileo approach.

Before the Gospel of Judas was revealed to the world, McGowan’s resources disclosed that Judas was a favorite of Jesus and was the only one Jesus knew would trust him enough to follow his order to inform the Romans where he was. Jesus didn’t want anyone else to get hurt so wanted their more remote location to be the spot where they would arrest him.

Since the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb, a point that often flits over my thoughts about the names on the ossuaries, which have not seen presented anywhere, is: Combining the revelation of the Judas Gospel with that of the ossuary names in Talpiot Tomb, it seems logical that Jesus would could/would name a boy child of his Judas. Does anyone think this brain wave of mine plausible?

Your expressed feelings about Paul wanting to call his own shots is very intuitive if history was more as McGowan documents. Almost makes me wonder if you’ve read McGowan’s book and maybe want to introduce these ideas slowly so more can digest more clearly. Hmmm? I’ve copied all of Paul’s contributions you listed above for future reference. From the moment I had an understanding of how Paul’s perspective has affected what I was taught (and learned) in the formative years, my gut said he couldn’t being following Jesus as Jesus would have wanted. Thank you for all your posts as they validate those feelings and that is no little matter.

Please excuse any disconnect as I wrote this during my break...

PS, just scimmed the latest posts. A contended theory is Mary Magdelene had a child in her first marriage. That child may have been older when at Jesus and MM’s wedding.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/08/07 17:33

A: Ladyhawk,

Here’s a link to amaze and impress without actually having to learn Latin.

http://www.yuni.com/library/latin.html

I’ll say a couple of things about “our favorite Apostle” Paul. “History is written by the Victors” The Romanizing of Jesus’ message made it palatable for the non-Jewish masses, thus it was able to spread when most Messiah movements died out after their leaders died. The fact that Paul totally missed the mark as to Jesus’ teaching well…. at least he spelled Jesus’ name right!!!

My gut tells me James was so busy just dealing with the aftermath of his Brother’s death both the religious, the emotional and political fall out must have been a tremendous stress. Jerusalem was an occupied state. The corrupt Jewish leaders had helped kill his Brother in the most humiliating way possible, for a 1st century Jew. He was scrambling just trying to keep the movement alive.

James had his hands full when Paul walks in: We should do this, how bout that, can we do it, can we, can we!
“Yeah Paul, take the message to The Gentiles, as a matter of fact, take the message as far away from here as possible, then report back to me”.

In the end my take on Paul is: he was “a Johnny come lately” to the movement, a hot head zealot, well meaning and passionate “about what I don’t know” (Rodney Dangerfield) and an opportunist. A prophetic chameleon straddling the line between The Roman and Jewish worlds.

He was beheaded for his beliefs. Whatever else the guy did or didn’t do, was or is, you got to admire someone laying it on the line for their beliefs, in an abstract kind of way, of course. He did say some good things, too.

As I’ve stated before I believe Jesus, as with James too, were trying to reform from within Judaism rather than starting an entirely new religion. Most of the “original” players in the Jesus Movement were either martyred or dead by the time of the Jewish revolt in the 66. Millions of Jews died during the successive years following it. The Temple was destroyed, the end time never occurred and the Roman machine would keep bulldozing for years to come.

Maybe that was Jesus’ ultimate predication. It wasn’t the end time for the Romans but the end of the Jewish occupation of the Holy Land as they had known it.

It does irk me that the best and the brightest of the Jesus Movement got relegated to the back seat. The message got obfuscated and too much emphasis has been put to propagate The Organized Religion part and not the spiritual inner growth.

But here we are debating and expressing our views in a way that, I believe, is how grown people should conduct themselves. Respect for alternative views, not the elitist my views are right and you must believe as I do or else. Spiritual growth should be on going and evolving throughout the phases of our lives.

Todd

CC, wikipedia James The Just. Not a bad starting place for James.
I'm heading out doing lawn chores too. I do think we can at least agree that Black Flies are the plague of the earth. Why do they go for the eyes? More later on James.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/08/07 18:56

A: Ladyhawk
[and now there's even more in here since I checked late last night - or rather, very early this morning. Will have to get to it later.]

Ladyhawk: "JMD: My reasoning on why the wedding wouldn’t work was the timeline. The wedding was at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry—3 years before his death."

How do you know for certain that the wedding at Cana took place 3 years before Jesus' death? It could just as likely have taken place 13 years prior.

Jesus died at around age 33. If the wedding took place, as you note, 3 years before his death, that means Jesus would marry at 30 years old? Maybe today, that's a 'normal' age for men to now marry, but back then it wouldn't be, so, based on that, it'd make more sense that the wedding at Cana took place when Jesus was around, let's say, 20 years old - and 13 years later, he's crucified, leaving behind his wife, Mary/Mariamne, and their son, Judah who'd be around 12 years old. And, possibly,
there were other children; Mary Magdalene could have been pregnant, too, at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Speculation of course, but I like to play with ideas/thoughts. It's not always about being 'right' or 'wrong', it's oftentimes just differing viewpoints/opinions.

Ladyhawk: "(UNLESS, of course, Judah was Mary Magdalene’s from the marriage in which Todd says she was widowed—Beloved, then of his step-father, but not a biological child?)"

That's just speculation, and it doesn't compute with me, at least. I think it's more likely that Mary Magdalene came from family money and she helped support Jesus' ministry due to this.

I agree with you Ladyhawk, as regards myth. The god Mithra is where I think quite possibly, a lot of mythical ideas about Jesus came from, were templated onto him. And interestingly, in Lord of the Rings, one of Gandalf's names is "Mithrandir". I wonder if there could be a connection? Was that Tolkien's intent at all? After all, if anyone is 'the' leader in Lord of the Rings, it's Gandalf the Wizard. And, he can be seen as a 'Jesus figure', since he dies and is resurrected again, in a sense, no longer Gandalf the Grey, but now more powerful as Gandalf the White.

"I can’t tell you how nice it is to have this sort of conversation with people who don’t SCREAM at you!"

Well, Ladyhawk, if they do, let them scream and have hissy fits and froth at the mouth... I've got a whole arsenal of Mark Morford articles - have a huge pc folder with 200+ of his articles/columns in it. I'm certain, if the Nazgul come swooping in, that I can find something of Morford's which will put them in their place.
[*sends a big wet kiss Mark Morford's way*]

Speaking of myth and all that, a book I read awhile ago, as I found it in the dollar bin at a secondhand bookstore, [lots of angry scribblings in the margins by likely a woman who was a real feminist], and figured for a buck, I'd get it. I had a laugh and shook my head, and rolled my eyes, while reading this book, [then I threw it in the trash].

The book I'm referring to is a book by a psuedo feminist, [i.e. she's really at heart a male supremacist], name of Cynthia Eller. [old yeller'] She wrote a book called "Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory" that has more flaws than the Da Vinci Code! Seriously, dude.

Fortunately, there are lots of 'real' feminists out there, and one whose website I've visited for a few years now, is by the brilliant and very intelligent Max Dashu. And Max rocks and rolls, and pins Eller right to the wall, where she belongs, in a very lengthy critique. Interestingly, Eller didn't have an academic job 'before' writing this book, but 'after' she wrote it, well, now she does. Ah, why am I not surprised? Academia for the most part, is still an old boys network, [with women's studies relegated to the 'ghetto' of academia], and the male surpemacists thus loved her book and blindly didn't critique it objectively - well, why should they when it suits their agenda? Eller is their little darling.

Besides, I've done far too much research as regards North American Native women, so I know better. Many don't realize, that the early feminists, our foremothers, were influenced by Native women! For within Native cultures, -before white euro men destoryed it- these white euro women, [who at the time were property of white men], discovered a life they could only dream of. It's a shame and a disgrace, the way Native North Americans have been treated in history books. So many damaging lies told. But I know better Native people!

Eller of course does not discuss Native American women in her bogus book; but then, it's likely she's not only a male supremacist, but a white supremacist, as well. And after all, it did not 'fit' with the agenda she was promoting in her book.

"CRITIQUE OF CYNTHIA ELLER'S
The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory:
Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future"
www.suppressedhistories-.net/articles/eller.html

Than-k- you, Max ! Excellent job! *applauds*

Next, I'll work on a post to respond to the delightful Todd. [I'll give him time to get the black flies out of his eyes! :b] Besides, I have other matters to attend to myself. Such is life.

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/08/07 22:34

A: We all seem to be gardening today, but I’m trying to keep up here, so will drop in a little bit:

Panluna: Thank you! :)

CC: You know, I can’t reconcile anything in Revelations with Jesus. It appears to have been deliberately designed to scare the hell out of people, and as such has a very feral, pre-Christian flavor to it. It is not organic in the sense that Jesus is. It feels like a marketing tool. Further, the effect of its brutal visions on the spiritual advancement of humanity can be seen in things like the Inquisition and the Holocaust and the revolting “Left Behind” series, in which we are treated to the appalling spectacle of Jesus and his Chosen wallowing triumphantly in the blood of their enemies, their swords brandished bright in the sun of a new day. Son the morning, anyone? (Milton)

I think one of the Popes wronged Mary Magdalene (some of those guys were more politicos than saints, much like today). I do agree that the Creator of the universe could certainly incarnate as he saw fit; there wouldn’t have been any impediment to such a conception. And if God wanted to cloth himself in human flesh, then certainly he would start from the beginning! Personally, I like this idea: that God wanted, among other things, an experience of being human. It makes more sense to me, in terms of Jesus’ conception, than the idea that he conceived a Son with the only objective being his eventual death. There’s something missing in that idea. I’m not denying the salvation angle, just saying that that seems to me a little human-centric. And again, it’s one of those great ADD distractions—people get so caught up in their salvation that they don’t really take much of an interest in God himself, or the Creation, or anything beyond their own sorry selves.

TFS: You are not the only one struck by the name Judah in the Talpiot Tomb. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the name of the “son of Yeshua” was the Gospel of Judas and the idea that, if this Judah son of Yeshua was the real thing, then the Gospel of Judas may just have been infused with a big dose of credibility.

I have not read the McGowan book, and I can’t even remember now when I first started thinking about Paul. It’s been a long time. I think it may have been the first time I heard the word “Pauline” used in reference to a line of thinking. It just didn’t sit right.

TODD: Well, you just took all the words right out of my mouth! I have nothing to add that won’t be superfluous! I especially like the part about being “well meaning and passionate about ‘what I don’t know.’” The road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

“It does irk me that the best and the brightest of the Jesus Movement got relegated to the back seat. The message got obfuscated and too much emphasis has been put to propagate The Organized Religion part and not the spiritual inner growth.

But here we are debating and expressing our views in a way that, I believe, is how grown people should conduct themselves. Respect for alternative views, not the elitist my views are right and you must believe as I do or else. Spiritual growth should be on going and evolving throughout the phases of our lives.”

Amen to that. Faith journeys are just that: journeys. Static faith, faith based in fear, and faith attached to harmful works done in the name of God need to be reexamined. And how cool is it when we can sit down and discuss these things as friends—no doubt the way they used to in times gone by—and not be despised or cast out? (I actually have a friend with whom I am forbidden to discuss religion, new ideas being so anathema to her faith that she becomes ill upon hearing them!)

Thanks for the very cool link to Latin; whenever I start slinging esoteric Latin phrases around now, you can take the credit!

JMD: I think I’m taking something for granted that may not be. Wasn’t the changing of water to wine the Wedding at Cana the first of Jesus’ miracles? And did it not take place at the beginning of his ministry, and was that not three years before his death? The wedding is found in John 2:1. John 1 chronicles the testimony of John the Baptist and the choosing of the disciples, and segues into the ministry itself in John 2, which begins with the wedding. Wasn’t it a three-year mission? Maybe I have that wrong….anyway, that’s what I’m basing all my calculations the wedding of Jesus and Mariamne on, and why I keep saying their child would have been very small—if the wedding at Cana was theirs and the child conceived afterwards. I apologize if I’ve got that wrong. Anybody?

I like the idea that Mariamne came of family money—since she knew languages and had traveled; my only question would be whether or not she was free to marry anyone she wished to marry--times being what they were—if she was herself a young, virginal woman, coming from her father’s house.

With regard to “The Lord of the Rings” it’s almost a slam dunk that Mithrandir has some connection to Mithra, Tolkien being one of the foremost linguists in the world at that point, and also being an ardent student of myth (as well as a committed Catholic Christian). In that vein, another interesting aspect of Gandalf is that he is a spirit who puts on human flesh to go into the world of Men. And here’s something else about Gandalf the Grey that’s interesting in terms of the discussions we’ve been having here: he does not carry full knowledge or memories of his former life as a Maiar spirit—only the things he needs to know. His knowledge is increased upon his “resurrection” to the life of Gandalf the White, but in the beginning he navigates the world in as much a state of human ignorance as it is possible for him to have. He learns as he goes and follows his instincts and makes choices founded in universal truths. And it is not so much his “magic” that saves the day, as his love, compassion and devotion to good.

Which gives a little boost to my contention that Jesus didn’t carry the fully formed (and informed) mind of God on his human shoulders, but an evolving awareness of who he was and what he was meant to do.

Okay, now I’m going outside!

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/09/07 3:37

A: Generally speaking the educational frame work was the family, school and the teacher. They appointed teachers in each town or district to teach young boys starting from the age of 6 yrs. The methods of instruction were memory by accurate transmission, repetition of material and creative thought. Disciplined did play a major role in the school and at home by the father. It did not matter whether your family was poor or wealthy, everyone went to the same schools available which were held in the synagogues.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/09/07 4:44

A: TFS,

Holy Blood got me into this mess, too.

As stated in the start of this thread about the wedding scenario, it’s plausible. After all the debating we’ve done here, your guess is as good as anyone else’s.

I would like to believe She and Jesus were.

The theory that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him in order to fulfill the scriptures is intriguing. That Jesus entrusted Judas because he was the only one Jesus thought could follow through with it. Judas was also in charge of the groups cash. I’ve also heard that Judas, wanting a Warrior Messiah, set Jesus up in order to force Him into The Warrior Messiah role and when he was crucified the guilt consumed him, therefore, his suicide.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/h-oly_week/why_did_judas_betray.htm

“Judas- is often identified as a Zealot, an attribute held by only one other disciple, Simon the Zealot. We know that Judas was probably a Zealot by his surname, Iscariot. Researchers believe this is a form of the title sicarii, meaning "dagger-men," a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators. In English, we could call him Judas the Daggerman.”

Ladyhawk,

Just when I thought it was safe to login to this thread YOU have to bring up Revelations!!
Ever hear the theory that the number of the beast 666 was actually naming the Roman Emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi-ki/Number_of_the_Beast

“666- can also refer to a Roman Emperor such as Nero. (Whose name, written in Aramaic, was valued at 666, using the Hebrew numerology of gematria, a manner of speaking against the emperor without the Roman authorities knowing)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w-iki/Book_of_Revelation

“Traditional- views held that John the Apostle — considered to have written the Gospel and epistles by the same name — was exiled on Patmos in the Aegean archipelago during the reign of Emperor Domitian, and that he wrote the Revelation there. Those in favor of a single common author point to similarities between the Gospel and Revelation. For example, both works are soteriological (e.g. referring to Jesus as a lamb) and possess a high christology (e.g. Jesus as "Lord of lords", God's son, etc.). What is most telling, however, is that only in the Gospel of John and in Revelation is Jesus referred to as "the Word of God" (Ő λογος του θεου ).”

I think that this is a different John than the gospel writers but whoever wrote it was on the verge of insanity either by the graphic images in his visions or he really hit his head hard when he fell down. Personally, I think John was referring to the end times being relative to his time. Revelation really does nothing for me.

Dante’s Inferno is where we get our modern views of hell, isn’t that ironic.

The Pope that started the Anti-Mary campaign was Gregory The Great. I put some references in one of my first posts.

Ladyhawk “Maybe I have that wrong….anyway, that’s what I’m basing all my calculations the wedding of Jesus and Mariamne on, and why I keep saying their child would have been very small—if the wedding at Cana was theirs and the child conceived afterwards. I apologize if I’ve got that wrong. Anybody?”

It was Jesus’ first public miracle. If the marriage was Jesus’ and Mariamne then reason says it would be after this that they had a child. My step-children theory really doesn’t hold up but I like to work a problem from all angles. Jesus could still be spun as celibate and married if He had no biological children. They didn’t celebrate anniversaries back then. If you believe this is the smoking gun or bubbling wine, if you will, you’re going to get close to the end of Jesus’ life. The chronology isn’t clear and unless the Gospel account was covered up or bouncing around in chronology you’re at the 3 year or so mark. Maybe we’re both wrong.

A child fit’s the ossuary, the theory that a naked person running at Jesus’ betrayal fit’s a child, the Beloved could be a term of endearment for child or woman and since we have no clear cut statement:
“Jesus was married and fathered a child His wife’s name was x and His child’s name was x.”

All we have is circumstantial evidence. Combine enough of it with a little common sense and you have first rate conjecture.

Here’s another link about Jesus’ wedding at Cana.

http://www.halexandria-.org/dward226.htm

Tolkien’-s- trilogy and The Hobbit are like old friends. Every few years I visit it to get acquainted with my old friends. There’s great social commentary in those books and it’s a great morality tale. As stated Tolkien’s gift as a linguist in old languages really stands out in his books.
I never put the analogy of Gandalf’s death and resurrection in a biblical context. The elves feel like a pagan/druid connection.

Todd

TFS,

Holy Blood got me into this mess, too.

As stated in the start of this thread about the wedding scenario, it’s plausible. After all the debating we’ve done here, your guess is as good as anyone else’s.

I would like to believe She and Jesus were.

The theory that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him in order to fulfill the scriptures is intriguing. That Jesus entrusted Judas because he was the only one Jesus thought could follow through with it. Judas was also in charge of the groups cash. I’ve also heard that Judas, wanting a Warrior Messiah, set Jesus up in order to force Him into The Warrior Messiah role and when he was crucified the guilt consumed him, therefore, his suicide.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/h-oly_week/why_did_judas_betray.htm

“Judas- is often identified as a Zealot, an attribute held by only one other disciple, Simon the Zealot. We know that Judas was probably a Zealot by his surname, Iscariot. Researchers believe this is a form of the title sicarii, meaning "dagger-men," a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators. In English, we could call him Judas the Daggerman.”

Ladyhawk,

Just when I thought it was safe to login to this thread YOU have to bring up Revelations!!
Ever hear the theory that the number of the beast 666 was actually naming the Roman Emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi-ki/Number_of_the_Beast

“666- can also refer to a Roman Emperor such as Nero. (Whose name, written in Aramaic, was valued at 666, using the Hebrew numerology of gematria, a manner of speaking against the emperor without the Roman authorities knowing)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w-iki/Book_of_Revelation

“Traditional- views held that John the Apostle — considered to have written the Gospel and epistles by the same name — was exiled on Patmos in the Aegean archipelago during the reign of Emperor Domitian, and that he wrote the Revelation there. Those in favor of a single common author point to similarities between the Gospel and Revelation. For example, both works are soteriological (e.g. referring to Jesus as a lamb) and possess a high christology (e.g. Jesus as "Lord of lords", God's son, etc.). What is most telling, however, is that only in the Gospel of John and in Revelation is Jesus referred to as "the Word of God" (Ő λογος του θεου ).”

I think that this is a different John than the gospel writers but whoever wrote it was on the verge of insanity either by the graphic images in his visions or he really hit his head hard when he fell down. Personally, I think John was referring to the end times being relative to his time. Revelation really does nothing for me.

Dante’s Inferno is where we get our modern views of hell, isn’t that ironic.

The Pope that started the Anti-Mary campaign was Gregory The Great. I put some references in one of my first posts.

Ladyhawk “Maybe I have that wrong….anyway, that’s what I’m basing all my calculations the wedding of Jesus and Mariamne on, and why I keep saying their child would have been very small—if the wedding at Cana was theirs and the child conceived afterwards. I apologize if I’ve got that wrong. Anybody?”
It was Jesus’ first public miracle. If the marriage was Jesus’ and Mariamne then reason says it would be after this that they had a child. My step-children theory really doesn’t hold up but I like to work a problem from all angles. Jesus could still be spun as celibate and married if He had no biological children. They didn’t celebrate anniversaries back then. If you believe this is the smoking gun or bubbling wine, if you will, you’re going to get close to the end of Jesus’ life. The chronology isn’t clear and unless the Gospel account was covered up or bouncing around in chronology you’re at the 3 years or so mark. Maybe we’re both wrong.

A child fit’s the ossuary, the theory that a naked person running at Jesus’ betrayal fit’s a child, the Beloved could be a term of endearment for child or woman and since we have no clear cut statement:
“Jesus was married and fathered a child His wife’s name was x and His child’s name was x.”
All we have is circumstantial evidence. Combine enough of it with a little common sense and you have first rate conjecture.

Here’s another link about Jesus’ wedding at Cana.

http://www.halexandria-.org/dward226.htm

Tolkien’-s- trilogy and The Hobbit have been like an old friend. Every few years I visit it to get acquainted with my old friends. There’s great social commentary in those books and it’s a great morality tale. As stated Tolkien’s gift as a linguist in old languages really stands out in his books.
I never put the analogy of Gandalf’s death and resurrection in a biblical context. The elves feel like a pagan/druid connection.

Todd

Name: Todd • Date: 05/09/07 4:46

A: Sorry about the double post or whatever happened there.

Very Strange,

Todd

Name: JMD • Date: 05/09/07 6:52

A: Todd
[sorry I didn't get this posted sooner, but I've just got lots going on, and of course, I do ramble away. But, nobody has to read it, right?]]

"Now remember JMD, being gay and gay marriages will get you excommunicated. So where would The Trinity be without the Holy Spirit? Sorry Dan Brown we’ve found the greatest cover up of all time."

:D one could always use 'Mother' instead of 'Holy Spirit' which is actually my preference, if referring to God in the symbolic triple form - the 3 in One.

From "The Secret Book of John": "I am with you always. I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Child. I am the incorruptible and the undefiled one."

Someone can be excommunicated for lots of reasons, as the Vatican is all about control and 'do as we say or else!' Of course their 'rules' don't apply to me.

Even a priest in Africa awhile back was excommunicated, just for handing out condoms, due to the AIDS crisis. He received a letter from a bishop or whomever, telling him to stop 'or else!' The priest, wiser and
more compassionate [i.e., following Jesus more than the Vatican] continued to hand out condoms, and was thus excommunicated.

Another priest [a hero of mine] left the Catholic church willingly, as otherwise he'd have been excommunicated - he believes in women's ordination, and would not back down from this belief, so the Vatican of course said he had to either change this belief of his, or else he'd be excommunicated. But, this wise priest told them 'no' that it was a belief
that was too strong, and so, he left the church, and not long ago, I heard he started his own church, where of course, women will be ordained.

Oftentimes, these excommunicated -or threatened with excommunication if they don't 'do as we say!' priests, as well as nuns, who end up leaving the Catholic church, are some of the ones who give me hope. Though there are Catholic websites which are supportive of women's ordination as well as "choice."

Todd: "The virgin birth poses a conundrum. Theories abound from Mary being raped or having sexual relations with a Roman solider named Panthera to of course the Holy Spirit impregnation. Was she the perpetual virgin or are the siblings of Jesus hers and Joseph's? Was Joseph a widower and brought children to his union with Mary? Have
we misinterpreted brother with cousin and Jesus was an only child?"

My belief, is that Jesus had brothers and sisters, children of Mary and Joseph. Though I've heard the theory before about Mary and Panthera. The virgin birth I don't take literally, but symbolically, as I mentioned before.

Dr. Tabor thinks it's Pantera, in "Jesus Dynasty", and I will admit, after reading what Tabor says, I was impressed with what I read, and went
"wow! this just might be the truth folks! - but this book is going to really freak some people out, and upset them!" - but not me of course; I'm far too open minded. Though not being a fundamentalist, not being a member of any church, but rather, a free spirit, who has a room and a mind of her own, reads/studies about and respects various religions, and being a 'heretic', well, this all certainly helps!

And even if, when I'm finished reading this book, and I have some differing viewpoints, well, I still respect Tabor for his vision, for his knowledge and intelligence; this is something he's been interested in and studied for 4 decades - no wonder I'm learning so much with this book!

I've read some of Margaret Starbird's books, and while I never accepted the whole France legend as fact, as she does, I still respect her, for the interesting spiritual path she's been on. She has had some amazing coincidences, for one thing, and she's got some wonderful things to say about 'the lost bride.' So, even if some of my viewpoints may differ, that's ok, I still like Starbird.

Todd: "Here again we have to ask the question: Were the Gospel writers recording history or were they trying to fit Jesus’ life into the Old Testaments Prophecies."

Both? Though I think it's likely mostly the latter - trying to make Jesus 'fit'.

Todd: "Look how easy it is to quote the bible, out of context, to justify or explain anything."

So very true. The Bible is a "behavior grab bag" as one writer put it, can't recall offhand who that was. Anyone can pick and choose, to suit their purposes, and call it the Word of God, and just ignore other passages that either contradict it, or are just not convenient. Why else does the Vatican, in regards to child molesting priests, ignore this saying of Jesus? - while I pull it out from the 'behavior grab bag'. After all, I think
this would be quite ideal justice, for the perverted child-molesting priests, who ruin the lives of children in every way - sexually, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually:

[Matt. 18:5-7] "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

There is no way anyone could be totally 'literal minded' when it comes to the Bible. It contradicts, sometimes drastically. Not to mention, there are numerous Bibles out there, and they differ in wording, books, and the NT manuscripts were changed and altered, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by mistake, but changed over and over again, and no original NT manuscripts. [see Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus"]

For the most part, for myself, what Jesus says, or at least supposedly said, is what is foremost most important to me as regards the NT. And there are more to some of the sayings of Jesus and the parables [symbolism/metaphors] than meets the eye - some can be very beneficial for one's inner life if one takes the time to reflect and meditate upon them - as well as face themself. But one has to look though beyond the "Word". As you said Todd, and which did make me laugh when I first read the first bit:

"Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know all about The Word and The Word is The Word the actual Word given as The Word to be taken as The Word spoken as The Word. But what about the meaning and the lesson trying to be taught by The Word?"

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
[Matt.13:10-11]

"The Greatest Psychologist Who Ever Lived: Jesus and the Wisdom of the Soul" by Mark W. Baker, Ph.D. (2001)
From the Intro: "For over twenty years I have been interested in the study of both theology and psychology. I have found each discipline helps to deepen my understanding of the other.... Some psychologists view religion as a cult that limits human potential, and some religious people view psychology as a cult for the very same reason. I have found the animosity existing on both sides of this conflict to be rooted in fear. Fear inhibits understanding.."
"...My study of contemporary psychoanalytic theories has allowed me to understand the teachings of Jesus in a different light and has enriched my life and the lives of my patients. Rather than finding the teachings of Jesus contradicted by these new psychological developments, I have found them illuminated, producing profound psychological insights I had not understood before.."

There's also a good book by John Sanford, and it's about the Kingdom within, using the NT sayings/parables of Jesus. I don't have a copy of it, but I have checked it out of the library a few times over the years.

From "Hidden Wisdom: A Guide To The Western Inner Traditions" by Richard Smoley and Jay Kinney, under 'Finding Meaning in Myth': "Jung saw the Gnostic myths as significant descriptions of psychological reality and viewed the early Gnostics as the first psychologists. For Jung, the Demiurge of the Creation myth symbolizes the inflated ego, which assumes it is the one true God. Sophia, trapped in matter, represents the archetypal Self hidden in the unconscious. The path of individuation is the embrace of inner androgyny, the union of our 'masculine' and 'feminine' aspects in the bridal chamber. The return to the Pleroma is symbolic of the emergence of the Self from unconsciousness, leading to the wholeness that is our ultimate destiny and to psychological salvation."

Todd: "So I agree with your statement th.d be in "symbolic terms". A new covenant between God and His people. A virgin birth would reinforce that bond."

I have more to add to that, and hopefully respond to some other things under this big rambling thread, but this post is more than long enough, so it'll have to wait. Now I think I'll go sleep until the crack of noon!

zzzzzzzzz
JMD

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/09/07 13:56

A: Shlomo: Thank you for the input on 1st century family and education. I was immediately struck by the difference between those early Jews and their (gentile?) counterparts in Europe. “It did not matter whether your family was poor or wealthy. Everyone went to the same schools available which were held in the synagogues.” And meanwhile, Europe was busily building a system (later reflected in the construction of the Church) whereby an enormous part of the population was illiterate, unwashed and as ignorant of their own history as their masters could make them!

Todd: Destroying any credibility I may have now, I confess I haven’t read Holy Blood, which appears to be the seminal work on these issues. To my shame I must admit that what got my attention were the symbols on the treasure map of The DaVinci Code. I never thought of the book itself as anything other than a fun summer read, but I have to admit that the symbology was fascinating to me; further, the idea, openly expressed, that Jesus was married, did not clang, as I might have expected, on my spiritual senses. It rather made sense in the context of a complete human experience. I bought the illustrated Companion book, so I could see the symbols and mysterious places that opened the doors of enquiry. When the Talpiot Tomb appeared, it was an easy step over the threshold. (Did anybody see the news article, a couple of weeks ago, about the two guys who “decoded” the tiles in the Roslyn Chapel? That was interesting.)

Very interesting stuff about Judas you have there. Can you explain more about Zealots? They were an actual sect of some sort, one that seemingly was not offensive to Jesus, since he scooped up two of their own?

Now, as to Revelations, I didn’t exactly bring it up! CC quoted it to provide some additional foundation for Paul’s business of the saints sitting in judgment on the world. But I admit it did push a button. Interesting stuff about the ‘666’ business (which has the same effect on me that the genealogies do…zzzz….). I was reading yesterday that Revelations is a source on some controversy (barely made it into the Book) and that a significant number of scholars regard it as a 1st century code sort of thing. I’m inclined to agree with you; it reflects mental illness in a number of ways, not the least of which is the lip-smacking anticipation of bloody, wide-spread revenge and physical destruction—completely anathema to the life and message of Jesus, but easily born of religious hysteria.

As for when the wedding of Jesus and Mariamne took place, I think we would have to look very carefully at what is really said of Mary Magdalene in the various writings—when she appears, and how. Reason says to me that they had been married for some time when he began his ministry, but I’m not really familiar with all the information. JMD, you’d probably know: does Mary Magdalene’s Gospel address this?

“Tolkien’s trilogy and The Hobbit are like old friends. Every few years I visit it to get acquainted with my old friends. There’s great social commentary in those books and it’s a great morality tale. As stated Tolkien’s gift as a linguist in old languages really stands out in his books. I never put the analogy of Gandalf’s death and resurrection in a biblical context. The elves feel like a pagan/druid connection.”

I don’t think Tolkien intended anything to actually be placed in a biblical context, but it’s not hard to find the archetypes. They do not, however, follow the pattern of the Biblical narrative, which frees them to exist without prejudice in a world glowing with spirituality but wonderfully relieved of dogma. The Elves, in this capacity, do represent the older, indeed “First”, experience of the sacred, and in Tolkien’s world have a place of honor, something certain Christian sects deny now to the pagans of memory, and indeed, those among us. I think Tolkien had it right; there are many truths and the only one needful of opposing is Evil.

JMD: The day has dawned, and I need to scoot, but I’ll try to address your post later today. So many words, so little time!

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/09/07 15:34

A: Hi All!

Re black flies - They've had their pound of flesh and I hope the little @#$%$$#@@*()'s are happy. I'm now covered in bites. Got one the size of a golf ball on my elbow. (allergies) So much for the fancy Mega-catch system installed by my husband (Chainsaw Boy).

Re Judas - Many interesting theories about this man, but please note the following: Evidently for a while, he had been a disciple who found favour with God and with Jesus; his very selection as an apostle indicates that. He was entrusted with caring for the common finances of Jesus and the twelve. Jesus said to them: "One of you is a slanderer". The account in John 6:66-71 explains that the one who already was a slanderer was Judas, who "was going to betray him although one of the twelve."

The bible does not discuss in detail the motives for his corrupt course, but an incident that occurred five days before Jesus' death, sheds light on the matter. At Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, Mary, Lazarus' sister, anointed Jesus with perfumed oil worth 300 denarii, about a year's wages for a laborer. (Matt 20:2) Judas strongly objected that the oil could have been sold and the money "given to the poor people." Evidently other apostles merely assented to what seemed to be a valid point, but Jesus rebuked them. Judas' real reason for objecting was that he cared for the money box and he "was a thief...and used to carry off the monies" put in the box. He was a greedy, practicing thief. (John 12:2-7; Matt 26:6-12; Mark 14:3-8)

Judas was undoubtedly stung by Jesus' rebuke about the use of money. At this time "Satan entered into Judas," likely in the sense that the traitorous apostle gave himself in to the will of the Devil, allowing himself to be a tool to carry out Satan's design to stop Christ.

We all know the rest of the story...thirty pieces of silver, the betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane, and his later suicide.

The course that Judas chose was a deliberate one, involving malice, greed, pride, hypocrisy, and scheming.

On the final night of his earthly life, Jesus himsef said about Judas: "It would have been finer for that man if he had not been born." (Mark 14:21) Christ also called him "the son of destruction." (John 17:12)

Hardly makes for a convincing case of misunderstood hero.

------------------------------

Re the "beloved disciple": Some have been wondering whether this might be a reference to a son of Jesus. Simcha quotes John 19:26, 27: "Therefore Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, said to his mother: ""Woman, see! Your son!"" Next he said to the disciple: ""See! Your mother!"" And from that hour on the disciple TOOK HER TO HIS OWN HOME." This tells me that the "disciple" must have been an adult, in possession of his own home, and not a child.

------------------------------

Re Revelations: Yes, it does tend to scare the hell out of you. Irregardless of whether it "does anything for you" or whether "it feels like a marketing tool", it describes the culmination of mankind's fall. Doubtless, John was freaked out by the vision, as Rev 1:17 tells us: "And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ""Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last,""

It tells of the destruction of false religion, and the demise of human government.

It details Christ's return - as a powerful king bringing justice and salvation for all. His return ushers in a much longed for period of peace, under a government (kingdom) headed by Christ himself.

Rev 21:3,4: "With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ""Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.""

I fail to see a parallel between the Inquisition and the Holocaust, both brought about by wicked humans.

-------------------------------------------------

R-e- the laws of the Old Testament (animal sacrifice etc.):

The only burnt offerings I have managed of late have been unintentional ones on our somewhat quirky barbeque.

These laws were abolished with the coming of the Messiah.

Colossians 2:13, 14 says: "Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, (God) made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."

John 13:34, 35: "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves."

Matthew 22:35-40: "And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: ""Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"" He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, "You must love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.""

With the coming of the Messiah, the original purpose of the Mosaic Law was fulfilled. For centuries it had safeguarded and disciplined the Israelites, preparing them for the Messiah as their instructor, as well as helping them to identify him.

--------------------------------------

R-e- making the OT prophecies "fit" Jesus: There are simply too many prophecies pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, many of which were not under his control while on earth. I can look up the scriptural references for the fulfillements if you want, but below is a quick rundown:

Born of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)
From the family of David the son of Jesse (Ps 132:11: Isa 9:7; 11:1-10)
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
Born of a virgin (Isa 7:14)
Babes killed after his birth (Jer 31:15)
Called out of Egypt (Ho 11:1)
Spoke with illustrations (Ps 78:2)
Not believed in (Isa 53:1)
Entry into Jerusalm on colt of an ass; hailed as king and one coming in God's name (Zec 9:9; Ps 118:26)
One apostle unfaithful, betrays him (Ps 41:9; 109:8)
Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zec 11:12)
Disciples scatter (Zec 13:7)
Tried and condemned (Isa 53:8)
Use of false witnesss (Ps 27:12)
Silent before accusers (Isa 53:7)
Hated without cause (Ps 69:4)
Struck, spit on (Isa 50:6; Mic 5:1)
Impaled (Ps 22:16)
Lots cast for garments (Ps 22:18)
Numbered with sinners (Isa 53:12)
Reviled while on stake (Ps 22:7,8)
Given vinegar and gall (Ps 69:21)
No bones broken (Ps 34:20; Ex 12:46)
Pierced (Isa 53:5; Zec 12:10)
Buried with the rich (Isa 53:9)

Ok, I've blathered on enough for one day. Back to the garden....and the black flies.

CC

Name: Scotti • Date: 05/09/07 18:11

A: I've come to this a little late but still wanted to post on the original topic...

FWIW, I have no dog in this fight. Regardless of whether or not Jeshua was married, had kids, etc. it does not impact my faith...

"Though it makes perfect sense for her to act this way if it is in reference to Jesus' marriage, and she is the mother of the groom, and it’s Jesus’ responsibility, as groom, to keep the wine stocked."

While "it fits" it would also fit if "James, the brother of Jeshua" or any of his other brothers was the groom and Tabor's blog even references 1 Cor 9:5: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the LORD'S BROTHERS and Cephas?”

If Messiah's brother is getting married Jeshua will be there as an "invited" guest. If a Rabbi is invited his disciples will attend him.

Several factors are against this being the wedding of Christ:

1) As the eldest Jeshua would most likely be married first and before he was 30+ years old.

2) If Jeshua did indeed have a son who was old enough to be running around evading Roman Soldiers upon Jeshua's "capture" in the garden the boy would most certainly have been older than two (three years of public ministry = nine months of pregnancy + two years and three months old for Junior).

3) If Jeshua did get married doing so right as his public ministry is starting is "poor planning."

4) Most significantly, Jewish betrothal and marriage ceremonies would have certainly been followed by Jeshua given that he referred to them as an allegory for his betrothal and marriage to the Church.

The groom is not "invited" to the wedding. The groom "comes as a thief in the night" and "takes his bride" (literally) to the home he has been preparing for (usually) the past year (typical time of betrothal).

The father of the groom decides when the young man (typically 18 or so with 13 for the girl) is ready to provide for a wife ("Only the Father knows"). With Joseph seemingly out of the picture (and Joseph was his legal father--even his disciples called him "Jeshua of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" the day before the wedding) Jeshua could have made that call himself (especially at the advanced age of 30).

A non-traditional marriage (older wife perhaps with a young child) is possible. As High Priest Jeshua would not be allowed (Leviticus 21:13) to marry a non-virgin, a widow, a divorced woman or (FWIW) a prostitute. But he is not a Priest of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek so that wouldn't been a bother (except politically but that never stopped him). But for reason #4 it seems very unlikely that this wedding was his.

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/09/07 19:22

A: Isn't the number 666 [ gold ] in one the stories of Solomon?

Name: Todd • Date: 05/10/07 5:33

A: JMD,

Let’s have a little fun with excommunication.

10 Sure-Fire Ways to Get Excommunicated
#10: Learn to recite the Lord's Prayer backwards.
#9: Refuse to accept the Eucharist -- bread transfigured into Jesus' actual body -- because you're vegetarian.
#8: Dress up your daughter as Lilith for Halloween.
#7: Give up going to church for Lent.
#6: Ask your priest questions like, "What happens to a baby that dies in a car accident on the way to its baptism? Does it spend eternity in limbo/hell with all the other unbaptized babies?"
#5: Refuse to practice the Rhythm Method on the grounds that it's morally reprehensible.
#4: Laugh during mass or confession.
#3: Have WWJD tattooed on your genitals.
#2: Save time and effort: excommunicate yourself
And the number one way to get yourself excommunicated…
#1: Read the bible, religiously.

“Who knows, maybe you could get the Holy See so ticked off they'd dust off the old "book, bell, and candle" ceremony. First a bishop and twelve priests appear holding lighted candles. The bishop then recites a bloodcurdling formula:
We separate him, together with his accomplices and abettors, from the precious body and blood of the Lord and from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from our holy mother the church in heaven and on earth; we declare him excommunicate and anathema; we judge him damned, with the devil and his angels and all the reprobate, to eternal fire until he shall recover himself from the toils of the devil and return to amendment and to penitence.
The priests answer, "So be it!," whereupon the whole crew extinguish their candles by dashing them to the ground."

Ladyhawk,

Never read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. You’re out of the club!

When I first read the book I was so nervous, I thought I’d lose my faith, in the end it just changed my ideas about how the information was dissimulated. It opened my mind and reinforced the feelings I had for a couple of years prior that something was missing in the bible. I wasn’t getting the whole story. For that I’m grateful.

The book doesn’t stand up and gets real pompous in parts. Far better books and sources are available.

A quick synopsis of the book. Mary was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea took Mary on an oar less boat to the south of France, Jesus’ child married into the Merovingian line, the Templar’s figured it out, grail legends abound, blackmailed “the church”, got rich, got killed, (Friday the 13th by the way) hid the information/documents, went underground, Priory of Sion was formed to keep the secret, the secret got to Rennes le Chateau, made that priest rich, more cover ups, some dude found/forged the documents of The Priory of Sion, smuggled those into the French National Achieves, led the authors to said documents, they put all the circumstantial evidence into a neat package, killer marketing campaign, “the church” got freaked out, lots of controversy, lots of books sold. Basically most of the stuff from Dan Brown’s book without the cool shoot ‘em up scenes.

Oh, I didn’t mean the Lord of the Rings was biblical. I was commenting on the Gandalf resurrection similarities I read somewhere.

I caught that “ about the two guys who “decoded” the tiles in the Roslyn Chapel” I can’t remember, was the music already available or were they recording it? I remember hearing that it was like a chant or religious music of medieval times.

Zealots at the time of Christ:

“The Zealots were a Jewish political movement in the 1st century AD which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). When the Romans introduced the imperial cult, the Jews unsuccessfully rebelled. The Zealots continued to oppose the Romans due to Rome's intolerance of their culture and on the grounds that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king descended from David.”

“Josephus' Jewish Antiquities book 18 states that there were three main Jewish sects at this time, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Zealots were a "fourth sect", founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) and Zadok the Pharisee in the year 6 against Quirinius' tax reform, shortly after the Roman state declared what had most recently been the territory of the tribe of Judah a Roman Province, and that they "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord."

“The Zealots had the leading role in the Jewish Revolt of 66. They succeeded in taking over Jerusalem, and kept control of it until 70, when the son of Roman emperor Vespasian, Titus Flavius, retook the city and destroyed Herod's Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.”

CC,

Great bit about Judas. After reading your post The “misunderstood hero” doesn’t hold up for me either.
Here again though is a great morality lesson about greed and honor.

RE: Revelation.

“I fail to see a parallel between the Inquisition and the Holocaust, both brought about by wicked humans.”

It seems everything and everyone gets lumped into Revelations. Name a time, past or present, and somehow someone will bring it back to Revelations. Here’s one, Ronald Wilson Reagan count up the letters in his name 666 there were people touting him as the anti-Christ.
Everyone who gets converted and get zealous is always saying the end time is near.

I still think the writer was talking about The Roman Empire and the rulers of his time. The Gospel writers were expecting the Second Coming end time in their lifetime. 1st century Jerusalem was a powder keg in need of a spark. Romans were abhorrent to the Jews of that time. Worship of many gods and so on…. The people were rife with contempt towards the Romans. The promise land, the land God had given His people, The Holy of Holies was there, and now came the conquering pagans desecrating God’s land and God‘s people. 30 years (+ or -) after Jesus died came the final revolt that destroyed The Holy land for 2000 years. In a Jewish context after the Temple was destroyed it was the end.

They were begging God for a Messiah to rid them of the Romans. When the messiahs and Jesus didn’t pan out. Revelations fills a need for a new type of Messiah. Pay back time,The second coming of Christ.

“Messiah initially meant any person who was anointed to a certain position among the ancient Israelites, at first that of High priest, later that of King and also that of a prophet”

A Messiah “In the 1st century, Jews interpreted the prophecies of the Tanakh to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans”

“The Hebrew word for messiah translates to anointed one. Thus to Jews there have been many messiahs -- all the anointed kings and priests including David, Solomon and Aaron. When speaking of "the" messiah of the future Jews speak of two potential messiahs. Moshiach ben Yossef (Messiah son of Joseph) and Moshiach ben David (Messiah son of David) [1]. The Hebrew ben can mean either son or descendant. In this sense it can also mean "in the manner of", i.e., there will be a "suffering servant" messiah in the manner of Joseph son of Israel/Jacob and a different messiah in the manner of King David.”

There were many Messiahs in and around Jesus' time.

Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) (c. 4 BCE)
Simon (c. 4 BCE)
Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE)
Jesus of Nazareth (c. 33 CE)
Theudas (44-46) in the Roman province of Judea
Menahem ben Judah partook in a revolt against Agrippa II in Judea

Scotti,

“I've come to this a little late but still wanted to post on the original topic…” what was the original topic?

Kidding.

Great points. Good reasoning.

Todd

Name: JMD • Date: 05/10/07 11:54

A: Ladyhawk:
“Reason says to me that they had been married for some time when he began his ministry, but I’m not really familiar with all the information. JMD, you’d probably know: does Mary Magdalene’s Gospel address this?"

Well, Ladyhawk it's not that one can find total 'proof' of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married by reading the Gospel of Mary. Can speculate. Some people like to make a big deal about that “kiss” and I think maybe they do read too much into that, as though that were proof enough, because Jesus also kisses his brother James in another of the Gnostic texts !

Which just proves to me, that it was Mary Magdalene and James the Just, that Jesus wanted in charge. :b

The Talpiot Tomb is our best bet as regards ‘proof’. Though "Mary known as the Master" has become my new chant.

Just to note, Mary Magdalene is referred to as Mariamme in the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Mary. We have lots of clues, hints, etc., and much to point in that direction, as regards them being married, let's just put it that way. But there's still so much sexism, too, and that doesn't help. I think that's the main reason why a lot of people cling to her ossuary being 'Mary and Martha'. Which just shows to me how much Mary Magdalene is still despised, scorned and feared. She's a threat to their patriarchal viewpoint.

The best book out there on the Gospel of Mary, as she is the leading expert, is by Karen L. King:
“Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle”
(2003)

"The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is one of the most surprising and delightful of the rediscovered Gnostic texts. This excellent new print edition of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala by the widely respected scholar Karen King is the best authorative edition available. It incorporates translations of the Coptic Gospel of Mary found in 1896 in Cairo, along with the two small Greek fragments of the text found at Oxyrhynchus.
Included is a superb introduction along with extensive commentary on the text and its implications for modern understandings of early Christianity. Highly Recommended."
Gnostic Society Bookstore

A couple other Gospel of Mary or Mary Magdalene books, in case anyone is interested:

Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority
Ann Graham Brock (2003)

The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus
Marvin W. Meyer, Esther A. De Boer (2006)
(introduction by Meyer, and an interpretive essay by Karen King at Harvard Divinity School, the foremost expert on the Gospel of Mary)

The book on Mary Magdalene that I’m currently reading [taking my time, and savouring it, enjoying all the notes!] and which is most excellent, it's superb, is: "The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament"
Jane Schaberg (2002)

The first good book I ever read on Mary Magdalene, and which now I guess I have a special fondness for, is "Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor" by Susan Haskins (1993)

And here’s a book, that I would suggest it to those who haven’t read any Mary Magdalene books, but want an introduction to her, a variety of opinions/thoughts, and this could lead to further reading:

Secrets of Mary Magdalene: The Untold Story of History's Most Misunderstood Woman
by Dan Burstein (Editor), Arne J. De Keijzer (Editor), Deirdre Good (Editor), Jennifer Doll (Editor), Elaine H. Pagels (Introduction) (2006)

"Continuing in the tradition of the New York Times bestselling Secrets of the Code, the latest book from the team, Secrets of Mary Magdalene, brings together world class experts from different faiths, backgrounds, and perspectives, to discuss the most thought-provoking new ideas and original thinking about Mary Magdalene. All of the contributors to Secrets of Mary Magdalene are well-known and highly respected authors whose books have sold more than five million copies in total. Never before has such a wide range of fascinating ideas and new scholarship about Mary Magdalene been collected in one book that is so timely, popular and accessible."

Contributing authors include: Diane Apostolos-Cappadonna, Ann Graham Brock, Bart D Ehrman, Susan Haskins, Philip Jenkins, Karen L King, Marvin Meyer, Jane Schaberg, Margaret Starbird.

JMD

Name: JMD • Date: 05/10/07 12:15

A: Todd – Dude !

*Laughs* That list is hilarious! :D

Mark Morford helped me out with my list of
"Sure-Fire Ways to Get Excommunicated"

Tell the Pope that the Dalai Lama is a lot more enlightened than he is, and way cooler.

Owning a “yoga mat or a copy of the Tao of Pooh”

Being a “neo-pagan Zen atheist Buddhist Taoist Zoroastrian Orgasmican”

Letting “Satan scrub your toilet”

Having in your possession a “Secret Spells Barbie [Wiccan-flavored]"

“Sniffing magic herbs and reciting Yeats' ‘Sailing to Byzantium’ “

Being a “radiant divine throbbing tragicomic myth junkie”

Believing in a “ghostly dreamy moist sepia-toned afterlife featuring a plethora of nubile long-eyelashed callipygian assistants plying your luminous self with wine and chocolates and fine artisan cheeses, forevermore.”

Believing in “Diversity of opinion and diversity of education and diversity of sexual understanding”

Believing that “Crusty macho hawks run the planet like never before in our generation. Violent money-addled males with far too much power and far too little perspective are in charge of far too many corporations and lobbies and governments.” [and religions!]

Being “drunk and naked On MySpace”

Believing that “Jesus/Shiva/Kronos will come back and say, "No, sorry but no, that's not what I meant at all," and will turn us all into quivering microscopic amoeba and start all over again.”

Referring to Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ movie as “the Jerusalem Chainsaw Massacre”

Believing that “You need a Living Will to keep Congress and rabid Christians off your sad, brain-damaged body”

For “Upping your personal vibration to counter all the venomous hatred slinging about the culture like some sort of conservative, fearmongering weapon of mass depression.”

Believing that “Bush, the spoiled man-child is what causes the fall of empires - stubborn leaders who speak like toddlers and never admit mistakes”

Believing that the world “is a living organism, interconnected and breathing and dying and renewing in constant flux, religions interflowing, beliefs inbreeding, crammed full of ecstatically bejeweled people who are just as contradictory and confused and gorgeous and kaleidoscopic and baffled and sleepy and horny and lost and desperately craving of juicy unfiltered spiritual nourishment as you are, in this very moment, as you read these words.”

JM:-D

"Every country gets the circus it deserves. Spain gets bullfights. America gets Hollywood. Rome gets the Vatican."
- Erica Jong

Name: Todd • Date: 05/10/07 14:32

A: Shlomo,

http://www.hornes.org/theol-ogia/content/mark_horne/what_is_the_wo-rth_of_666_talents_of_gold.htm

Then- we are told of the 666 talents, and a description of the rest of his wealth and glory is given (1 Kings 10:14-22; 2 Chronicles 9:13-21)

Numerology was prevalent in Jewish society. 12 tribes of Israel, 12 disciples, and so on…

Todd

Name: Todd • Date: 05/10/07 14:43

A: Since JMD and Ladyhawk have brought up The Gospel of Mary. Here's a good link: The Gnostic Society Library.

http://www.gnosis.org/l-ibrary/marygosp.htm

Todd-

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/10/07 14:57

A: JMD: Great stuff!

“Believing that “Jesus/Shiva/Kronos will come back and say, "No, sorry but no, that's not what I meant at all," and will turn us all into quivering microscopic amoeba and start all over again.”

:D Or as a friend of mine says wistfully from time to time, observing the machinations of the last six years: “When is the smiting going to begin? Isn’t it time for the smiting?”

“Believing that the world “is a living organism, interconnected and breathing and dying and renewing in constant flux, religions interflowing, beliefs inbreeding, crammed full of ecstatically bejeweled people who are just as contradictory and confused and gorgeous and kaleidoscopic and baffled and sleepy and horny and lost and desperately craving of juicy unfiltered spiritual nourishment as you are, in this very moment, as you read these words.”

Oh, man, that is quintessential Mark Morford! You gotta love a guy who can write a sentence like that, full of wonderful words, scintillating visions, breathless passion and underneath it all, perfect rhythm!

Now then.

**sigh** I see it falls to me to make the Judas Apologia.

All right, then. I will. Because it’s been bugging me for the better part of my life. Apparently, it bugged Thomas Aquinas, too, since he wrestled with it in his Suma Theologica, but he got bogged down in demons, which to my mind dilutes the arguments a little, demons being a real cop-out when one is considering the capacity of humans to behave abominably. But I digress.

Essentially, it all comes down to the fact that Jesus knew he was going to die. Apparently, a bunch of prophets did, too, and at least in Psalms they’re pretty clear about it being by betrayal. Now, if they knew that, then it had to be part of the Plan, right? God had to know he was going to use Judas in this way—or somebody like him.

The only way Judas’ betrayal can be a surprise is if Judas is not human, if he is one of those demons Thomas Aquinas goes on about. And even that is problematical, because (1) even demons can’t surprise God at his own game and (2) we have subsequently built a huge Myth on the back of the human Judas Iscariot and if he was a demon, we have a whole other scenario going on that throws the New Testament into a new light (except for Revelations, which then actually makes sense). But the New Testament is not a history of Zoroastrian conflict, it’s the story of Jesus, the new covenant, and Judas stands right at the center of it, a human man who worked and prayed alongside the Son of God for three years (at least) and at the last minute thought 30 pieces of silver sounded like a better deal. Hello?
From Wikipedia: “The early anti-Christian writer Celsus deemed literal readings of the story to be philosophically absurd, especially because Jesus knew about the treason in advance, and told of it openly to all the disciples at the Passover meal, as well as singling out who the traitor would be without attempting to stop him.

You see? This is the kind of thing that turns sensitive, thoughtful human beings (who are some of the best candidates for deeply understanding the word of God) into critics. I get so frustrated when smart people refuse to have anything to do with faith because it’s stupid and contradictory. I know: it’s a mystery. But mysteries have to be worried a little, tugged at and played with and speculated on. And when it’s as mind-bending as this one, it deserves better than John, the only one of the Gospel writers to indict Judas as scum of the earth, and the one who in the same breath has the nerve to quote the Son of God: “Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. When I was with them I kept them safe and watched over them in your name that you have given me. Not one of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, so that the scripture could be fulfilled.”

I do go on. To spare you further, here is a ready-made list copied and pasted from, again, Wikipedia (which is a real come-down from Thomas Aquinas, I know, but easier to copy!) that pretty much includes all the philosophical questions that come up around Judas. I think it’s important they be acknowledged. (Philosophical questions are the ones that fling us into the space-time continuum and, if we’re honest, prove to us that some questions are bigger than we are—or that maybe there’s more to them than we can conceive of.)

--If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then he is not morally responsible for his actions. The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will.

--If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the "free will" argument, and Aquinas's Summa deals with the issue of free will in demons and other beings instrumental in the life of Jesus that are nevertheless damned. This becomes a moot point in some denominations that denote Hell, not as a place of everlasting torture, but as non-existent state of the dead and the common grave of mankind.

--If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant.

--Does Jesus' plea, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas' sins?

--It has been speculated that Judas' damnation, which seems to be possible from the Gospels' text, may not actually stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems, but it does avoid the paradox of Judas' predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation.

You can tie your brain in knots playing with this. In the end, though, it seems to me that the case at least has to be made.

Scotti: Thank you for the law and history, which is exactly the sort of thing that is useful here. Hope you’ll put in some more—

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/10/07 15:13

A: Todd: "I still think the writer was talking about The Roman Empire and the rulers of his time."

"In a Jewish context after the Temple was destroyed it was the end."

You seem to be saying that the book of Revelations is referring to the destruction of the temple and the Jewish way of life.

One fatal flaw in this theory. The book was written about 96 CE when John was exiled to the island of "Patmos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus." (Rev 1:9)

It is generally believed that he was exiled by Emporer Domitian and released by his successor, Emporer Nerva (96-98 CE).

He clearly states that the revelation is a prophecy "which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place." (Rev 1:1)

History tells us that the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

So, John's revelation could not have been referring to an event that had already occurred over twenty years before.

CC

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/10/07 15:27

A: Ladyhawk:

Re Judas -

" The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will."

Makes perfect sense to me. Knowing something is going to happen, is not the same as CAUSING it to happen. Free will and all that.

Hell? I don't believe the bible teaches the Dante concept of a fiery place of eternal torment. It is inconsistent with what we know of God's personality.

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/10/07 16:54

A: How did we manage to get marriage and hell on the same topic thread?

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/10/07 20:45

A: It's been my experience that sometimes they're one and the same.

Name: Todd • Date: 05/10/07 21:14

A: Panluna,
"How did we manage to get marriage and hell on the same topic thread?"
CC,
"It's been my experience that sometimes they're one and the same. "
I wanted to use that line!!!!

CC,

“One fatal flaw in this theory. The book was written about 96 CE when John was exiled to the island of "Patmos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus." (Rev 1:9)”

“According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter. The majority of modern scholars also use these dates.”

I tend to use the earlier dates because it fits my presumption that Nero was “The Beast” 666.

“Gematria is numerology of the Hebrew language and Hebrew alphabet, and is used by its proponents to derive meaning or relative relationship."

Also a way to rip on The Romans without actually coming out bluntly and saying it.

Like the NT downplaying ol' Pontius' role in killing Jesus. Talking back to Rome was bad for ones health.

On to Nero:

Tacitus described the events in using the Christians as the scapegoat for the fire in Rome:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Re CC: “It tells of the destruction of false religion, and the demise of human government.”

Fits Nero and Rome but my theory falls apart, as you say, if the dating is after 70 CE.

Re CC: “There are simply too many prophecies pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, many of which were not under his control while on earth.”

I totally agree with your references as to the scriptural “Coming of The Messiah” but it’s what happened after His Death that poses the greatest difficulties for His followers. What kind of Messiah was He?

Remember nothing happened after Jesus’ death the New Age was not ushered in.

“The movement that originated around Jesus must have suffered a traumatic setback with his death. Not so much that a Messiah couldn't die, but that nothing happened. The kingdom didn't arrive immediately as they might have expected. For a while we don't know what happened to the followers of Jesus. They apparently scattered, but not too long thereafter it seems that they came to the conviction that something had happened. Something that did change their perspective on who Jesus was and what he would mean for the future of the movement, and this is what we know as the resurrection. Now it's not clear what happened in the resurrection. We don't know exactly how it occurred but what we do know that the followers of Jesus were absolutely convinced that he had been raised from the dead and had been taken away into heaven as a vindication of his messianic identity. He was the crucified and risen Lord.... The resurrection story brings a different perspective to the understanding of Jesus. If he thought of himself as a prophet, as a messenger of God, that changes when he himself is raised by God from the dead. He is now someone vindicated, and it's really the belief in the resurrection experience that leads the disciples to come to think of Jesus as somehow more than just a prophet. As the Messiah himself. He is the one who has been vindicated by God by being exalted into heaven as son of God.

It's probably in these early days after the death of Jesus that the movement really starts to reorganize around his memory... it's probably very much dependent upon this growing understanding that he had been raised from the dead. It seems to have circulated very quickly among his followers, but the earliest form of the movement is still thoroughly a sect within Judaism. He is a Jewish Messiah. They are followers of a Jewish apocalyptic tradition. They are expecting the coming of the kingdom of God on earth. It's a Jewish movement.”

Was Jesus the biblical messiah?

“The answer to the above question is one of the fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity. Two thousand years ago, a large faction occurred among the Jewish people: there were those who saw Jesus as divine and those who saw him as human. The first devotees of Jesus Christ were in fact devout Jews. Some of those believers in Jesus remained faithful to Judaism and considered themselves part of the Jewish community, though they viewed Jesus as the Messiah. Another group of followers broke off completely from the Jewish community; this group eventually became known as Christians.

The fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe the Messiah, Christ, came two thousand years ago, while Jews are still awaiting their Messiah. So the question is then this: Why didn't the ancestors of today's Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah?

According to Judaic thinking, Jesus did not uphold the two primary elements of the Messiah and the messianic age: justice and peace. The book of Isaiah is where most of these messages are found.

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks:nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (King James Version, Isaiah 2:4)

The Messiah is supposed to usher in a time of justice; he will judge all nations. And yet, injustice and corruption were still rampant after Jesus was crucified. He failed to bring about the major prophecy of justice that the true Messiah would have completed.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. (KJV, Isaiah 11:6)

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (KJV, Isaiah 11:9)

Jesus also failed to fulfill the prophecy of world peace. Jews expected a time when they could get along with their enemies, the wolves, and war would no longer exist. On the contrary, Christians used war more and more to gain power and control. Jews couldn't imagine that the messianic age was upon them when believers in Jesus were causing so much bloodshed.”

Revelations fits the need for a Second Coming,

Todd

Name: JMD • Date: 05/11/07 3:19

A: At least Jesus didn't fail as regards the "kingdom within". Least not for me.

:D

Panluna: "How did we manage to get marriage and hell on the same topic thread?"

CanuckChick: "It's been my experience that sometimes they're one and the same."

Todd: "I wanted to use that line!!!!"

That's why we have 'separation' and 'divorce'. Can you spell Freedom? Might have a date with a younger man on Saturday.... sweeet.

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/11/07 3:44

A: Been married for 35 years myself; a pretty good run, so far, and no regrets. :)

Name: JMD • Date: 05/11/07 5:51

A: Ladyhawk -

Congrats on 35 years. wow. You're one of the 'special ones'.

I blame 'Celestine Prophecy'. :b

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/11/07 14:19

A: Todd: Best answer I can give you is this:

"For you know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying ""Where is this promised presence of his? Why from the day our forefathers fell asleep (In death), all things are continuing exactly as from creation's beginning"".
For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those (means) the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."
(2 Peter 3:3-9)

Although it would appear that the Jews in Jesus' time were looking for a "quick fix Messiah", this was apparently not God's plan for us.

Part of the reason for delay may be that the number of those (144,000 "bought from the earth") who will be co-rulers with Christ has not yet been filled.

Peace,
CC

Name: JMD • Date: 05/11/07 14:46

A: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise"

Oh, well, things are different for me. Jehovah isn't 'exactly' who I worship, as far as "God" goes, let's just say, but each to their own, and all of that.

"Jahu Anat - According to some scholars, this was the most ancient name of the Hebrew divinity - a goddess who, over the ages, was changed into the god Yahweh, later called Jehovah."
[P.Monaghan]

Peace,
JMD

Name: CanuckChick • Date: 05/11/07 15:08

A: JMD - Good luck with the "younger man"! They can be very yummy. (My husband is 11 years younger.)

Name: JMD • Date: 05/12/07 4:37

A: Elaine H. Pagels (from an essay she wrote in 1976):
“What Became of God the Mother? Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity”

“The absence of feminine symbolism of God marks Judaism, Christianity and Islam in striking contrast to the world’s other religious traditions.. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologians, however, are quick to point out that God is not to be considered in sexual terms at all. Yet the actual language they use daily in worship and prayer conveys a different message and gives the distinct impression that God is thought of in exclusively masculine terms.”

“What distinguishes these ‘hererodox’ texts from those that are called ‘orthodox’ is at least partially clear: they abound in feminine symbolism that is applied, in particular, to God.”

“Although one might expect, then, that they would recall the archaic pagan traditions of the Mother Goddess, their language is to the contrary specifically Christian, unmistakably related to a Jewish heritage.”

“Instead of a monistic and masculine God, certain of these texts describe God as a dyadic being, who consists of both masculine and feminine elements.”

“One such group of texts claims to have received a
SECRET TRADITION from JESUS through JAMES, and significantly, through MARY MAGDALENE.”

:D

“Members of this [Jesus-James-Mariamne] group offer prayer to both the divine Father and Mother: ‘From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being…”

“Followers of Valentinus invoke this feminine power, whom they also call ‘Grace’ (in Greek, the feminine term charis) in their own private celebration of the Christian eucharist: they call her ‘divine, eternal Grace, She who is before all things.’

“Marcus, a disciple of Valentinus, contends that ‘when Moses began his account of creation, he mentioned the Mother of all things at the very beginning, when he said, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, for the word ‘beginning’ (in Greek, the feminine arche) refers to the divine Mother, the source of the cosmic elements. When they describe God in this way, different gnostic writers have different interpretations. Some maintain that the divine is to be considered masculo-feminine – the ‘great male-female power.’ Others insist that the terms are meant only as metaphors – for in reality, the divine is neither masculine nor feminine. A third group suggests that one can describe the Source of all things in either masculine or feminine terms, depending on which aspect one intends to stress. Proponents of these diverse views agree, however, that the divine is to be understood as consisting of a harmonious, dynamic relationship of opposites – a concept that may be akin to the eastern view of yin and yang but remains antithetical to orthodox Judaism and Christianity.”

[The Gospel of Philip] “..concerning the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth." :D

"Here again the Spirit is praised as both Mother and Virgin, the counterpart – and consort – of the Heavenly Father: “If I may utter a mystery, the Father of the all united with the Virgin who came down” – that is, with the Holy Spirit. Yet because this process is to be understood symbolically, and not literally, the Spirit remains a virgin – that is, of the spirit, his divine Mother. But the author ridicules those ‘literal-minded’ Christians who mistakenly refer the virgin birth to Mary, Jesus’ earthly mother, as if she conceived apart from Joseph” [or maybe Pantera..could be, could be. :b] “ ‘Such persons do not know what they are saying; for when did a female ever impregnate a female?’ Instead, he argues, virgin birth refers to the mysterious union of the two divine powers, the Father of the All with the Holy Spirit.”

“As writings were sorted and judged by various Christian communities every one of these texts which Gnostic groups revered and shared was rejected from the canonical collection as ‘heterodox’ by those who called themselves ‘orthodox’ Christians. By the time this process was concluded, probably as late as the year A.D. 200, virtually all the feminine imagery for God (along with any suggestion of an androgynous human creation) had disappeared from ‘orthodox’ Christian tradition.“

"What is the reason for this wholesale rejection? The gnostics themselves asked this question of their ‘orthodox’ attackers and pondered it among themselves… ‘They say that the creator believed that he created everything by himself, but that, in reality, he had made them because his Mother, Wisdom, infused him with energy, and had given him her ideas. But he was unaware that the ideas he used came from her: he was even ignorant of his own Mother….’ "

“..Irenaeus, an orthodox bishop, notes with dismay that women in particular are attracted to heretical groups – especially to Marcus’s circle, in which prayers are offered to the Mother in her aspects of Silence, Grace, and Wisdom; women priests serve the eucharist together with men; and women also speak as prophets, uttering to the whole community what ‘the Spirit’ reveals to them.”

“Marcion had scandalized his ‘orthodox’ contemporaries by appointing women on an equal basis with men as priests and bishops among his congregations. The teacher Marcillina also traveled to Rome to represent the Carpocratian group, an esoteric circle that claimed to have received secret teachings from Mary, Salome and Martha. And among the Montanists, a radical prophetic circle, the prophet Philumene was reputed to have hired a male secretary to transcribe her inspired oracles.” :D

[Pagels mentions various secret texts and then goes on to note]:
“As these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men, they were revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these groups, they played leading roles and were excluded from them in the orthodox church…”
:\

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/12/07 16:59

A: History is written by the winners, they say. In your reading, has anyone explained whether this sudden shift in viewpoint was a conquest or a natural evolution of ideas brought about by some new construct of culture? I'm assuming Christianity dealt the death blow, but when did the idea of Mother first begin to crumble, and why?

Name: sam • Date: 05/13/07 1:30

A: TFS,

Thank you for your answer to my post. You mentioned, " Almost makes me wonder if you’ve read McGowan’s book and maybe want to introduce these ideas slowly so more can digest more clearly.

The truth , I never heard that name before, but I would like to read it , that is if it is on the internet, please let me know, otherwise, if you had the book please bring some samples from it, and i will apreciate that.
As for my knowledge about Paul, i will explain that tomorrow.

God bless you.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/13/07 14:17

A: Ladyhawk:
"History is written by the winners, they say. In your reading, has anyone explained whether this sudden shift in viewpoint was a conquest or a natural evolution of ideas brought about by some new construct of culture? I'm assuming Christianity dealt the death blow, but when did the idea of Mother first begin to crumble, and why?"

For one thing, to remove women from religion, to relegate them to second-class status, you must remove the Divine Mother from God, and claim 'He' is 'Father' only. (And just to note, the Divine Feminine in Judaism is the Shekina.) Fortunately, the 'losers' of history have been writing their own books for sometime now, so we're finding out more of what the story is as regards women, blacks, Native Americans, and so forth; what's been hidden or distorted - we're hearing from the voices that were silenced, and that's a very good thing.

A good book to read is "When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church & the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity" by Karen Jo Torjessen, 1993

From the inside cover: "... In ancient Mediterranean society, Torjesen explains, women could play often quite powerful social and political leadership roles at the level of the household but not in public. Hence, as long as the early church gathered in private homes, women who regularly guided their households both economically and culturally often led the congregations. It was an almost subversive act to worship as Christian in the ancient world, yet women bravely organized and maintained the growing groups of followers. But as Christianity emerged from its domestic enclaves and the church became a public institution, women were relegated to private, subservient, and invisible roles dictated by Greek and Roman society's proscription of women's activity in the public sphere.

Cogent and convincing, Torjesen asserts that the sexism and misogyny that remain in the church today do not derive from Jesus and his first followers - who radically challenged conventions about gender and status - but from the social context in which Christianity flowered. Thus, those who deny women full participation in the leadership of the modern church based on the teaching and practice of Jesus and the early church, are quite simply, dead wrong."

[but then, they got a lot of things wrong, as the institutionalized church is more about power and politics, not Jesus and his teachings, so there you go - maybe it isn't so much that Jesus failed, but that people failed by not listening to him? A Christian woman I used to work with, a Catholic, told me one day that she found it ironic, but, she said to me that she had to admit that: "even though you don't go to church and haven't for decades, you still seem to follow Jesus more than all the Christians I know who go to church!" I told her that was one of the nicest compliments I've ever gotten.]

Karen Jo Torjesen, Ph.D, is Margo L. Goldsmith Chair of Women's Studies and Religion at Claremont Craduate School and an associate of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. She is widely regarded as a leading authority on women in ancient Christianity.

Comments from the back cover: "A powerful work of synthesis, Torjesen is nothing short of brilliant in tracing the connection between the church's move from private to public spheres and the corresponding move to suppress women's leadership. The cumulative effect of the book's argument is to make more rationally urgent than ever the removal of this scandal."
-Elizabeth A. Johnson

"Brilliantly lays bare the historic roots of the church's prejudice against women. A powerful, revealing, insightful book."
-John S. Spong

Just a snippet from the intro: "Christian polemicists insisted that public offices and public honors were a masculine affair and that women exercising such authority in the churches were usurping male prerogatives."

"The public-versus-private convention was in turn supported by a system of cultural values that associated men with honor and women with shame..."

"Although these notions about female shame and women's sexuality have their roots in the social order of ancient Greece" [and they hated women] "they have had a profound effect on Christian understandings of women, sexuality, and sin throughout the history of the church."

Ah well, just more reason to go solo. Make/create your own personal altar - it's quite fun, and individual, and gives one a real sense of personal spiritual power, but not in the macho big ego sense of 'power over' others, but rather, 'power with' others. The patriarchal mindset is one of 'either/or', the more matrix or egalitarian mindset is one of 'both/and.'

from "The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings & Earliest Images"
-John Dominic Crossan

"Watch out for those whose robes are long
greeted by all at the market
seated before all at the assembly
reclining above all at the feast"

"You have heads,
use them"

"For them
rulers are rulers
and
commanders commanders

For us
rulers are servants
and
commanders slaves"

"To destroy the house of the powerful
you must defeat the arms that protect it"

Listeners reported
"Your family is
outside there
looking for you"

Jesus responded
"My family is
inside here
looking for God"

"In all the past
no one in human history
is greater than John the Baptist
In all the future
any one in the Kingdom of God
is greater than John the Baptist"

"Prophets are rejected in their own villages
Doctors are ignored in their own homes"

"The Kingdom of God comes not at some future time
You cannot point out the sign of its coming
The Kingdom of God comes not at some special site
You cannot point out the place of its coming
The Kingdom of God is already here, among you, now"

"Set an example for all the world to see"

Jesus
was asked to arbitrate an inheritance dispute
and responded
"Who made me a judge?"

Jesus to follower
'Do not look backward
when you grasp the plow
or grasp the Kingdom'

"To listen to you
or to listen to me
is not to hear us
but to hear the God
who sent us both"

Name: Todd • Date: 05/13/07 15:56

A: JMD,

“As these texts suggest, then, women were considered equal to men, they were revered as prophets, and they acted as teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, and even bishops. In some of these groups, they played leading roles and were excluded from them in the orthodox church…”

In your post you can see the “duality” or conflict in early Christianity. How to reconcile Jesus’ acceptance of women as equals and the oppressive culture that resulted. You can’t and neither did the religion that sprung up in His name.

Let’s look at the “problems” that faced the later day leaders of “the church”.

When the founder of your religion taught women, included women in His inner circle, choose a women to reappear to and spread the message of His resurrection, and had a woman along with His brother as leaders of His movement after His death, what is the your next logical step?

Obviously, you wipe out all traces, or as much as you can, of that. Co-op pagan rituals/holidays and make them your own. Build over pagan sites and put your churches there. Skew your views to negate any influence women can and will have in your church. Blaspheme Mary Magdalene and obscure all references to women. Yet still give minor kudos to the women of the bible so as to hide it in plain sight. Structure your hierarchy to included only men, celibate ones at that, and Presto! Pseudo-Christianity. The religion as far away from Christ as possible and still able to use His name.

Now come on! How hard was that?

The relationship that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had, regardless of where you stand on the “marriage thing, is that of a teacher and a favored student. She is the one who understood what Jesus was talking about. I think we all can agree women played a huge role. Actually, the most basic and yet most profound role. Support! What we can glimpse, from the Gospels, is that Mary Magdalene and other women supported Jesus’ movement with money, intellectual curiosity, and care.

“Certainly, the New Testament Gospels, written toward the last quarter of the first century CE, acknowledge that women were among Jesus' earliest followers. From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means (Luke 8:1-3). He spoke to women both in public and private, and indeed he learned from them. According to one story, an unnamed Gentile woman taught Jesus that the ministry of God is not limited to particular groups and persons, but belongs to all who have faith (Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-28). A Jewish woman honored him with the extraordinary hospitality of washing his feet with perfume. Jesus was a frequent visitor at the home of Mary and Martha, and was in the habit of teaching and eating meals with women as well as men. When Jesus was arrested, women remained firm, even when his male disciples are said to have fled, and they accompanied him to the foot of the cross. It was women who were reported as the first witnesses to the resurrection, chief among them again Mary Magdalene. Although the details of these gospel stories may be questioned, in general they reflect the prominent historical roles women played in Jesus' ministry as disciples.”

“The letters of Paul - dated to the middle of the first century CE - and his casual greetings to acquaintances offer fascinating and solid information about many Jewish and Gentile women who were prominent in the movement. His letters provide vivid clues about the kind of activities in which women engaged more generally. He greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers (Romans 16:3, 7, 15). He tells us that Prisca and her husband risked their lives to save his. He praises Junia as a prominent apostle, who had been imprisoned for her labor. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). Here is clear evidence of women apostles active in the earliest work of spreading the Christian message.

Paul's letters also offer some important glimpses into the inner workings of ancient Christian churches. These groups did not own church buildings but met in homes, no doubt due in part to the fact that Christianity was not legal in the Roman world of its day and in part because of the enormous expense to such fledgling societies. Such homes were a domain in which women played key roles. It is not surprising then to see women taking leadership roles in house churches. Paul tells of women who were the leaders of such house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19). This practice is confirmed by other texts that also mention women who headed churches in their homes, such as Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship. Paul, for example, greets a deacon named Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and assumes that women are praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). As prophets, women's roles would have included not only ecstatic public speech, but preaching, teaching, leading prayer, and perhaps even performing the eucharist meal. (A later first century work, called the Didache, assumes that this duty fell regularly to Christian prophets.)”

Paul actually did some good.

In looking back over our debate here we have already touched upon Gospel verses, Gnostic verses, and other outside sources as to the power and influence women had in The Early Jesus Movement.
In trying to figure out whether or not Jesus and Mary were married we’ve inadvertently shown the influence women had in Jesus’ ministry. Thus, the foundation of Christianity.

HA, I knew I could figure out a way to blame you women for all that is wrong with Christianity!;] Happy Mother’s Day to all!

I think Spirituality is coming back full circle and not in the places you would expect.
The virgin Mother is slowly taking over and becoming the most popular “rising star” in “that religion“.
In Florida a few years back, there was an apparition on a glass building, that looked like Mary. The amount of people who flocked there a day was mind blowing. “the church” never missing an opportunity to make a buck were selling tokens, trinkets, postcards, and the like. In China, Indiana there’s another apparition thing going on and it‘s big business. In South America there are more. As a matter of fact The Virgin Mary is appearing every where. Even on a grilled cheese sandwich, which sold for about 20 grand on Ebay, by the way. The masses in honor of The Lady of Guadalupe. There’s even a picture that travels around the country with the image of the Virgin Mary doing something, I can’t remember what the scam is on that one. Fatima has been recognized as a “miracle” I’m not sure if they called it that flat out.

The point is you’re seeing a gradual shift, a coming back to what once was. These, as I term them “Virgin Cults” are a direct link back to The Sacred Feminine. What “they” tried to stamp out is in subtle ways taking over. You see a shift in attitudes towards women and The Early Jesus Movement. In the past 20 years look at all the books that have been written on the subject. Look at how completely different scholars view The Early Movement today than say 50 years ago.

In a spiritual sense we are reconnecting to what we all feel inside. Almost wired into our DNA, mitochondrial of course.

When you mention Native Americans and the roles that women play you have to remember the structure of the “tribe”. Every member contributed and was crucial to the survival of the tribe. Necessity is “The Mother” of all invention. Women were shamans, diplomats, and of course the ones who gave life. The giver of life. The power in that is immense and of course that was worshiped and revered. Women filled whatever role was needed, as did the men, the elderly, and children. All the tribe was important. A complete society.

No matter who or what you are, you had a mother.
Happy Mothers Day to all The Givers Of Life,

Todd

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/13/07 17:43

A: Todd:

Superb.

I agree; things are changing. People can feel it--not all of them, but more than before.

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/13/07 22:59

A: Todd,
Thanks for the Mother's day wishes.My children have to pay me tribute all day.I get to do what I want.My son is taking me out to dinner.
Today is the day of Mary's appearance in Fatima,Portugal.I read 365 Goddess by Patricia Telesco everyday.And The Goddess is alive and well revered.

Name: sam • Date: 05/14/07 0:01

A: TFS,

About readin the book of "Mcgowan".
First, I thought that Mcgowan is "HE" but going back to your post I found that the searcher and the writer is "SHE".
Anyhow, I am glad that someone share with me the same opinion and come to the same conclusion. which been axcepted by you and JMD and Todd.
The truth will never die, no matter how depressed or hidden.
Before explaining how I did come to my findings, I would like to bring a small story which i wrote after receiveng my first PC on my 65th birthday, and start writing my own biography for the 65 years journey around the world and to end in Canada. Here a part of my story:

"The life now is different, my grand son ... live thousand km. Away, and he is only five years old. I have a strong urge to tell him his family story, but how?. My English language not perfect, so is the spelling, and the grammar. I think he is much better than me.
At the age of two he start reading, and after only four months from attending the school he finished the forth book of harry Potter, let me add, that he is doing well with the computer, while I am not.

ME AND MY NEW COMPUTER:
While visiting my son, I was always amazed by his work on the computer. He started it by himself, he play his educational games, does his drawings & painting.
Here I am, with my rusted BA. Degree, all what I know is, those few names: email- internet- mouse- web- and few other words. At work I used to do little work on pre-programmed set ups comp., and that is all.
Ten days before my 65th birthday, I receive a big box through a carrier with the DELL name on it, it has my name, my right address, and even my telephone number and i sign for it. I open it, My surprise is to find a lot of plastic bubble, and a small long box, in it an electric outlet for five plugs with long wire.
Hearing a lot of stories about those scams going around, I took the box to the police station, telling them about my worries, they told me to go to the distributor. Whom They said that they are going to investigate, and they will let me know the next day.
In the evening I got the usual call from my son, I was telling him what happen, when he interrupted me by saying “ I am sorry dad, it was suppose to be a surprise for you...it is our gift for your birthday.
One day before my birthday, I got my computer, all of it.
With the colourful instructions, it was easy for me to put thing together, and I plug it to the electric outlet, that is all.
I was afraid to push that little ON button, so I called my son. Ninety long minutes he spent with me, step by step, my problem was to find a word in the full screen, so I can move the curser to and click. Tell you the truth, after fixing one problem, another will pop up, and I have to go back to my saver. Many days and many lessons, plus many books (library) I had to go through, and I thought that I am doing not too bad. Then the biggest problem of all pumped up. The screen turned blue, with a warning. I got scared, because in one of those book I read that the blue screen it is as a death warrant. I cannot describe how worried I was.
Back again to the telephone, and with my son help I start working the antivirus things, I was relieved when I saw “ no virus found “, and only three “ threats “, thanks God.
Two months later, I started my real work in writing, after doing some practice. Open file, write few lines, use the tools then exit. I did those many times. Knowing that my smart computer will fix my mistakes in spelling & grammar.
I began my serious work. It took me more than three weeks, to get to page sixteen. I am slow, and my memory somehow started bring things up not in a very good order. Sometimes I remember that I miss an event, so I rush to inserted in the right place.
One day, I was working for nearly one hour doing that, and I became very tired, so I went to exit, but guess what happen . My computer won’t let me go. He kept opening two windows. I close one, he open the other, and so on.
I tried many different way, but with no success. Now I got head ache from his game of hide & seek with me, and I had no other choice, but to go the click ... click way, and shut him off.
After that incident, it took me four days to figure out what I did wrong, and to go back to him to start MY STORY. End of the story.

First my interest was only in the scientific channels on TV or on the internet, N.G. History, NASA, the HUBBLE, and others. But my interest about religion staff came later on when i sat for hours watching TV's programs talking about the GRAIL, DA VINCI and the INQUISISIONS, and others, and ending with the discovery of the Gospel of Judas which presented by the National Geographic, and was the talk of many other stations. I did discover the N.G. forums and started reading the different opinions, but i could not join in because i Never had much knowledge about anythig related to religion, and I bought the Quran and the NT and I kept reading and reading and making notes, hundreds of pages written by hand until my son told me about the way to "COPY" & "PASTE", thanks God things get better and easier. Studying the science of logic and staistics beside the laws to get my degree long time ago helped me a lot to analyse things to come to the truth. And I joined the forums, and I learned from the others as much i learned from my reading and search.
I am an open minded and free, since i do not see myself belong to any party or group, and i never believed in anything blindly, and my acceptance to things will come after it is supported by logic , fact, reasoning.
My belive in God did not come from believing in a religion, but from the creation of ME and all the creations around me, and from my believing that nothing comes from nothing, and the creation needs a creator, and you can call the creator God, or Diew, or Allah, or ELI, and all those name point to one and only and not to many.
The logic tells that a Trinity which come after years of debates cannot be right, and the son of God to become God after 325-381 years after is not right, and the son of God to come after Jesus death and after Jesus mentioned Himself as the son of man most of the time is not right.
Many stories in the Bible and in the Gospel cannot be accepted by logic or science, and those are not the words of God or Jesus, that is if you check and find out who wrote them.

God bless you

Name: JMD • Date: 05/14/07 9:09

A: Todd
"In your post you can see the “duality” or conflict in early Christianity. How to reconcile Jesus’ acceptance of women as equals and the oppressive culture that resulted. You can’t and neither did the religion that sprung up in His name."

That's why I don't go to church - they didn't listen to Jesus, so why should I listen to them? They could have gone the egalitarian way, if they really wanted to - but they didn't. Oh well, male pride will goeth before the fall.

I don't need a church anyway. I can't change the outside. But I can go within, to the inner spiritual world, where sexism doesn't exist, so it isn't an issue. After all, a spiritual wanderer has nowhere to lay their head.

"I think we all can agree women played a huge role. Actually, the most basic and yet most profound role. Support! What we can glimpse, from the Gospels, is that Mary Magdalene and other women supported Jesus’ movement with money, intellectual curiosity, and care."

That's part of the problem - women only being seen in supportive roles, 'lesser' roles. *yawn*

The women were disciples too. Mary Magdalene was the 'Apostle to the Apostles' and, in my belief, I think she was Jesus' most enlightened disciple - and that's the main reason why I think she's the "Beloved Disciple"
[whether they were married or not, is beside the point - though I lean towards them being married.]

“Certainly, the New Testament Gospels, written toward the last quarter of the first century CE, acknowledge that women were among Jesus' earliest followers."

Yes, but notice how it often just states "and women followed." I wonder how many there were? Probably a lot of them! as women weren't used to being respected by men, as Jesus respected them and spoke to them [that was another barbaric rule he ignored, as you weren't supposed to talk to women in public] - Jesus treated them like human beings, and they weren't used to that. So I'll bet there were a lot more women than men who followed him, became disciples. "Jesus Christ Superstar here we come!" They just state "women followed." But then, even Jesus' sisters aren't named in the NT; just 'sisters' if mentioned at all, so just noting in passing "and women followed" is thus no surprise.

It was against the law to teach them scripture, and Jesus ignored that - at Mary and Martha's house, when he teaches Mary. One 1st-century rabbi, Eliezer, noted this: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman.... Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness."

Jesus, being more enlightened, ignored that childish rule; and he went even further, by saying that "Mary has chosen the better part." Meaning, that Martha is worried about housework, whining that Mary isn't helping, and Jesus let's her know that's it's more important a woman learn, work on her brain, "choose the better part" than be some household drudge. [anyone complains about my messy apartment, I just tell them "I've chosen the better part!"] :b

And while often, in the NT, Jesus has to chastize the male disciples for "not listening", there is never any instance where Jesus has to tell any woman that she 'isn't listening.' They weren't used to being talked to, [unless to be ridiculed perhaps], so I'll bet they listened to every word Jesus said, and he never had to tell them they weren't listening. Nor is any woman in the NT an enemy of Jesus' - and after all, it wasn't a woman who betrayed Jesus with a kiss.

As regards Paul, he is an enigma; sometimes negative, other times positive, as regards women. Not sure what the deal is with him - unless, of course, the 'rumours' are true, that he was gay? :0 Maybe that explains it partly at least? Yet he seems to break out into this gnostic Paul though in certain parts of the NT?

Of course, I like to snicker at how 'some people' tried to change the female apostle Junia into a man, as they didn't want it known that a female apostle, per Paul, "was in Christ before I was." So they added an 's' - trying to claim that "Junias" was a man's name! [it isn't] Thus, some Bibles have Junia, some Junias. doh!

I know what we can do to set things right - how about, for the next two thousand years, we only worship God the Mother, Her, She, [no masculine terms], and only women can be priests/ministers/rabbis? :D

As regards North American Natives, I should do a separate post/topic, but here's just one juicy tidbit of many that I found. It's from a manuscript that was prepared in England in the late 18th century, and tells of the Iroquois community on the Grand Valley: [notice how he capitlizes 'Women' and 'Wife', but not 'man' nor 'husband'?! ]

'Influence of the Mohawk Women'
"...when they (the males) return from the hunting parties they deliver the produce of their sport to the Women, whose property it exclusively is; indeed every possession of the man Except his horse and his rifle belong to the Woman, after Marriage: she takes care of their money & gives it to her husband as she thinks his necessities require it - so different is this account given by Mr. Norton from the opinion generally enertained concerning the treatment of the Women; so far are they from being the slaves of their husbands, doing the hard labor & resigning their property to him, as I have frequently heard asserted, the husband has not the disposal of any part of it - Except what she chooses to give him...
He undertakes all laborious employments, builds the house, repairs it, cultivates the soil procures food by hunting & delivers to his Wife the produce of his merchandize...
...the truth is that the Women are treated in a much more respectful manner than in England & that they possess very superior power; this is to be attributed in a great measure to the system of their Education....
the husband is expected [to live] in the house of his Wife & becomes one of her family; she does not take the name of the husband as with us ...the Children do not take the name of the Father - but are called as the Father chooses..."
[then he 'begrudgingly' admits] "they generally have some name which has been in the family of the mother...."
[i.e., matrilineal. Well, that's the better way, I think - because motherhood is a given, fatherhood is not.]

"In a spiritual sense we are reconnecting to what we all feel inside. Almost wired into our DNA, mitochondrial of course."

But of course it would be mitochondrial - it's stronger, more durable - after all, it's the female, not the male, that is primordial.

"Da Vinci Code Your Life
Can the blasphemous bestseller help you see the mystical world
anew, or is it just another doorstop?"

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, March 3, 2004

"Everything is interwoven. Jesus tongue kissed Mary Magdalene,
a lot. :b Potent juicy mystical secrets are everywhere, if you
know where to look. Organized religion is the worst possible
answer.

What supposedly sacred truths are available to us are all
relative to those who hold the power. Often, just behind the
facade of things is a huge hunk of gorgeous convoluted magic
you would do well to lick. Meanwhile, the divine feminine is
right there, winking, sighing heavily, waiting for you. Like,
duh.

And oh yes, there are so many repressed buried burned crushed
or otherwise flayed secrets of the true nature of divinity
floating in the air like a mad delicious perfume, mysteries
that have been rather nauseatingly overpowered by the rank
dank cologne of the patriarchal church -- it's all you can do
to breathe deeply anymore without gagging on all the repressed
sexuality and stale machismo. This much we know.

Simple truths, all of them. And all so nicely mapped out in
Dan Brown's deliciously well-researched (if rather flawed),
still red-hot best-seller "The Da Vinci Code," that incendiary
little page-turner packed like a hot sausage with combustible
and wonderfully damning religious fact and insinuation and
researched tidbit that all serve to make the church and its
more uptight sects cringe and recoil and deny deny deny. So
you know it must be true.

Brown's is a book that, with the notable exception of a very
bitter Mel Gibson and maybe the most denial-happy, millions of
giddy readers have taken as radiant, irrefutable proof that we
don't know nearly as much as we think we know, and a huge
amount of what we've been force-fed by power-drunk religious
orgs and political strategists lo these past centuries has
been a gargantuan, sticky, carefully orchestrated deception.

Not exactly shocking news, I know. Realizing those in power
have swindled the world since time immemorial to preserve
their hollow supremacy has become a bit of a cultural pastime.."

"But this is a bit different. The broad and rather intoxicating
deceptions so refreshingly illuminated and carefully
researched in Brown's book are of the kind that rattle worlds
and question core beliefs and make your id sit up and go, hmm,
maybe this means something slightly more, you know, potent.
And wicked. And dangerous. In a good way.

The book, of course, deals with hidden and long-buried truths
surrounding the Holy Grail and all its concomitant intricate,
astounding histories and secret societies and churchly
deceptions, art and sex and pagan symbol, all very factual and
well documented and all relating back to the "real" Jesus and
his life, his true teachings and, of course, his wife -- and
the church's ongoing, centuries-old oppression of the divine
feminine."

"Could the wild popularity of this little book mean we're more
ready to hear more potent, revealing truths, to uncover the
more divine meanings behind all those seemingly commonplace
things we take for granted, to question those stagnant
histories and false gods that have been so viciously forced
upon us?

Could it maybe indicate that we really are more ready than
we've ever been to go beyond the church's meager misogynistic
homophobic revisionist teachings, to start seeing the deeply
mystical and hilariously twisted interconnectedness of the
world? You think?

I, for one, didn't want to read Brown's book. I am not much of
a fan of quickie best-seller page-turners with minimal
character development and nonexistent literary nuance and
sledgehammer plot devices. But that's just the lit snob in me.

I read it anyway. And I had a blast. And I realized, there is
a lesson here. And it does not have to be about massive
conspiracy theory. You do not have to agree with every
conclusion in the book and start running around trying to
uncover links to secret societies while sinister forces move
about the Louvre. You do not even need to begin with the
rather insidious and soul-delimiting dangers of organized
religion.

You can focus this kind of perspective, this awareness, on
just about anything in your life...."

"It does not have to be complicated. You simply begin to
notice. You begin to see the signs, understand the symbols,
the divine winks, realize that there are enormous hidden
worlds of belief and interconnected history just under the
manufactured and carefully orchestrated surface of things,
mysteries that have long gone unnoticed or underappreciated or
ignored but that are ready and eager for you to discover them
anew."

"Simply put, taking Brown's book as a cue, you can begin to see
the world with new eyes. And you can begin to understand that
mystics were right: It is indeed a wildly animated,
kaleidoscopic, convoluted, maddening, ever-morphing world --
one that is most certainly not all about allowing yourself to
be trapped by the narrow mythology set forth in one, say,
pseudo holy book's version of life, of flesh, of truth.

After all, where is the mystery, the divine feminine thrust,
the raw page-turning heat, in that?"

Name: sam • Date: 05/14/07 14:03

A: Dears Ladyhawk, and Todd,

JMD post began with this question "WAS JESUS MARRIED".

In another post on this forums (03-26-07) and under the title "MAGDALENE OR MARIANE", Kurgan asked this question, "I TOO AM CURIOUS ABOUT THIS".
After doing some search in the KJB Gospel, and from othe sites in the internet, I came to some results, and this was my answer to Kurgan:

A- are you curious only about the "Mary Magdalene" or about the tomb and all the other names which been found in including the "Son f Jesus Judah"?.
B- You been curious before when the "Gospel of Judas" & the many other discoveries from the dead sea to Nag Hammadi were found?.
D- Did you know, that the shroud of Torin, still protected in that cathedral, even after was found a hoax?.
E- You think that in your opinion here "it is far too late to be a reliable historical witness" is right?. Can then we egnore all the scientific discoveries because we find them late in time?.
F- You said, " No mention of her being the wife of Jesus, or Mary Magdalane.!!!"
The women at that time and specially among Jews, been kept away from men's world, to do their work at home, that is fact, but Jesus gave the women more right, and Mary Magdalene was an example, She was at his side all the time, and she helped Him in spreading His words, and she was loved by Him, and that love can leed to a marriage and a child, and things kept secret because He knew that they might be harmed by His enemies. Jesus born in a Jewish family that believe a man should be married young, that is a fact. Jesus and who left alive from His family took refuge somewhere in that land, and not much known about what happen to them, that is except for Mary Magdalene who traveled to France.There are many conflicting stories out there as everything else!.
Here are some of my findings:
MARY MAGDALENE. 11 matches. in the NT,
Matthew 27
[56] Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
[61] And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Matthew 28
[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 15
[40] There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
[47] And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Mark 16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 24
[10] It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 19
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 20
[1] The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
[18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

In the four gospels MARY MAGDALENE name were repeated 11 times

Her name first....................followed by the others
In Matthew:(27:56) 1- Mary Magdalene.. Mary the mother of James & Jose....
(27:61) 2- Mary Magdalene .............the other Mary.
(28:1 ) 3- Mary Magdalene .............the other Mary.

In Mark: (15:40)4- Mary Magdalen .....Mary the mother of James....

(15:47)5- Mary Magdalene ..............Mary the mother of Joses....

(16: 1)6- Mary Magdalene ............Mary the mother of James...

(16: 9)7- Mary Magdalene (When Jesus was risen, He appeared FIRST to Mary Magdalene).

In Luke: (24:10)8- Mary Magdalene ..........and Joanna, and the mother of James...

In John: (19:25)9- Jesus mother, and her sister, and.....Mary Magdalene.

(20: 1)10- Mary Magdalene ( She was THE FIRST to see the stone taken away).

(20:18)11- Mary Magdalene .....(She was THE FIRST who told the disciples, that she had seen the lord.)

.(20:18)11- Mary Magdalene .....(She was THE FIRST who told the disciples, that she had seen the lord.)

Mary Magdalene’ name came (7 times) before the other women names,

Mary Magdalene’ name came (3 TIMES) FIRST, AND THE ONLY ONE.

Only once (1 time) Her name came after Mary the mother of Jesus and her sister.

Going back to the gospel of John 19:25, "Therefore THE SOLDIERS did these things. BUT STANDING BY THE CROSS of Jesus were HIS MOTHER, and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and MARY MAGDALENE."

19:26 - "When Jesus, then saw His mother, and the disciple (only one disciple around at that time) WHOM HE LOVED ( Mary Magdalene) standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"...19:27- "Then He said to the disciple (Mary Magdalene), behold, your mother!". From that hour the disciple (Mary Magdalene) took Her (Jesus mother) into HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD (Jesus own household).

From all what we read above, some questions will arise:

A- Why Mary Magdalene name has to come before Mary Jesus mother, and many times?.
B- Why She was the first and the only woman to visit the site where Jesus buried?.
C- Why Jesus appear to Her before the others, even His own mother?.
D- Why She was the one that Jesus chose to give His message to the others (His other disciples)?.

The answer for these questions will come from John own words when he Said, "THE DISCIPLE WHOM HE LOVED", from all the women who been standing around Jesus at that moment, there is only one woman whom can be called a disciple and she was always with Him, and that woman is Mary Magdalene, and she is the loved one.

And Jesus asking the disciple (Mary Magdalene) to look after His mother "your mother",(her mother in-law). And the disciple took her to Jesus OWN HOUSEHOLD(which include His wife and son) which is the same place that the disciple (Mary Magdalene) live in.

Jesus asked His mother to look after, "your son"* !, and the question here, "WHO IS THE SON?, is it Jesus?, and He is on the cross facing death, and she cannot do anything for Him, or any of His brothers, those are grown up men who live in their own households, and they can care for themselves.

"BEHOLD, YOUR SON"... "BEHOLD, YOUR MOTHER". The disciple is not the daughter of His mother, and the son cannot be one of His many brothers.

* Jesus understand well, that if He mentioned the son as His son, that He will be putting the life of His child at risk, because the place around Him is filled with SOLDIERS and the people who hated Him and wanted Him to be crucified.

"THE DISCIPLE (MARY MAGDALENE) TOOK HER". And since Mary, Jesus mother is going to live in Jesus own household with (Mary Magdalene) the disciple whom Her son loved, there is only one person in that household who need to be looked after, and that is "THE SON", and of course the son here is her grandson, JESUS’ SON, the only child who needs the care of his grandmother.

Jesus started His ministry at the age of thirty, and He met with Mary Magdalene sometimes after that, and He was on the cross at age of thirty three, so from that we can say the child (the son) is about the age of two years, and His mother, the disciple, is an active disciple preaching and teaching people, and Jesus knows this fact, so He asked His mother to move in to take care of the child, His son.
Kugan, you said that you will be doing a semester "studying the Church Fathers." !!!.
Are those the one who came after Jesus and the father's in the holy land, and control the churches from Rome the sins land?, are those your fathers who burned the Gospels of Mary , Barnabas, and the Gospel of the holy twelve, and many others?, are those who killed millions of Christians, ? are those who work with the Roman Emperors to create the "Trinity", and changed the teaching of Jesus forever?. Did you ever read the dark history of your fathers in Rome, the popes & bishops?,
My advice to you is - first you study and understand the words of Jesus and follow Him, before you study the fathers and their father Paul. And you should not use the personal letters of Paul and his students to undrstand Jesus and His teaching, because the main source and the biginning and the end is what Jesus said and not what Paul claims.
Do you agree ?.
I think Christians are lost between the "CONONICAL & NON-CANONICAL WRITINGS", that is a fact.
Retired Bishop John S. Spong wrote, "THE GOSPELS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE RELIABLE", !!! That is a fact when it comes to Paul and the others only. Jesus word are the truth.
I hope you are enlightened, by the works of Sam?.

JMD, Ladyhawk and Todd, I would like to hear your opinion.

God bless you.

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/14/07 16:03

A: An inspirational thought written by Anonymous:
Hold fast to stars

Hold fast to the elusive,the intangible,

The never to be had.

For stars fall from heaven sometimes,

And kings are born in barns,

And miracles rise out of the little things.

Some of the best poetry ever written was by the Anonymous's.I always wondered why they never wanted the world to know their identities.

Name: TFS • Date: 05/14/07 16:51

A: Sam,

I'm relieved I aroused someone's interest about The Expected One.
by Kathleen McGowan. It is available on Amazon.com, for one.

This book is NOT a repeat of Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The DeVinci Code. Some similarities, yes, but... It's her experiences and research and a discovery she was involved with.

She also has a blog where much interesting information has been posted.

Happy Hunting

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/15/07 1:01

A: Sam:

In terms of your last comments here, I would agree that if someone wants to get a clear-eyed view of what Christianity is supposed to be, they would do well to find a red-letter Bible and study the words of Jesus for some time before they move on to Paul and/or the fathers of the Church, the better to see the inconsistencies of application when they begin to appear. For my money, everything after Luke begins to confuse the issue.

As for Mary Magdalene and who and what she was, I find it encouraging that the idea that she was Jesus’ wife is not ravaging the foundations of people’s faith the way it was expected to. We must somehow be ready now for this idea. We must somehow be ready for a Jesus who was human enough and humble enough and vulnerable enough to love and to share his life with a woman; a Jesus who in addition to being a teacher and a healer and a miracle worker was, perhaps, a father. We do not necessarily need a virgin birth or a virgin male sacrifice anymore to appreciate and venerate this man, or to validate his holiness.

Panluna:

Wonderful anonymous bit of poetry. I especially like "hold fast to the elusive, the intangible, the never to be had..." That's the essence of it all for me. :)

TFS:

I recommeded the McGowan book to a friend today. She had just finished a book of gnostic vision called "Not in His Image" by John Lamb Lash and was just transported. So I showed her "The Expected One" and she went off to read about it. You know, Amazon does not do that book any favors. There is only one decent review there and you have to read it carefully to realize why all the other ones there are pre-conceived. I did look at her website and the blog. :)

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/15/07 3:16

A: In what lineage does this Kathleen McGowan proclaim descendency from Jesus / Mary?....................

Name: JMD • Date: 05/15/07 13:53

A: From Dr. Tabor's latest blog [and may I say that book of his "Jesus Dynasty" is so awesome! It's so wonderful to discover the human Mary, Jesus' mother. Per Tabor's blog:

"John never names the brothers of Jesus but he does refer to Mary, the mother of James and Joses, mentioned in Mark, as the “wife of Clophas.” I have argued in The Jesus Dynasty that this is Jesus’ mother, not “Mary a sister of Mary,” and that after Joseph’s death she married his brother, Clophas (also known elsewhere as Alphaeus). In fact, Mark also knows a “James son of Alphaeus,” his brother Jude, and a Matthew/Levi, son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14; 3:18), all part of Jesus’ council of Twelve. I am convinced they are half-brothers of Jesus, and once again, it is Mark who knows these sorts of details."

So Jesus' mother Mary 'might' have been with 3 men - Pantera (possibly Jesus' father), Joseph, and Joe's bro. If this is the truth, I think it's great ! It would sure put that 'virgin forever' business to rest for one thing and free Mary from being a forever sexless untouchable psuedo-goddess.

:D

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/15/07 14:48

A: Ladyhawk,
I found that poem in a catalog.I was thinking of collecting all the Anonmously written poetry and getting them published in a book.The problem is getting in touch with these poets.They are hard to find and I'm not sure if all the poems are considered Public Domain material.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/15/07 14:59

A: From a review: "In Ms. McGowan's book, John [the Baptist] is depicted as Magdalene's first husband, who beat her and who also doubted Christ's mission and thought that John himself was the true Messiah."

*laughs* Personally speaking, I think I'll trust much, much more, in what Dr. Tabor has to say about John the Baptist in his book "Jesus Dynasty."

"In all the past
no one in human history
is greater than John the Baptist
In all the future
any one in the Kingdom of God
is greater than John the Baptist"

Name: JMD • Date: 05/15/07 15:19

A: John the Baptist was teacher to Jesus, they were related through the maternal line. Recall that John baptized Jesus, it wasn't the other way around. I suppose that's why the NT downplays/minimizes John the Baptist, so they could claim Jesus as the only messiah, when maybe they should claim there's two of them?!

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/15/07 17:00

A: Pantera.

Linguistically speaking (and I am a rank amateur, so you don't have to take me seriously) I find the symbolism of this name a little hard to invest in.

Broken down in Latin (pan-terra) isn't that something like "over all the earth"? Also, I was at the zoo the other day and on the sign over the lion habitat it said "Panthera: Leo King".

In both cases, there is reference to power and to kingship or dominion. How coincidental is that in naming the "father " of Yeshua?

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/15/07 17:05

A: Panluna, a book of Anonymous poetry would be quite interesting, perhaps accompanied by an essay of discovery about some of these people and how their work came to be known as Anonymous.

They must be women; as a writer myself, I don't know too many writers who don't have a little ego investment in their work! But if they were women writing in the years before 1850 or so, it might have been the only way to get things published at all.

Name: Ladyhawk • Date: 05/15/07 17:07

A: PS: as regards Pantera, I'm not being exactly clear.

A Roman soldier named Pantera? When the name means what it does? It just sounds like there's more there than meets the eye. The name could so easily refer to G_d (thanks, Shlomo!) in code.

Name: Shlomo • Date: 05/15/07 20:54

A: Todd,

Sorry for the late response on your comment of 5/10. Numerology has always been forbidden in Judaism. This method of practice did not come about until the 12th century and utilized by the Kabbalists only and referred to as gematria. Gematria is a Kabbalistic [mekubalim] way of showing how two ideas are related on a conceptual level; it is using numerology as basis to confirm (not create) the connection. A big difference. Hellenists and early Christians used it primarily for their edification.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/15/07 23:42

A: Ladyhawk:

Re Pantera/Panthera. You'd have to read "Jesus Dynasty" - Tabor gives all the historical analysis, etc. and does such a good job with it. I used to come across this Pantera business, once in awhile, in various books I've read, but thought it was just made up, as it was always done in jest; to joke around, or ridicule, so I never took it seriously. -until now. And Tabor tracked down the inscribed tombstone 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera' and went and saw it - there's photos of it in his book. I'm not saying it's absolutely true; Tabor himself leaves room open for debate. But the thing is, it sure makes you wonder and think about it - a lot. Well, that's what happened to me.

And sorry I laughed as regards the McGowan and Mary M. being married to John the Baptist, but it was one of those flukes/odd coincidences for me, because someone had just recently informed me that there's someone who claims she was married to John the Baptist in a past life, so I did a search on McGowan and John and came up with what I did, and it hit me funny, since I suppose we have Mary Magdalene living amongst us now? -the one who in her past life was married to John the baptist? I guess? *shrugs* Though I should have explained more, but was in hysterics laughing at the time.

I mostly think a lot of this is due to the divine feminine coming back to our consciousness, and Mary Magdalene is a symbol for that. There are certainly a lot more books out there about Mary Magdalene than there were just 10 years ago, and many are about people's personal journeys/visions/secret teachings, whatever.

Just as Todd had brought up the Virgin Mary sightings. - Though sometimes she appears in 'Crone' phase, and that's why she is sometimes so frigtening for some, I think. (I recall one priest, who had a frightening vision of Mary, sort of flipped out, and noted 'that wasn't Mary!' I thought, no, it was likely the Divine Feminine/Goddess in her Crone stage.)

Regarding Mary Magdalene and people dreaming about her, etc., I researched this, about 5 years ago, as I was having symbolic dreams, insight, myself but didn't know why? And I discovered there's lots of people with Mary Magdalene on their minds, of various religions, though I'd not really been aware of it before. I even found an article by a Pagan woman, who was startled to find she was having dreams about Mary Magdalene, couldn't figure out why, her being a Pagan, and all, so she researched Mary Magdalene, etc., loved what she found, and now honours Mary Magdalene as a goddess.

What it all means to me is the Divine Feminine is coming back to consciousness and many people are feeling/sensing it, be it through dreams, insight, secret teachings, revelations, whatever.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/16/07 0:02

A: Just to note, when I'd started this thread, I'd written:

Here's something else Dr. Tabor 'might' have missed? another clue to Jesus being married. I’ve certainly come across this theory before:

The wedding at Cana in St. John may be Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s wedding.

__

Of course he didn't miss that one. Well, now that I'm reading 'Jesus Dynasty' I know why he didn't mention it as regards 'was Jesus married?' and that's because he thinks the wedding at Cana was maybe one of Jesus' brothers weddings!

Name: TFS • Date: 05/16/07 12:17

A: JMD
Re: John the Baptist’s view of his own ministry, presented by Kathleen McGowan: I appreciate your gut reaction. I was there, too, and some of me is still more comfortable with our traditional perspective. The incident that has me in a stalemate though is that there is still a following of John the Baptist as Messiah and they tried to injure, if not assassinate McGowan (under a different name in the book) for digging too deep. If this brotherhood still exists (under cover), it stands to reason that there may be some truth in McGowan’s perspective, doesn’t it?

When considering this perspective, my playful mind says, “Wow, Jesus really had the WHOLE dose of humanity!” I know I have a cousin(s) that has been in competition with me since childhood and the resulting circumstances were not so pleasant. Are you best friends with all your relatives? My life experience is allowing me to believe this perspective is plausible, if not probable, if Jesus was to experience the human condition in its totality.

SHLOMO
Regarding lineage. McGowan didn’t publish this piece for that purpose, as it isn’t her objective, to claim lineage. In fact, she has questions the originators of “Bloodline” for it appears it is their priority. Her focus has been “The Way” and how we need to return to it within the perception that Jesus was married and had a family. I do believe her apparent lineage is what gave her the energy to do 25 years of investigation and take the risks she took to get the information.

Everyone, thank you for sharing yourselves here. Dialogue about this tender subject is most interesting.

Name: JMD • Date: 05/16/07 14:56

A: TFS
"I appreciate your gut reaction. I was there, too, and some of me is still more comfortable with our traditional perspective."

Oh, no I'm not comfy with traditional anymore -if you mean NT- perspective? Not at all. Dr. Tabor opened up my eyes, big time, due to his book, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

And for myself, I'm often lead to books by the Divine, get intuitive twinges to 'go into that bookstore!' or whatever, even if I'm not feeling up to it, or hadn't planned on it. And 9 times out of 10, when that happens, there is a book in there I want/need. I don't shop at mega bookstore chains, I prefer the smaller booksellers, the secondhand, and half price stores. -I can buy more books that way.

And lately, it's been books to do with Judaism that I've mostly come across in the last few weeks, so that's where the Divine wants me to be right now, I think. Last week, I found a book on my list at a secondhand bookstore, and it looks brand new:

"Who Killed Jesus?:Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism" by John Dominic Crossan.

The following day, I was walking by a used bookstore, felt a 'twinge' to go in, and I found one of John Shelby Spong's books I didn't yet have, though it was on my list as well: "Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes."

And yesterday, after getting off work, heading to the bus stop, I was pondering all I've been reading in "Jesus Dynasty", and I got a twinge to go a couple blocks down the street to a secondhand store, where they sell all kinds of goods: clothes, dishes, toys, etc. -and books. They don't have many books, and I'd just been in that store a few days ago, but the feeling was strong, and after all, they constantly get new stuff in to sell. So off I went, and I ended up almost walking right up to the book that I think I was meant to buy, (and a deal at 3 bucks for hardcover!)

"The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception: Why a Handful of Religious Scholars Conspired to Suppress the Revolutionary Contents of The Dead Sea Scrolls" by M.Baigent and R. Leigh (ones who wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail)

I've not ever come across McGowans' book, so I guess I'm not meant to read it. Least not yet.

per Harold Bloom, "Omens of Millennium":
"..Gnosticism, then and now, in my judgment rises as a protest against apocalyptic faith, even when it rises within such a faith, as it did successively within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Prophetic religion becomes apocalyptic when prophecy fails, and apocalyptic religion becomes Gnosticism when apocalypse fails, as fortunately it always has and, as we must hope, will fail again. Gnosticism does not fail; it cannot fail, because its God is at once deep within the self and also estranged, infinitely far off, beyond our cosmos."

Name: JMD • Date: 05/17/07 13:28

A: ?

Well, I know some people think I'm crazy, or else I've shocked them lately... but geesh this Expected one.... ?

A few thoughts from “Customer discussions, The Expected One: A Novel forum” on Amazon, under these categories:

“McGowan used hypnotism of co-workers to slam Disney?”
“One Star Reviewers”
“definition of Terms- Stalker-Plagiarism-Fiction vs. Non-Fiction”
“Barrett Review, Don't Expect Much from The Expected One"
“The Hate Group Together Again”
“The Author, Her Book, and the Internet World”

“Kathleen Harkey-Smith McGowan claimed she hypnotized Disney employees and used the sessions to get the dirt on Disney.”

“The poor writing style and the egotistical claims in the dedication (Mary Magdalene and Jesus are my ancestors) probably killed its chances.”

“She wants to be a public figure, yet cries foul when people question her outlandish egotistical claims. She is very lawsuit happy, too…”

“I see in another post that she is now bashing Sylvia Brown and her book about the Mystical Jesus. McG. says no one should listen to Brown's 'visions' only McG has the 'truth.' “

“Speaking of smear camppaign, I sent Kathleen my notes on her "fiction" in private. She went wild when she saw my comments. She banned me from her group and started several posts accusing me of selling snake oil.”

“Kathleen McGowan never even met Linda Goodman, as she herself once admitted before she started writing fantasy novels, and before she had a forum of dedicated and devoted followers.”

“Have you even looked at The Expected One? It says right on the cover it's a novel.”

“Have you ever looked inside the book? It says right in the after-word that's it's actually a true story about the author herself.”

“But when Mary Magdalene is twice married with three kids, and even Pontius Pilate calls Jesus by his childhood nickname, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”

“Post on a public form terrorize nobody- and the idea that anyone's safety is threatened by criticism of a book is laughable. I've never seen anyone so terrified of criticism. DSo you swear out resteraining orders on book critics?”

“Post anything you like, Kathleen. I've said nothing that is in any way threatening, un less you think telling you your book is cow pie makes you want to hide under the bed?”

“I have no vitriol, that's righteous anger at seeing someone attempt a con job. I've always stood up for the truth and I've always despised fakes who pretend to be what they are not for money or attention. Had I not seen people being attacked by Kathleen's sock puppets, I would have simply left my review and continued on my way.”

“There is a lot of new information coming out about McGowan...her prior employment with Disney, her slander of other authors, her plagerisms, her belief she was a wiccan princess (before DaVinci got to be popular, then she morphed into a Jesus descendent). Here are some excerpts by people who knew her "when" ...http://freepress5.tripod.com/blog/
(I couldn't access the site above)

____

hmmm... I have some French ancestry, from my father's side... I'd be maybe 1/4 French? Should I use my imagination to the fullest, write a book, throw in some of my many synchronicities, over the last 6/7 years especially, and cash in? You think? .... Naw, better I just stick to writing up these posts, even though I've had a few people suggest to me that I should write articles, and make a bit of $. I decided no; I meditated upon that a bit, and it just doesn't feel right. I don't think Jesus would approve. I hadn't even planned on 'bragging' about intuition and finding books, but felt I had to, just to... defend myself from some of the archons?!

Well each to their own. McGowan's book is not on my 'to read' list, though, I've decided, as I have more important/scholarly types of books to read, and must prioritize as to what is most important to read. And I've come across some good book deals lately, books I wanted/needed, so I now have like 25 books to read?! That should keep me busy this summer [and beyond]. Lazy days of summer spent reading for hours sounds good to me...

Following are some of the song lyrics per Tom Cochrane's song "Lunatic Fringe" – this is actually a most excellent song, from awhile ago… ah, an oldie but goodie. Of course there’s also The Doors song “People Are Strange”

“Lunatic Fringe”

“I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter

Lunatic Fringe
In the twilight's last gleaming
This is open season
But you won't get too far
We know you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we're on guard this time
Against your final solution

We can hear you coming
(We can hear you coming)

We can hear the footsteps
(We can hear the footsteps)

Lunatic Fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light…”

___

"I Descended to the midst of the underworld and I shone down upon the darkness. It is I who poured forth the water. It is I who am hidden within the radiant waters. I am the one who gradually put forth the All by my Thought. It is I who am laden with the Voice, Through me gnosis comes forth."
[The Trimorphic Protennoia, N.H.Library]

Name: TFS • Date: 05/17/07 17:07

A: I had heard there were some bad reviews out there, but had no clue. I met her at a book-signing event and she must have had a good day that day as many, as well as myself, came away feeling very good about what she shared. I know she has been threatened several times for she mentioned it and has a personal guard with her.

I guess this falls under the category of, anything is believable until you hear the other side. I hope everyone is open to weighing both sides.

Thorough research!!!!

Name: JMD • Date: 05/18/07 0:19

A: TFS - well, you must not have asked any challenging questions, at her book signing? Otherwise, she likely would maybe not have been so nice?

And the thing is, least from my perspective now, people who believe John the Baptist is 'the' Messiah, have just as much right to that belief, as those who believe Jesus is 'the' Messiah.

Name: TFS • Date: 05/18/07 11:54

A: This is a tender subject. Severe bashing of anyone where neither prospective can be proven always puts my guard up; "what earthly power is being protected?" For God doesn't work that way, in my humble opinion. After all, those connected with both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Devince Code received similar bashings so the bashings really don't carry any weight. Guess that's why I don't do research to find them.
Blessings on you journey.

Name: Not Dattaswami • Date: 05/30/07 0:28

A: ..

Name: JMD • Date: 05/30/07 9:11

A: All I mentioned was 'challenging questions' - I said nothing about bashing?

Meditating deeply upon dharma
reach the depth of the source
Branching streams cannot compare
to this source!
Sitting alone in a great silence
Even though the heavens turn
and the earth is upset
You will not even wink
-Nyogen Senzaki

Name: Panluna • Date: 05/30/07 19:50

A: In order to father Judah Jesus would have to be married.Illigitimacy was frowned on and the child(ren) produced were not recognised unless the father wanted to acknowledge parentage of the child.Judah's ossuary was found in the family tomb.The inscription on it identified him as Jesus's son.

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media