Can someone please explain to me why "christians" are so upset about this movie? If it's not truth than isn't it enough for them to know that? Why do they find it necessary to panic and pray for all the "lost souls" and have protests?
Seriously, am I going to have to fight to get into a theatre if I should decide to go see this movie!? I find this to be utter craziness!!
Gretchen

Football fans, rockers, racists, these people all share one thing in common with Christians and thats belief and faith in something. People will defend their beliefs, sometimes in quiet extreme manners if they feel it threatened and thats whats happening with this davinci code book/movie, they did the same thing a few years back with Mel Gibsons jesus movie. While we may think its stupid looking onjectivly you can see why they dont like it.

What is ironic is that organised religion seems to be losing followers every year, either moving to their own belief systems or choosing modern ones like spiritualism or alpha etc and a big part of that is the churchs stubborn refusal to update and modernise. It may have been in this forum or another but i once read that a lot of school chidren didn't even know who Jesus was.

BTW let me know if the films any good, I don't want to waste £10 going to see a stinker ;-p

Not all Christians are getting spun up about this. A lot of his is a direct result of media hype and the actions of an excitable and loud minority.

Rob

Gretchen,

Even the movie's star, Tom Hanks, recently acknowledged that the movie is nonsense from both an ancient and modern historical perspective.  The book's premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children is traceable to two Gnostic Gospels, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip, which stem from the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries respectively.  These Gospels are far too late to preserve historically genuine reminiscences.  This realization is easily confirmed by a casual reading of the absurd Gnostic narratives.  This point is not even disputed by modern critical scholarship.  

The movie premiered tonight at the Cannes Film festival and got planned by one movie critic and several polled viewers.   But I think the controversy will still make it a blockbuster.  Frankly, Christians should appreciate the controversy because it is sparking interest in neglected aspects of Jesus' life and teaching among the unchurched.  

Don

Gretchen,
I really don't know either..and i'm catholic, sort off..lol

But i can't wait to go and see it, i've read the book and throughly enjoy it, so i'm sure i'll enjoy the movie.

One thing i found though is that if you go see a movie after reading the book...sometimes it does not click...with the book, but will see..

Romain

Oops and i forgot, i wonder how long it will take to come on DVD's..humm.

Romain

I was brought up "Catholic" but never "believed" in religion.  I did teach religious education and this is what I learned.  The New Testement was written by  a Greek named Saul (modern name is Paul) after he was struck by lightning and "saw the light".  At this point, Paul decided that he, a Greek, would gather up the writtings of the followers of Christ (Christ now dead for 17 years) and translate the writtings into Greek. He didn't meet all the apoltoles, he never met Jesus and I have no knowledge of his study of the Hebrew language. And if there ARE parralels of our live, all the stories of Jesus are true depending on which spiritual plane you are on.
By the way---the book The DaVinci Code-- was very good and had several flaws.  But so did Sherlock Holmes!!  ie:no where in the Bible does it say the forbidden fruit was an apple.
Enjoy the movie--- I will.  Love and Light--cat

[Identcat:]  "I did teach religious education and this is what I learned."
_____________________

I really don't want to be unkind, but I'm shocked that you were allowed to teach religious education, given the fact that practically every claim you make is mistaken.  Let me explain.  

[Identcat:] "The New Testement was written by a Greek named Saul (modern name is Paul) after he was struck by lightning and "saw the light".
___________________________________
This sentence contains 3 errors!  
(1) Only 13 New Testament epistles are ascribed to Paul.   But the New Testament contains 27 books.
(2) "Paul" is not "Saul's" modern name.  As a name. "Paul" is simply the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew and Aramaic name "Saul."
(3) There is not a shred of  evidence that Paul was ever struck by lightning.  Read the detailed story of his conversion in Acts 9.  Both Paul and Luke repeatedly describe the vision of Jesus that converted Paul.

[Identcat:] "At this point, Paul decided that he, a Greek, would gather up the writings of the followers of Christ (Christ now dead for 17 years) and translate the writings into Greek."
________________________________

This sentence contains 2 more errors.
(1) Paul is a Jew, not a Greek.  He was a Jew who spoke and wrote Greek.  Befoire his dramatic conversion, he studied under the Jewish teacher Gamaliel in Jerusalem and became a Pharisee, one of the 3 prominent Jewish sects in Palestine.

(2) There is not a shred of evidence that Paul translated the the writings of Jesus' followers or even the Paul collected them.  Indeed, our 4 Gospels were all composed after Paul's death.

[Identcat"] "He didn't meet all the apostles, he never met Jesus and I have no knowledge of his study of the Hebrew language."
____________________________
Wrong!  Paul did meet all the apostles (e. g. Acts 15:4).  He spoke Hebrew as well as Greek.  Though born in Tarsus, was brought up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:2-3).  Paul and Jesus were in Jerusalem at the same time.  So it is possible that he met Jesus.  There is simply no evidence that he did.

Don

Don-- so the Catholic Church taught me a limited version of Paul--the Greek.  That's one of the reasons I am no longer a practicing "christian".  Men made their own laws and regulations.  
Thank's for the history lesson.  We learn everyday and it's good to have a teacher who is so knowledgeable. Thank you--teacher--
Carol Ann

Carol Ann,

For 12 years, I was a Protestant Theology professor at a Catholic university.  I was part of a large group of male professors who successfully sued the university for sex discrmination.  Our lawsuit was nationally discussed in the media.  I dumped my winnings in mu pension fund.   So I am no shill for Roman Catholicism.  Still, the fact that you were victimized by spiritual disinformation from Catholic leaders is no reason to reject Christianity.   In this regard, if you have any burning questions you'd like me to address that might assist you in your spiritual quest, I'd be glad to answer them as best I can.  

Let me draw a parallel between your rejection of Catholicism and some of the reasons why I am appalled by Robert Monroe's books.  Monroe performed dismally the one time his OBE abilities were tested by a reputable parapsychologist, Charles Tart.   Monroe uncritically accepts OBE claims that aliens are here to collect jokes.  He uncritically accepts OBE past life recall of (1) a prior life as a pilot flying his craft through a maze of spears thrown by cave men and (2) a prior life as a novice Catholic priest ordered his superiors to ritually rape and murder a virgin who just happens to be his wife Nancy in our lifetime.   He reports this lunacy with no sense that all but the New Age ghetto would rightly scoff at such claims as the ravings of an unthinking New Age fundamentalist.  

Despite this nonsense, Monroe was brilliant in important ways.  Despite his OBE delusions and his inability to sort out the wheat from the chaff, I do believe he had some genuine OBEs.  Indeed, I regularly experiment with his Gateway CDs and find them a delightful way to explore a deeper level of consciousness, though I find them irrelevant to the question of whether we survice death or can contact the deceased.  But that verdict may change with continued use.   Perhaps, my dismay at Monroe's gullibility is a major reason for my lack of progress, despite frequent use of his Gateway CDs.  I encourage you to salvage the best of your Catholic heritage and then discard the rest, as I do with Monroe

Don

Hey Don,

  Jumping in with my 2 cents!

 Which is: Charlie Tart has the utmost respect for Robert Monroe and his work. I know that, not from reading a book, but from talking with him. The Tarts live in my 'hood.

        Tim F.

And if I'm not mistaken, which I could be because I haven't been able to afford TMI membership for about 3 years, Charles Tart is on the Board of Directors/Advisors at TMI.

Get your facts straight Berserk. In the book "Catapult, The Biography of Robert A. Monroe", there are several pages dedicated to Bob's and Charles's friendship and experiments. He completely believed in Bob.

Mairlyn

The other thing we must keep in mind with Astral travel is that one type of travel is on the physical plane.  Another is the astral plane joined to the physical where things may not appear as they do in the physical world.  Not to make excuses for Bob, but he may have accurately reported traveling to a friend's house and seen what he saw.  If he were there on a nonphyscial plane bound to C1, the scientifically proveable part (reading numbers, etc.) might not be there.

There is much about astral travel (or essentially refocusing your awareness, since in fact we are all our own thoughts and awareness) that needs to be explained.  I don't believe the astral body is any more "real" than our physical bodies.  Monroe realized this too, later in life.  I have heard that the need to keep a human form, as opposed to being an amorphous ball of energy or awareness is simply a matter of personal preference.

Hmmmmmmm........how did this get in to the Davinci code?  

Well, as to the movie, I haven't seen it.  I think it is interesting fiction ( I did read the book), and even if it could be true, I don't see how it would invalidate a christian's idea of Jesus as divine. Would taking a wife and siring offspring, make him any less divine?  If, in coming to earth and taking human form he was to show the way we should tread, would not taking a wife and such be one of the most beautiful, human ways of living?  

I don't believe in Dan Brown's evidence for it, or the whole merovingian idea (that Mary moved to Europe, and married early european royalty to keep the bloodline going).  

Still, I don't see the fictional movie as an absolute assault on christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

(Phew, why do I feel Don is going to trounce me for this on?)


Matthew

Quote:

Would taking a wife and siring offspring, make him any less divine?  If, in coming to earth and taking human form he was to show the way we should tread, would not taking a wife and such be one of the most beautiful, human ways of living?

I have hestated in writing anything about all this but now I will speak up.  Yes, from my own personal experience as Peter, it is very true. They were married (Peter was at the service) They had many children. They had a love (and still do) so beautiful that it is beyond words.

Now Berserk can trounce both of us.

With Love,
Mairlyn

Note that I have toned down my post critiquing Monroe.  I was drawing a parallel between my perspective on Monroe's books and Carol Ann's reaction against her Catholic background.  

You New Agers so often try to deflect the discussion away from the point at issue and falsely impute claims to your detractors.  I have read all 3 of Monroe's books and obviously know that Tart respects Monroe.  Why else would he write the Introduction to Monroe's first book, "Journeys Out of the Body?"  I am referring to Tart's experiment with him.  To quote Tart:

"His [Monroe's] continuing description of what our home looked like and what my wife and I were doing was not good at all: he "perceived" too  many people in the room. he "perceived" me doing things I didn't do, and his description of the room itself was quite vague (JOOB, p. 16)."

To me, this result can rightly be characterized as "dismal" and casts a pall over Monroe's unverifiable claims about his astral contacts and alleged discoveries.   the implausibility of his alien joke collectors and his cartoony past life recall is devastating because he does not even acknowledge how an average person might react to such claims.   To me, these claims fester at the intellectual level of conspiracy theorists who claim that the Apollo moon landing was really faked in a New Mexico hangar. The sad fact that this site's New Agers are unphased by such nonsense warrants my blunt repudiation of Monroe's claims, regardless of the everpresent threat of censure.   These claims are lamentable because some of Monroe's other claims find parallels in NDEs and alleged astral insights of other adepts.  But Monroe's lack of critical discrimination is just another nail in the coffin of respectability for astral exploration in the minds of rational outsiders and I want this area of research to become more palatable to those outside the New Age ghetto, so that the cause of genuine knowledge of the afterlife can be advanced.

Don    

     

Ditto. ;-)

Kathy,

I actually think Don is trying to contain himself, in his own way in these posts.  There is less direct assault on a particular person, and I think I only counted the term "ghetto," twice.  I don't think calling the accuracy "dismal," or saying the other things are all that bad.  

I do like when Don responds directly to the posts.  I would love his take on the question I posited, which is assuming the fictional claims of the Davinci code were true, would that make Jesus in any way less divine?  Or is it truly an assault on christianity and the teachings of Jesus.  I did say, my own take is that much of this holy grail/Dan Brown stuff is interesting fiction, and I stand by that.  

I think, Don, that if you investigate astral travel in a purely scientific way,  you may be disappointed.  I think as I said in my previous post that an astral traveller may focus their attention on things both in the physical and in the astral at the same time. How to account for that?  Let us say that an earthbound spirit was in Tart's house, as an example.  Monroe saw this person, Tart obviously did not.  Was it all imagined?  Well that depends on how Monroe was "travelling."  Swedenborg spoke with astral humans whom he called Angels, all the time.  If entities may be around us in the astral realm, perhaps Monroe perceived a few extra people in the room because there WERE a few extra people - just not incarnate.  Or, he may have been there seeing a different timeline; this has been documented in remote viewing (I have the references if you are interested in them).  

I am not trying to defend Monroe at all costs, merely to pont out that the "dismal failure," you cite may or may not be a failure.  Let me rephrase that - it is a failure in a purely scientific logical analysis of C1 recognition.  His perceptions may still have been on the mark, as I noted above.

I also should mention those Gateway CDs, Don.  I have a few of them, and many of the exercises are based on Monroe's own experiences and ideas.  You can't get away from it.  The hemi-sync tones do have a scientific basis in fact; theta brain wave patterns are found in advanced practitioners of yoga, meditation and during mystical experiences.  So if you listen to hemi sync tones geared around the theta waves, it may be helpful.  But in the series, Monroe builds a whole energy system based on his ideas.  I'm not discouraging you from experimenting with the CDs, but keep in mind, the exercises developed to "free your mind," are from the same man you expose to ridicule.


Matthew

Matt,

Nothing theologically decisive is at stake in the bogus claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children.   In Jesus' day, it was highly unusual for a Jewish male to remain single into his 30s.   But Jesus' unsympathetic Jewish contemporaries would of course object to any claims of His virginal conception.  Indeed, Jesus was widely deemed a bastard in His day.  Illegitiimate Jewish sons were not permitted to marry a Jewish woman.   This stigma may help explain why He remained single.  Also, His constant travel and His sense of impending martyrdom may have contributed to His decision to remain a bachelor.  If Jesus were married, His marital status would not invalidate his Messianic status.  But surely we would expect first-century stories and legends about His wife and children.  

It is possible that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' aunt!  The Greek of John 19:25 leaves it unclear whether there were 2 or 4 women at the cross.  Suppose that John intends to report only two women  Then the following translation (supported by the early church Father John Chrysostom) is possible:

"Standing near the cross were Jesus' mother and his mother's sister, [namely] Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene."

This translation has two facts in its favor.  
(1) Whereas Jesus' mother and His mother's sister are unnamed. the last two women are named.   So the naming may simply clarify the identity of the preceding references in the manner indicated by the implicit sense 'namely."

(2) This understanding implies that Joseph is dead and that Jesus' mother married Clopas.  Clopas is identified as Joseph's brother in early Christian tradition.  Joseph's brother.  Thus, "Mary the wife of Clopas" might refer to Jesus' mother.  John Chrysostom knows an early traditon that Mary lived as Clopas's wife after Joseph's death.  

Joseph is probably already dead before Jesus' adult ministry.  Joseph figures in no story of the adult Jesus' life and Jesus is identifed as "the son of Mary" by skeptics in his home town (Mark 6:3).  In a patriarchal culture, this attribution is odd and may imply that Joseph is known to be dead.  

By the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), Joseph's brother Clopas would be obligated to marry Mary if Joseph died without natural children.   Are Jesus' brothers in fact the sons of Clopas by a prior marriage? Two facts are consistent with this:

(1) One of Jesus' brothers is named Joseph (Matthew 13:55).  Jiewhs grandsons were commonly given their grandfather's name.  But it is almost unheard of in late antiquity for a father to give his son his own name.  Kings and high priests are an exception to this pattern of avoiding identical names for both father and son, but Joseph is neither a king nor a high priest.  
(
2)  Early Christian tradition identifies Jesus' brothers as his cousins (so Hegesippus).  If Jesus' brothers were in fact the sons of Clopas, then Jesus' cousins would also legally become his brothers by Mary's levirate marriage.  

If this view of family relationships is correct, then it would be good evidence that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.  If He were, it would be incestuous by Jewish law for Mary to marry Clopas.   But a marriage to the husband's brother is legally required if the husband dies without biological children.  The first offspring of this new marriage would then be deemed the son of the deceased husband.  If Clopas thought Jesus was the product of Mary's promiscuity, he is not likely to have married her.   For this reason, if Mary maried her brother-in-law Clopas, this might actually be cited as support for Jesus' virgin birth!

Admittedly, all this is highly speculative.  One difficulty with this theory is its implicatin that Mary and Mary Magdalene are sisters.  It is unlikely that two sisters would bear the same name.   But this difficulty is not insuperable.   There is evidence of siblings having the same name in compound names.   Mary Magdalene might have been known as "Magdalene" (so Luke 8:2--"Mary the one called Magdalene").  Interestingly, Luke 8:1-3 identifies Magdalene as one of a group of women who supported Jesus' financially during His ministry.

T. Lobsand Rampa  (and I think Shirley MacLaine) said in one of his books that Jesus went to Tibet to study the mystics and spiritualism.  Supposedly Jesus was arrogant and in order for him to learn properly, he was sent to Lhasa for his childhood studies. He then went to the temple at age 12 and tried to share his knowledge with the elders, but was thrown out as a heritic.  From there he traveled and studied other diciplines. After the crucifixion, in which he went into a meditative trance to similuate death, he fled to India with his family, was married and had a full life in the protection on India.  There are suposed records of this hidden in India.  
Now don't jump on me because I what I read!!!
IF a God or demi God is to judge me--- I certainly hope that he was both male and female and had been married, went through all the anxieties of a human being and felt pain and stress as we know it.  After all--God has to learn too.  

I also remembered something else I read.  It was Edgar Cayce in The Sleeping Profit that stated he saw Jesus during one of his sessions. He described Jesus as somewhat wealthy, and well versed in Buddhism and saw him sporting a "very long fingernale on his baby finger" which was the Tibetian (Chinese) display of nobelity and wealth.

Carol Ann,

The view that Jesus went to India cannot be traced earlier than the 3rd century Acts of Thomas, a Gnostic document which claims ony that the apostle Thomas evangelized india and that the Risen Jesus, not the earthly Jesus, appeared to Thomas en route.   No modern scholars take this claim seriously even for Thomas.   The Acts of Thomas is far too late to preserve genuine reminiscences for the early apostolic period.  Indeed, no Jew from this period is known to have made so long a journey.  For one thing, the Indian language barrier would have been insuperable.   Also, remember that from the late 2nd century on, innumerable forgeries were created about Jesus and the apostles.  

Jesus said of His own intinerary, "I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6)."  Occasionally, Jesus and His disciples traveled a few miles beyond the Jordan River and north into Lebanon (e.g. Tyre and Sidon), where many would be familiar with the languages known to Him and His disciples--Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  Only after His resurrection did Jesus authorize the Gentile mission (Matthew 28:16-20).  

Don

I think that Don is a true seeker.  His self reported use of the hemi sync CDs (which were formulated by the very man he half-ridicules), his analysis of NDEs and mediums, speak of a soul who is not bent on merely preaching to others, but of exploring and learning himself.

M

Greetings Berserk and indentcat,
National Geographic ran an article about 3--4 years ago of a recently discovered, small tribe in India that marked their foreheads and buildings with a cross.
Tribe members showed NG photographers (and NG reders) ancient buildings that were little more than caves fronted by masonry unlike any others known in India. Central panels above the small doors had an incised cross; beside these cross-marked keystones, pairs of graceful curves like inverted f-holes on a violin, were sculpted, very unusual for the area. The tribe also had  its own religion based upon teachings of their messiah who once lived among them.

NG made no conclusions about the source of such anomalies. NG, I know, Don, don't tell me, is not an authorized source of Christian history. There's so much more to discover, so much more to learn and
love, bets

Interesting Bets,

I don't think anyone knows what to make of that, but then you have the book of Mormon in the United States, which makes some pretty outrageous conclusions of Jesus visiting North America....none of which really makes sense.  Yet there are quite a lot of Mormons out there.

Belief is a strange thing. Truth is another animal.  Some will say, on this board that there is no such thing as truth. I understand their arguments regarding it, but thus far, I don't yet accept that into my belief system.  In an objective way, either Jesus died on the cross as most believe or he didn't.  Most sources document that he did.  Whether or not the tribe in India or the Mormons have any claim to him, is far fetched at best.


M

Hi DocM,
I always respect and learn alot from your posts.
I can't group the Mormons with this NG article because 'a picture is worth 1000 words' and NG as always had lots of pictures.  :)
Logically speaking, how do you reject the India connection?  Was it a set-up/ruse?  Are they wrong in dating their cavefront architecture to circa 300 AD ? Are the cross markings a coincidence?
( I don't want to believe the India connection--- I enjoy Poussin's 'pictures' of the other versions more.   ;D )
(The above reply was worded to GDG. (Get Don's Goat)
bets

Hello all,
I think the theory of Mary Magdalene being Jesus aunt is quite interesting.
But if we were to consider that, would we still be right to believe what the bible tells us about her?
Was or wasn't she a prostitute? Did she leave her bad ways to follow Jesus after he saved her from being stoned to death?
And last but not least, when they tell Jesus about her as she was about to be stoned, it would appear that she was a total stranger to him. Did they purpousefully make it look like that to not make Jesus the nephew of a prostitute?

Peace.

S.C.

SunriseChaos,

"Was or wasn't she a prostitute? Did she leave her bad ways to follow Jesus after he saved her from being stoned to death?"
_____________________

Throughout church history, Mary Madalene has been mischaracterized as a prostitute.  3 factors contributed to this libel.

(1) By the 2nd century, Mary Magdalene is elevated to the status of "the apostle of the apostles."  The chauviinstic times cut such eminent women down to size by embroiling them in a bogus sex scandal. So Mary Magdalene is mislabelled a hooker and a famous female Jewish teacher, Beruria (early 2nd century), is slandered by the invention of a sexual tryst with her husband's student.  In fact, Mary Magdalene's devotion to Jesus is inspired by her need for an exorcism, which Jesus provided (Luke 8:2).  

(2) The early church tends to identify several apostolic figures with the same name as the same person.  Thus, in the 2nd century, Philip the Evangelist is wrongly identified as the apostle Philip, one of the 12.  John the Elder and the prophet John (author of the Book of Revelation) are misidentified as the Apostle John, one of the 12.  Half of all Jewish women in this era are named either Mary or Salome!  So there are several Marys in our Gospels that are easily confused.  

(3) 2 different women who anoint Jesus with costly perfume for 2 different reasons become wrongly identified as one woman, Mary Magdalene.
(a) An unnamed prostitute crashed a disgusted Pharisee's dinner party in honor of Jesus.  She had experienced divine forgiveness through Jesus' ministry and was delirous with gratitude.  She expressed her gratitude by washing Jesus' feet with her tears and expensive perfume and then wiping  them with her hair (Luke 7:37-38).  

(b) After Jesus' raised Lazarus from the dead, his sister Mary (also Martha's sister) expressed her gratitude by washing his feet with expensive nard and wiping his feet with her hair (John 12:3).  Jesus proclaims this a prophetic symbolic action that anticipates the preparation for His burial after His crucifixion.  This Mary is not Mary Magdalene and is always distinguished from the latter by her relationship with her sister Martha.  

"And last but not least, when they tell Jesus about her as she was about to be stoned, it would appear that she was a total stranger to him. Did they purpousefully make it look like that to not make Jesus the nephew of a prostitute?"
_____________________________________

Jesus movies like Mel Gibson's celebrated "The Passion of the Christ" portray Mary Magdalene as the adulteress (not a prostitute!) about to be stoned in John 7:53-8:11.   You are right to discern that this adulteress "was a total stranger to him." Like the prostitute who anoints Jesus with perfurme this adulteress is never identified and is certainly not Mary Magdalene who is one of a group of Jesus' loual female disciples who supports Jesus' financially (Luke 8:1-3).   What I am sharing with you is widely accepted as the scholarly consensus about Mary Magdalene.  My theory that she might have been Jesus' aunt is my own idea.

Don

Don--- I am currently reading "secrets of the Code" by Dan Burstein.  I am only on page 41 and he has given five interpertitations of Mary Magdalene. No one can agree. And, if the Bible WAS such an accurate account of the life of Jesus, why then are there so many different writings/interpertations of the holy book?  
Nothing is set in stone: Stone also disintegrates and becomes sand. Sand turns to dust. Dust scatters with the winds. Wind is felt and heard, but not seen. (get my drift---LOL)
It is what WE make it.
Love and Light--- cat

Identcat,

You're right.  There are many views of the shape of our planet.  Some think it's flat.  Others think the earth is held up by giaint elephants.  So it is an open question whether it is round like we're taught, right?

I guess you imagine that the date, origin, and credibility of ancient traditions doesn't matter.  You seem to have no conception or knowledge of which Christian documents are early enough to have historical merit and which stem from the age of countless forgeries.   I have a doctorate in this area and I know what I'm talking about.  There is no scholarly debate about these issues in academic circles.   When I refer to the New Age ghetto, I'm referring to the arrogance of presuming that the unanimous consensus of experts in the field of early Christian literature should be discarded in favor of New Agers untrained in this area.  What a joke!   There are many mysteries about earliest Christianity.   The marital status of Jesus is not one of them.   Nor is the silly and unsubstantiated claim that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.   I challenge you to offer a single shred of evidence for either of these bogus claims from the first 150 years of Christianity.  

Don  

wrote on May 21^st, 2006 at 12:28am:

SunriseChaos, "Was or wasn't she a prostitute? Did she leave her bad ways to follow Jesus after he saved her from being stoned to death?" _____________________ Throughout church history, Mary Madalene has been mischaracterized as a prostitute.  3 factors contributed to this libel. (1) By the 2nd century, Mary Magdalene is elevated to the status of "the apostle of the apostles."  The chauviinstic times cut such eminent women down to size by embroiling them in a bogus sex scandal. So Mary Magdalene is mislabelled a hooker and a famous female Jewish teacher, Beruria (early 2nd century), is slandered by the invention of a sexual tryst with her husband's student.  In fact, Mary Magdalene's devotion to Jesus is inspired by her need for an exorcism, which Jesus provided (Luke 8:2).   (2) The early church tends to identify several apostolic figures with the same name as the same person.  Thus, in the 2nd century, Philip the Evangelist is wrongly identified as the apostle Philip, one of the 12.  John the Elder and the prophet John (author of the Book of Revelation) are misidentified as the Apostle John, one of the 12.  Half of all Jewish women in this era are named either Mary or Salome!  So there are several Marys in our Gospels that are easily confused.   (3) 2 different women who anoint Jesus with costly perfume for 2 different reasons become wrongly identified as one woman, Mary Magdalene. (a) An unnamed prostitute crashed a disgusted Pharisee's dinner party in honor of Jesus.  She had experienced divine forgiveness through Jesus' ministry and was delirous with gratitude.  She expressed her gratitude by washing Jesus' feet with her tears and expensive perfume and then wiping  them with her hair (Luke 7:37-38).   (b) After Jesus' raised Lazarus from the dead, his sister Mary (also Martha's sister) expressed her gratitude by washing his feet with expensive nard and wiping his feet with her hair (John 12:3).  Jesus proclaims this a prophetic symbolic action that anticipates the preparation for His burial after His crucifixion.  This Mary is not Mary Magdalene and is always distinguished from the latter by her relationship with her sister Martha.   "And last but not least, when they tell Jesus about her as she was about to be stoned, it would appear that she was a total stranger to him. Did they purpousefully make it look like that to not make Jesus the nephew of a prostitute?" _____________________________________ Jesus movies like Mel Gibson's celebrated "The Passion of the Christ" portray Mary Magdalene as the adulteress (not a prostitute!) about to be stoned in John 7:53-8:11.   You are right to discern that this adulteress "was a total stranger to him." Like the prostitute who anoints Jesus with perfurme this adulteress is never identified and is certainly not Mary Magdalene who is one of a group of Jesus' loual female disciples who supports Jesus' financially (Luke 8:1-3).   What I am sharing with you is widely accepted as the scholarly consensus about Mary Magdalene.  My theory that she might have been Jesus' aunt is my own idea. Don

Thank you for that Berserk. Your explanation makes so much sense to me.
Though we might never know if Mary Magdalene was indeed Jesus aunt,  I don't believe she was Jesus wife either.
Besides all the prejudices that his immaculate conception would have brought him, I think he had a different agenda on this planet. I believe He took a human body but He was above most earthly needs. Having a family life would have been completely irrelevant to him.  
I attended a catholic school since the age of 4 and was always force fed their interpretation of the truth without any reasoning. No wonder I lost interest quite soon and Religion class only meant to me boredom and a huge headache (literally). I was so put off the subject that when anyone would mention Jesus, God, The Virgin Mary or the BIble my interest level dropped below zero and i'd make my excuses to run a mile. I feel they delayed my spiritual awakening and I wasted many years thinking Jesus was boring and associating him with a headache. ::)
I suspect things would have been different had I attended your lectures instead.
Thank you again. :)

Peace.

S.C.

Hi All,

I think we need to historically clarify matters. By historically, I mean as to the testaments given in the books of the New Testament, and the New Testament Apocrypha, of whom Mary Magdalene was considered to be, on which the debate is still open.

The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt, although interesting, is not possible, as none of the Mary's (3 in all) were not blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph.

The three women whom Magdalene is identified with are Mary whom is one of the women whom "..administered to the Christ of their substance.", and also from whom the Christ expelled seven demons in exorcism.
Magdalene is also identified with one Mary of Bethany - the sister of Martha, and of Lazarus whom the Christ healed and resurrected.
Thirdly, Magdalene is also identified with the 'woman sinner', whom in the 3rd and 4th centuries was considered as being 'unchaste' by the Church Fathers of those times. Thus, Magdalene can be considered a composite of different Biblical characters, although scholars reject this idea.

Some scholars view Magdalene as the unidentified 'beloved disciple' whom wrote the 'fourth gospel' traditionally accepted as written by John. Further significant documents are the fragments of 'Gnostic', and the apocryphal 'Gospel of Mary Magdalene' (see my link in my post to DocM in the other thread concerning the Da Vinci code and Magadalene).

As for the idea that Jesus and Mary were 'married', and that they had 'children',  I myself do not consider this to be plausibly factual, in either a non-fiction or fictional sense.

Once Jesus began his missionary sermonising, the importance he attached to His own physical family seems to have lessened. From that point on, he considers all of man as His 'brother', particulary those whom exercise the precept..."he that hath ears, let him listen"

What the institutionalized Church is really hiding is the correctness of Jesus' message. That in itself is the 'Grail'. The 'Gnostic' texts of Nag Hamadi tend to support his message more succinctly than the traditionally accepted texts as cannonised by the Church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. This Council, instituted by Constantine, was when the 'split' occurred and sent Christianity down a path that alienated Jesus' 'true' message.

Today, more and more people are seeking personal spiritual guidance, free and unfettered by the dogma and doctrine of institutionalised religion. By exploring other avenues of spirituality and spiritual experiences, persons, by their own effort, are re-aligning themselves to the 'true' message of Jesus. To live their lives as one with one, in brotherly love and co-operative endeavour.

Regards All

Sunrise--They way I was brought up: God and Jesus were vengful and I was to fear them. It was difficult for my to understand how Jesus could love the children when they gathered around him, because the priest and nuns told us that those children were good and didn't sin and there reward we being able to sit next to Jesus.
My catholisim was nothing but putting fear into me. I feared my father and other men. It took me many years after I was married and had children of my own that I finally stopped fearing the male figure. However, that didn't just go away. It took years for my to figure that Jesus and God were loving beings . To this day, my mother and mother-in-law still view God and Jesus as vengeful. The HAVE to go to church, obey the church laws, etc. I care not if Jesuse, the half human, half God (as I was taught) was married or not. My father was a Godly man and he was married.  Most Buddah's were not married (and also were mainly men). As long as Jesus judges me for my merits and is not vengeful, that's fine with me if he stayed celibate. I would prefer that in some lifetime he expierenced marraige. I believe I correct in quoting: I have come many times before, but you did not recognize me.

Quote:

Today, more and more people are seeking personal spiritual guidance, free and unfettered by the dogma and doctrine of institutionalised religion. By exploring other avenues of spirituality and spiritual experiences, persons, by their own effort, are re-aligning themselves to the 'true' message of Jesus. To live their lives as one with one, in brotherly love and co-operative endeavour.

Beautifully stated Elysiumfire.  I completely agree.  


Identcat, many people were brought up as you were.  I was, too.  As I child I remember having the feeling that some unseen God would strike me down the minute I did something bad.

I work with women and children that have suffered from abuse.  I see a lot of this abuse being justified with religious teachings.  The helpfulness that I see coming out of the DiVinci Code is exactly as Elysiumfire stated.

My heart goes out to you for all you have gone through because of the belief systems you learned as a child and I'm very glad to hear you are in a good place now.

Much love,
Kathy

Elysiumfire

"The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt, although interesting, is not possible, as none of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."
_________________________

This sentence is self-contradiictory.  I think what you mean to say is that none of the Marys were blood-related to Jesus' mother or Joseph.  if so, you are simply being dogmatic and ignoring my argument from the Greek text that demonstates the possibility of Mary Magdalene being the sister  of Jesus' mother.  

"Magdalene is also identified with one Mary of Bethany - the sister of Martha, and of Lazarus whom the Christ healed and resurrected."
______________________________________

Wrongly so.  Martha's sister is from Bethany, 2 miles east of Jersualem.  Mary Magdalene is named after her village, Magdala (or Migdal) in Galilee near Tiberias.  Magdala and Bethany are about 65 miles apart.  

"Thirdly, Magdalene is also identified with the 'woman sinner', whom in the 3rd and 4th centuries was considered as being 'unchaste' by the Church Fathers of those times."
_______________________________

You seem to miss the point.   This "woman sinner" is the prostitute in Luke 7:36-50.  I repeat: she is not named and no one knows her name!  Later tradition commonly assigns false names to unknown biblical figures.  

"Some scholars view Magdalene as the unidentified 'beloved disciple' whom wrote the 'fourth gospel' traditionally accepted as written by John."
________________________________________

Uh, the masculine pronoun is used to refer to this disciple!   There is no evidence that points to any woman, let along Mary Magdalene.   Besides, this disciple is never named in the Fourth Gospel.  The fact that Mary Madgalene is named a few times in itself excludes her candidacy.  But the Beloved Dsciple may not be the apostle John.   For example, every time the Beloved Disciple appears, the context provides clues that neatly apply to Jesus' brother James.   I have spent many years researching the identity of the Beloved Disciple.  No mainstream scholar seriously thinks that Mary Magdalene is a viable candidate.  

Further significant documents are the fragments of 'Gnostic', and the apocryphal 'Gospel of Mary Magdalene'
___________

The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they wre romantically involved!    But both Gospels are far too late to preserve historically genuine tradition.  The Gospel of Philip was likely written in "the 2nd half of the 3rd century ("The Nag Hammadi Library,"  p. 141).

Have you even read eeither Gnostic  Gospel?  Just consider this sample quote from the Gospel of Philip: "God is a man-eater" or this sample quote from he Gospel of Mary: "The Savior said, `There is no sin.'"  Duh! Do you really imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin?
(e. g. The Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.")

"What the institutionalized Church is really hiding is the correctness of Jesus' message. That in itself is the 'Grail'. The 'Gnostic' texts of Nag Hamadi tend to support his message more sucinctly than the traditionally accepted texts as canonised by the Church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325AD."
_______________________________________

In typical New age fashion, you are being dogmatic about a subject about which you are vitually illiterate.  As I've repeatedly demonstrated, our New Testament Gospels all stem from the first century and can be confidently identified with eyewitness testimony.  The Nag Hammadi library is very late and historically worthless when it comes to correcting the traditional picture of Jesus' life and teaching.

You are spouting the standard misinformed New Age drivel about Nicea.  Nicea did not even take up the issue the canon of Scripture.   The contary assertion is as ignorant as the absurd freqent New Age claim that Nicea removed the  teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.   In fact, only regional councils like the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) touched on the issue of the New Testament canon. 

"This Council, instituted by Constantine, was when the 'split' occurred and sent Christianity down a path that alienated Jesus' 'true' message."
______________________________________

More New Age nonsense!  You  need to study what reputable historians can prove about canonical history  (e.g Hans van Campenhausen, "The Formation of the Christian Bible").   Have you even studied the criteria of canonicity?  The accepted New Testament texts had to be apostolic either in the sense that they were composed by an apostle or written in the apostolic age.  None of the Gnostic texts qualify on this score.  The accepted texts needed to have proven their spiritual relevance to Christian churches from earlist times and needed to be "catholic" (a word meaning "universal") in the sense that they were relevant to the church at large.  The Nag Hamadi library was never mainstream.  There is not even clear evidence of Christian Gnosticism before the 2nd century.  None of the Nag Hamadi documents are first century texts.

Don

P.S. I just received an E-mail from a woman who has now abandoned this site because of the double-standard displayed by the censuring of Craig.   Posters here often make vicious comments about the Bible and Christianity with impunity.  One poster slandered women without censure.  The hypocrisy and historical illiteracy of the New Age ghetto is breath-taking.  I make no apology for responding to this with blunt rhetoric.   New Agers need a mirror that allows them to learn how it feels to be treated as they treat others.  By their silence at religious bigotry they convey tacit approval, whether they approve or not.  Besides, my rhetoric is always addressed to significant issues.

My real concern is this site's myopia in the face of (1) powerful evidence against Moen-Monroe claims from masters like Swedenborg and from NDEs which refute the patient's prior belief in reincarnation and (2) evidence that demonstates the even the best of alleged channeled contacts with the dead is better explained as ESP.   Do I really need to repeat this evidence to finally entice a head-on response?    

Don

 

Hi Don,

I shall follow suit in response as you have with me. I'll try to keep it brief.

Regarding the self-contradictory statement. It is not self-contradictory. I state it thus because Joseph is not Jesus' father. Jesus is not blood-related to Joseph by any tradition. The use of the word 'even' is meant to relate this issue. Seems you missed it.
However, this statement of yours is self-contradictory:

Quote: " The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they wre romantically involved!"

If both Gospels are the source of them being 'lovers', how can they not imply that they were not romantically involved? Are you saying it was simply 'sex'? Are you saying Jesus was a lothario?

The 2nd and 3rd quotes you feel impelled to correct - the one of identification - is not wrong at all. Identification does not imply 'is', it shows how disparate sources identified Magdalene with the characters mentioned. Again, you misconsture what I have wrote, and denied yourself a fuller understanding.

Concerning the 4th quote - regarding the Gospel of Mary Magdalene - I will concede a point on this to you. What I should have quoted in clarification was: 'Some scholars have suggested that for one particular group of early Christians Mary Magdalene is viewed as...', I thank you for the opportunity to correct myself.

As you have quoted from the Gnostic texts with snippets, allow me to complete the quotes for yours and everyone else's edification.

Sample quote from the Gospel of Philip:  
"God is a man-eater."  

Full Quote: "God is a man-eater. For this reason men are [sacrificed] to him. Before men were sacrificed animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods."

I do not profess to follow the meaning of philip's statement, but even as eccentric as it sounds, I doubt we are to take a literal view of it. It is allegorical and cryptic. However, I can see the reason why you should quote it, for by referential relation, you seek to obsfucate the Magdalene Gospel. I have not read Philp's Gospel, so you have given me something to pursue. Watch this space!

Sample quote form the Gospel of Mary:
"The Savior said, `There is no sin.'"

The whole quote:
"Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?
The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin."

"Duh! Do you really imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin?"

Yes! Indeed I do! He knows its source better than you or I. Jesus meant that sin holds no existential reality of its own except in the acts and behaviour of man. Do you really imagine its reality? If you do, you have issues. You, are the source of your own sin, as I am mine. I'm working on mine at no detriment to others, but to profound release for me.
Remember, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" is an acknowledgement of our own sin culled from our own behaviour.

The rest of your response falls into self-opinionated hubris. I concede that you are replying to my opinions on the institutionalised church, but I stand by what I say. It is not 'misinformed new age drivel' as I myself do not consider new age-ism as a genuine spirituality (imho), but at least it is a quest out of reach of the dogma and doctrine of the church.

Regarding Nicea. I am not wrong. Nicea was the first council of the convening of many (but not all) of the various and disparate Christian groups, all of which held to beliefs of their own.
Constantine, worried about the internecine between the groups, and worried of rebellion, brought them together to find a way to compromise  in the agreement of cannons acceptable to all the groups. By the time of the convening (which lasted a month) most of the agreements had been made with various groups collecting together under one agreement, and others under another.
The convention merely debated the points of each umbrella conclave. The Arians (lead by the Libyan Arius) lost out to Athanasius of Alexandria. Even this all changed in the years following the council meeting. What the council agreed on, however, was what has become known as the Nicene Creed - the Symbol of Faith, recited throughout the Christian world. Christianity became lawful and dogmatic, progressively so down through the centuries, against the very wishes that Jesus expressed.

I apologise if by chance I have tresspassed upon your rose-coloured view of the church and the Bible,  and I would advise that you 'get over it'. So-called reputable scholars with whom you seem to align yourself (perhaps for confidence and safety?) make poor substitutes for a needle's eye. I would suggest you align yourself with the true loving precepts that Jesus taught. Currently, your ego is in the way.

God bless and regards

P.S.
This site is not setup to moderate criticisms against the church or the Bible, as both are based upon conceptual ideas that are open to criticism, as is the very criticism levelled against them...it is called debate. This site is a forum, a place of debate.
A greater concern is that of the world's regarding the myopic view of the fundamentalists and zealots currently seeking ways to destroy each other in the name of their religions and God, with us poor buggers in the middle! It is their arrogance that is breath-taking.

P.P.S. So much for being brief, eh!

First off,

I don't see why Don, when you disagree, with someone, you have to lump everyone into the "new age ghetto."  Personally, I do not think you should be banned for your sharp rhetoric, since your knowledge lends useful information to the forum.

If you had done your point/counterpoint with Elysium, without any of the "duhs,"or other signs of anger, your case would, in my mind have been a sound one.  Your knowledge is extensive.

There is merit to saying that gospels and texts written more than one century after Christ's passing are less reputable sources than other's to verify accuracy.  

However Christ's message for love and service to others is what matters; the place of Mary Magdalene is interesting, but will likely not be settled by debate alone.  

To all you who would consider censure for Don, I still say; "lighten up." A debate is a debate.  This site does not defend New Age, nor classify itself as such.  

If attacks are not made against a specific person, in a derogatory manner, I would not myself censure Don were I to moderate.  However, Don, your scholarly points, minus the anger and new age taunts would go over even better.  Many people, myself included read your input quite carefully.

Matthew

Quote:

Currently, your ego is in the way.

OMG, how many times have I said that ???

Elysiumfire

The New Age thought police (in this case, Kathy) have ratted me out to the moderator.  So I'd better formulate my reply in a hurry before censure.  Ha!  

You said: "The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt...is not possible, as NONE of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  
____________________________

You might reread your wording.  A sentence with the structure "No S are not P" is logically equivalent to "All S are P."  So as worded, your sentence is equivalent to "All of the Mary's were blood related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  I know that was not your intended meaning, but it is self-contradictory as presently worded.  

You wrongly imply that my statement is self-contradictory:

"The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they were romantically involved!"  

Can't you see a distinction between Platonic and romantic love?   No contradiction here.   The Gospel of Philip claims that Jesus' used to kiss Mary on the [blank].  There is a hole in the manuscript; so nothing romantic need to read into this kiss. Besides, Platonic kissing was an early Christian  custom: e. g. "Greet each other with a holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20)."

You actually imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin.  Don't you realize that all 4 New Testament Gospels contain many references to the need to confess sin, to repent from sin, the danger in dying in sin, and the unpardonable sin?  And you take the word of a bizarre 2nd century Gnostic Gospel beyond the the age of valid oral tradition over the converging witness of 4 first century Gospels which can be connected with eyewitness testimony?  It's one thing for you to embrace the New Age denial of sin and evil, but to claim support for this claim from the historical Jesus--that's truly amazing!

"Regarding Nicea. I am not wrong."
______________________________

OK, what is your specific evidence for the Nicene discussion of the shape of the New Testament canon?  And how can you refute the criteria of canonicity I identified that establish our canonical texts and exclude the much later Gnostic texts, none of which can be traced to the apostolic age?  Read a basic scholarly book on the canon like Hans Von Campenhausen's "The Formation of the Christian Bible."  Then we'll have something to discuss.  

Don

P.S. Notice how my replies though admittedly blunt, always address the point at issue, wheras Marilyn's personal attacks, so typical of this site's New Agers,  are purely ad hominem.  This distinction between my posts and theirs was recently pointed out to me in a PM.

I'm not attacking you Don, I'm just stating a fact. You are the one that does the attacking with your 'new age ghetto' rhetoric.

Hi Don,

I thankyou for your more reasoned response. Unfortunately, work intrudes at the present moment, so I'll have to reply later.

I have no problem with 'directness' in a reply to my posts, as long as it doesn't wander off into 'personal space'. I'm sorry that you seem to have received the attention of a moderator,  though I do understand the sentiment of others as to why you have. I am quite capable of tendering my own defence - some replies might take a little longer to appear, and may be less than brief, but if we both defend our positions (and in the interim be ready to adapt them upon the realisation that one or both of us might be in error) as and best we can, then I see no reason why the debate cannot be vibrant.

I may not be doctorate, but I'm no slouch either! Will reply later.

Regards

My husband and I went to see the movie last night.  It's right up there with American Treasure.  --cat

Quote:

Quote Don: The New Age thought police (in this case, Kathy) have ratted me out to the moderator.  So I'd better formulate my reply in a hurry before censure.  Ha!

Hello Don,

Bruce asked you to abide by the posting guidelines.  You intentionally decided to test the water in his absence.  This shows the utmost disrespect to Bruce and that is the bottom line.  Personally I love reading most of what you write as you very well know.  You do have the ability to debate without violating posting guidelines; you simply are choosing to show disrespect to Bruce and other people that populate this website.  

The thread where Bruce spoke to you is located here on pages 2 and 3 just incase you forgot what he said, but I doubt that since it was only a month ago:

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anounc;action=display;num=1142581648;start=15#15

I asked you to edit the following out of respect for Bruce.  You chose to “tone down” your post a little, however you also chose to continue your power struggle with Bruce.  You did this behind his back, knowing full well that he is out of the country.


Quote:

Quote Don: You may have noticed that I regard Robert Monroe as a New Age kook.  Monroe performed dismally the one time his OBE abilities were tested by a reputable parapsychologist, Charles Tart.   Monroe uncritically accepts OBE claims that aliens are here to collect jokes.  He uncritically accepts OBE past life recall of (1) a prior life as a pilot flying his craft through a maze of spears thrown by cave men and (2) a prior life as a novice Catholic priest ordered his Catholic superiors to ritually rape and murder a virgin who just happens to be his wife Nancy in our lifetime.   He reports this lunacy with no sense that all but the New Age ghetto would rightly scoff at such claims as the ravings of an unthinking New Age fundamentalist.     Yes, Monroe was nuts!  But in some ways, he was also brilliant.  Despite his OBE delusions and his inability to sort out the wheat from the chaff, I do believe he had some genuine OBEs.  Indeed, I regularly experiment with his Gateway CDs and find them delightful way to explore a deeper level of consciousness, though I find them irrelevant to the question of whether we service death or can contact the deceased.  But that verdict may change with continued use.   I encourage you to salvage the best of your Catholic heritage and then discard the rest as I do with Monroe, Don

I also thanked you for editing the above and asked you to do a little more editing on the following.  You chose not to do this.  Out of rebellion perhaps?


Quote:

Quote Don: He reports this lunacy with no sense that all but the New Age ghetto would rightly scoff at such claims as the ravings of an unthinking New Age fundamentalist.     You New Agers so often try to deflect the discussion away from the point at issue and falsely impute claims to your detractors.  I have read all 3 of Monroe's books and obviously know that Tart respects Monroe.  Why else would he write the Introduction to Monroe's first book, "Journeys Out of the Body?"  I am referring to Tart's experiment with him.  To quote Tart:   To me, this result can rightly be characterized as "dismal" and casts a pall over Monroe's unverifiable claims about his astral contacts and alleged discoveries.   the implausibility of his alien joke collectors and his cartoony past life recall is devastating because he does not even acknowledge how an average person might react to such claims.   To me, these claims fester at the intellectual level of conspiracy theorists who claim that the Apollo moon landing was really faked in a New Mexico hangar. The sad fact that this site's New Agers are unphased by such nonsense warrants my blunt repudiation of Monroe's claims, regardless of the everpresent threat of censure.   These claims are lamentable because some of Monroe's other claims find parallels in NDEs and alleged astral insights of other adepts.  But Monroe's lack of critical discrimination is just another nail in the coffin of respectability for astral exploration in the minds of rational outsiders and I want this area of research to become more palatable to those outside the New Age ghetto, so that the cause of genuine knowledge of the afterlife can be advanced.

Then a poster with whom you were having a previously respectful conversation asks you a question and you chose to “bully” her in your response.


Quote:

Quote Don: Identcat, You're right.  There are many views of the shape of our planet.  Some think it's flat.  Others think the earth is held up by giaint elephants.  So it is an open question whether it is round like we're taught, right? I guess you imagine that the date, origin, and credibility of ancient traditions doesn't matter.  You seem to have no conception or knowledge of which Christian documents are early enough to have historical merit and which stem from the age of countless forgeries.   I have a doctorate in this area and I know what I'm talking about.  There is no scholarly debate about these issues in academic circles.   When I refer to the New Age ghetto, I'm referring to the arrogance of presuming that the unanimous consensus of experts in the field of early Christian literature should be discarded in favor of New Agers untrained in this area.  What a joke!   There are many mysteries about earliest Christianity.   The marital status of Jesus is not one of them.   Nor is the silly and unsubstantiated claim that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.   I challenge you to offer a single shred of evidence for either of these bogus claims from the first 150 years of Christianity.   Don

And then you continue to make comments like the following in subsequent posts in which you talk down to posters.  I could probably name at least a hundred people that have left this site because of the way you have treated them.


Quote:

Quote Don: Duh! Do you really imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin? In typical New age fashion, you are being dogmatic about a subject about which you are vitually illiterate.   You are spouting the standard misinformed New Age drivel about Nicea.   I just received an E-mail from a woman who has now abandoned this site because of the double-standard displayed by the censuring of Craig.   Posters here often make vicious comments about the Bible and Christianity with impunity.  One poster slandered women without censure.  The hypocrisy and historical illiteracy of the New Age ghetto is breath-taking.  I make no apology for responding to this with blunt rhetoric.   New Agers need a mirror that allows them to learn how it feels to be treated as they treat others.  By their silence at religious bigotry they convey tacit approval, whether they approve or not.  Besides, my rhetoric is always addressed to significant issues. My real concern is this site's myopia in the face of (1) powerful evidence against Moen-Monroe claims from masters like Swedenborg and from NDEs which refute the patient's prior belief in reincarnation and (2) evidence that demonstates the even the best of alleged channeled contacts with the dead is better explained as ESP.   Do I really need to repeat this evidence to finally entice a head-on response?     Don

Don, debate is one thing, being outright disrespectful to people is abuse.  If people don’t speak up, the abuse will continue because the abuser is struggling for power.  The abuser has a fear of powerlessness and seeks to puff him or her self up by taking power from someone else.  That is not debate Don and it is against this website's posting guidelines whether you see it that way or not.

Your future on this site is Bruce's decision and the result of that decision is your own doing.  You and you alone are responsible for whatever happens.

I wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.

Kathy

I agree, in part, Kathy.  when Don calls someone "virtually illiterate" "in typical new age fashion", this serves no useful purpose.  I see it as a shame, because the knowledge and eloquence are worthwhile.  

Hearing that there are only certain scholarly resources worth reading or debating, is a difficult one for me.  One should be able to go point/counter point on the issues, citing whatever references used.  It is clear to me that gnostic works, though interesting, if they were written 100 years or more after Christ's passing are less reliable resources on a historical level.  They are fascinating however to hear about.

I don't think we have to dismiss anyone's points or comments as "drivel," when a simple counter argument and evidence will suffice.  Look, there was a whole thread on Atlantis on the board once.  Magic crystals, etc., and advanced civilization.  Cayce talked of it constantly.  If you go by current evidence, much of it seemed like speculative nonsense.  At least one could debate the known facts.  

A forum is a place to post ideas and comments.  Debate, I feel is welcome, otherwise you have a board full of posters questioning is Casper the ghost is real.

Initially, Don's response to my hypothetical situation was, that none of the proposed ideas about Mary Magdalene would threaten the tenets of Jesus' word or message.  If one is not threatened, one can have all the patience in the world to voice one's view without tearing down one's jousting partner.

Matthew

OK, two things. Don, not everyone that questions religion is " new age". To lump everyone not of your views together isn't fair.
Kathy, I believe that you too have become a "bully" I feel that you are taking things waaay too personally. By pointing everything out you seem to be overly focused on what Don is posting. Don't you have anything else to do?

Hi Gretchen,

Well, yes, I suppose one could interpret my post as “bullying” Don.  Why did I post this?  As long as people are willing to accept or overlook abuse the world’s pattern of this type of behavior will continue.  Don is a fine Christian man with a great deal of integrity and a very loving heart.  He is perfectly capable of debate without abuse.  If he were willing to show this facet of his personality in his debates with people on this site, he could have a powerful impact and gain the respect of many.  Apparently he doesn’t understand this.

Actually, no I don’t have anything better to do at the moment, as I believe this is important.  I see Don as having the potential to bring together what is commonly thought of as traditional Christianity and New Age thought.  If only he were to choose to speak from a position of respectful kindness and consideration for the beliefs of others.

Kathy

To Don, about sin.

If a person truly wants to find out what unconditional love is, they'll need to grow beyond the concept of sin.

Why do some people do bad things, while others don't?

If it is because they were created less good than others, you can hardly blame them.

If their life experiences conditioned them to be negative minded, for example an abused and unloved child, you can hardly blame them.

Some people might argue that despite what people are exposed to they still have complete freedom to choose the right way, as if supreme wisdom and love is imediately available to them.

Eventhough supreme love and wisdom are always there, sometimes, for various reasons,  people get separated from it and it often takes them time to get back to the point where they can tune into love and wisdom.

When I see people who do terrible things I don't feel judgment towards them.  Rather, I feel fortunate that I don't have go through the difficulty they're going to have to go through before they become free enough to find true wisdom, happiness, peace and love.

If I can feel nonjugmental towards people, then certainly God and Jesus who are more wise and loving than me, can be nonjudgmental towards them. To an extent where they would never think of people as sinners that ought be damned, as opposed to helped.

We aren't really separate from each other.  Therefore, in a deeper sense when somebody else does something considered negative, we all do something negative. The spirit of brotherhood is to help them see the error of their ways, not to judge and condem them, and lable them as sinners.

Consider a brand new baby. Does a baby think to itself, "Gee, how can I become a terrible person?" and then become one. Or is this unfortunately how some lives turn out?

If it were so easy to "not" become a person who does negative things, there wouldn't be so many people who do negative things.

The true spirit of love and wisdom is to understand that some Souls get lost for a while, and need time and help so that eventually all souls can find their way to true happiness and love.

If you're going to set things up so that people have to deal with the opposites of good and bad, then you have to expect that some people are going to get lost for a while. The fact of how alot of people do get lost proves that this is so.

Recoverer,

Christian Gnosticism is a development of pagan Gnosticism, which is turn is heavily influenced by Middle Platonic philosophy, which can be very sophisticated and is well worth studying.  The question of the "objective reality" of good and evil (including sin) can be the focus of an elevated philosophical debate.  

My concern on this thread is that early Chrisitanity not be historically distorted in the service of a interesting debate topic.   Some might argue that the Gnostic infiltration of Christianity provided a needed philosophical corrective.  I vigorously disagree with that claim, but consider it a respectable topic for philosophical discussion.  But keep in mind that early Gnosticism is as diverse and contradictory as Christian cults and sects.

Don

Hi Don,

Your attempt to presume that I require syntatic tutoring from you in order to make my self clear and understandable makes me smile. I suppose if I substitute 'are' for 'were' that would less offend your tender academic mind?
Please, I was not writing a thesis there. My language and structure was purely colloquial, and served to place emphasis upon the point I made.
The logical equivalence of the structural syntax of the separate sentences you formulate - 'no S are P' and 'all S are P' posit unequal meanings. The first denies the second (or vice versa).
However, the structure used for the original sentence I wrote offered no other alternative meaning than that that was intended for it to convey. It simply posited the improbability of Mary Magdalene being Jesus' aunt, and for economy, the use of the parenthesis was to set up the identification (in the paragraph following) of the three females disparate sources have identified as Mary Magadalene. It may have been unsound structurally, but the contradiction was resolved in the next paragraph. The intended meaning was successfully conveyed. Your response with belittlement was truly academic and redundant.

Regarding your own self-contradictory statement, and whereas mine own resolves itself, yours does not. The meaning you intended to convey - 'platonic' as opposed to 'romantic' - is not successfully conveyed. You used the term 'lovers' not 'friends', and thus by any stretch of one's imagination, 'lovers' always carries the meaning of romance, not simply friendship. Thus your meaning is self-contradictory, even if the sentence is sound structurally.

Regarding the issue of sin. I maintain my stance. Sin has no existential reality of its own. It is relationally equal with man in the same terms as his history, they both arise out of his actions, out of what he does, how he behaves. Becoming cognizant of this, is the beginning of accepting one's self-responsibility for one's actions: you cannot repent until you do this.
The dogma and doctrine of institutionalised religion would have us believe that the Devil would tempt us into sin, and in sinning, and in being unrepentant, God would condemn us to eternal hell-fire and dammnation.
Fortunately, the reports from the experients of the NDE deny that this is so. Their emphasis for repentance is on 'self', and that it is not God that condemns us, but we ourselves, by not accepting self-responsibility for our own actions. This echoes quite clearly what Jesus is said to have taught as I have highlighted. Using the devil as the scapegoat for sin, is merely the non-acceptance of self-responsibility.

Regarding Nicea: the intimation is that the various disparate Christian sects holding to their own traditionally-held beliefs prior to Nicea, had to have discussed the issue of scripture prior to the convening. Nicea was to set up a universally-acceptable creed, that in itself requires a discussion on the 'interpretation' of scripture as held by the disparate groups. Most of the discussion would have taken place prior to Nicea, and associations would have been formed; it was almost a political process. Nicea was in total indifference to Jesus' adjuration that no other law be set upon His teachings than those He gave. The threat of being 'put to the sword', perhaps, held part of the persuasion in forgetting His adjuration?

Regarding the alleged personal attacks upon you...perhaps, you bring it upon yourself, although, that does not make it right. We can add pride to your (academic) ego, you sinful person, you!

Regards Don

Woops--- the title of the other movie that was similar to this one was called National Treasure.
In that movie, Nicholas Cage was also after the holy grail --- a cup-- also with a woman at his side. And it seems that the treasure was all moved to the USA!!

Elysiumfire,

You have the misfortune of engaging a former Teaching Fellow in symbolic logic in dialogue, though logic was not my primary field.   The syntactical schematization in question was often stressed in our logic courses!  Of course, symbolic logic is not very practical.  So when I got a rare chance to reproduce such trivial quibbles, I couldn't resist.   ;D

"lover": "a person who loves" (so Webster)!   >:(
OK, I admit that "friend" would have been more clear.

Your own view of sin is a separate issue.  On this site, I have often engaged in debate on attempts to deny the good vs. evil polarity.   The important point here is that the historical Jesus believed in the reality of sin.

The scholarly consensus agrees that the shape of the New Testament canon was never discussed at Nicea or any early ecumenical council.  The issue was only debated in regional conferences.  I eagerly await your attempt to refute this consensus.  

The Bible and the early church imply that God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.  Hell is self-chosen.  Universal salvation always remains a theoretical possibility, depending on the choices of those trapped in hellish planes.  Niether the Greek nor the Hebrew terms translated "etermal" mean that!   They mean "an indefinitely long period."  In fact, early Christianity is the literary origin of the doctrine of soul retrievals from lower planes.  I have created long threads on this board defending all these claims in great detail.

Don

Hi Don,

Quote: " You have the misfortune of engaging a former Teaching Fellow in symbolic logic in dialogue..."

And you sir, have the misfortune of not engaging a former Teaching Fellow in symbolic logic in dialogue; do not assume this to be a weakness

Quote: "Of course, symbolic logic is not very practical."

Yes, I quite agree.

On the terms of contradiction we are resolved.

Quote: " Your own view of sin is a separate issue." and "The important point here is that the historical Jesus believed in the reality of sin. "

What you refer to as 'my own view of sin' is not a separate issue, you brought up the issue of sin, I simply assimilated it into my stance in order to defend against the inferences you subjected my references of the Magdalene Gospel to. I am happy to engage with you on the subject of 'good versus evil', I think we would find common ground between us, and bridge-build where we don't.
I agree with you on the second issue, the traditional Jesus as depicted in the Bible does indeed accept the reality of sin, but then Jesus did not write the Bible.

Regarding Nicea, admittedly, this is my weakest point, and thus I will seek to strengthen it with study. I temporarily concede to you on this issue.

I perceive similarities between us, Don, and that, alas, is my weakness.

Regards.

forgive me for butting in...Elysiumfire but I must make comment that i have just met you. I hope you will not be embarrassed that I say your response to Don is elequently worded..for I myself have never been able to engage him at all.

the way you talk makes me want to throw my book away and begin all over.... ;D

oh please god, no more editing. I see we are in off topic thread..good. I can therefore say whatever I want.

AND THE GRAND ADVENTURE JUST KEEPS GOING!!! YEEEAAAAA!!!!!

Hi Laffingrain,

I blush at your compliment and kind words, I  thank you.

You know, Don is not an ogre, nor is his intelligence frightening. That he is intelligent there's no doubt. He's earned and cultivated it, and I hope that it helps to bring him success in any of his chosen fields. I'm sure it will.

He is quite engage-able, though his positioning in debate might provide the illusion that he isn't. He perceives, but does not 'see', and this is down to his academic training. He's open-minded, and that makes him engage-able, though he obviously doesn't suffer fools gladly, very few of us do.
His discernment is rigid, boxed in by all those years of learning, but his presence at this forum shows that he perceives something 'other' than what his learning does not provide adequate answers for, or he is simply learning things in order to crush them. I haven't decided which it is, but eventually, something will slip and show it up.

The forum needs him, and people like him, they help to stop people from taking things for granted, and accepting things that are not really as what they first appear. He is right to question things, I do it, and I feel everyone should, too, but Don comes across as being disrespectful, much too eager to pounce upon mistakes innocently made, and he may not realise how this harms both him and his position, and the debate then takes an acrimonious turn, weakening both sides. I'll bet you he is a really likeable fella?

Best wishes

:) Beserk you are like a Zealtor on a quest!

Elysiumfire said: and the debate then takes an acrimonious turn, weakening both sides. (in regards to Don, for whom the topic is now about)

precisely and well said E.Fire. acceptance of each other's viewpoints will cause strength and understanding and harmony in truth and honesty.

non acceptance (name calling, belittling, etc. will cause a weakening of both sides of the issue, if not immediately, then eventually, and serves no purpose for which I can see, but carry on if you all enjoy it.

I suspect our esteemed patron Don enjoys drawing a crowd, especially when the administrator of this board is absent. and so I have no further comments and find this "off topic" thread to be appropriately named; off topic.

I am astounded that over the years Don's comments, scuse me, hello Don? your comments, questions, debates remain the same issues. is there a reason for this non-change? I am referring to Monroe's experience with joke collecting aliens. has it ever occured to you Don, that aliens might not know what a sense of humor is? That they might want to study humans for our emotions and differences? Surely you don't think aliens are going to be just like humans. I already know your own sense of humor is nearly absent, unless you are chuckling away to yourself right now as you have indeed a knack for stirring up things. too bad you can not stir up in a positive and heart warming way instead of pummeling others with your clever wit and perhaps less than sincere putdowns.

Kathy, I saw nothing wrong with your post to Don and you do not bully. you inform. and I might add much better than myself but I believe you waste your time and energy with Don.
I'm sorry, I believe any who talk with Don waste their time, because he's only going to find your weakness and then get you where it hurts the most. He's not here to be of service to you although he may occassionally toss you a generous tidbit and you will think he is kind. but don't take my word for it. find out for yourself. of course many love a competitive spirited debate. I hope it leads to that instead of my prediction. One must never trust a man of the cloth. Religion is on its way out. free yourselves. alysia

 Ya know, i happen to believe in aliens collecting jokes from our little ole system, or in advanced technology from a lost civilization.

 I take Monroe quite literally on these.   And there are other issues i disagree with Don about, and i rarely agree with his particular personal style, but at least Don isn't constantly saying how full of PUL he is, and then doing the very opposite of what p.U.l is.

 This is one of the things i like and respect about Spitfire, was his lack of hypocrisy.  Another person i didn't always agree with, and thought their people skills lacked, and our beliefs systems were quite different.

Alysia wrote, [quote]I suspect our esteemed patron Don enjoys drawing a crowd, especially when the administrator of this board is absent. and so I have no further comments and find this "off topic" thread to be appropriately named; off topic.

I am astounded that over the years Don's comments, scuse me, hello Don? your comments, questions, debates remain the same issues. is there a reason for this non-change? I am referring to Monroe's experience with joke collecting aliens. has it ever occured to you Don, that aliens might not know what a sense of humor is? That they might want to study humans for our emotions and differences? Surely you don't think aliens are going to be just like humans. I already know your own sense of humor is nearly absent, unless you are chuckling away to yourself right now as you have indeed a knack for stirring up things. too bad you can not stir up in a positive and heart warming way instead of pummeling others with your clever wit and perhaps less than sincere putdowns.

Kathy, I saw nothing wrong with your post to Don and you do not bully. you inform. and I might add much better than myself but I believe you waste your time and energy with Don.
I'm sorry, I believe any who talk with Don waste their time, because he's only going to find your weakness and then get you where it hurts the most. He's not here to be of service to you although he may occassionally toss you a generous tidbit and you will think he is kind. but don't take my word for it. find out for yourself. of course many love

I thought this thread was on its way out a couple weeks ago.

No one can hurt you unless you give him or her the power to do so.  Someone else does not control what we each feel at any given moment.  How we feel is our own choice.  

What someone else feels is his or her own choice and the only way someone else can have an effect on how I choose to feel is if I give away my own power.

Many times we misunderstand what PUL is.  PUL from a human perspective seems to be something we do; however from a higher vibration level PUL is the ground of our very being.  

Instead of casting judgment and blaming others for how we choose to feel, we can look within our own soul and feel the PUL that we truly are.  Then and only then can we look into the soul of our brothers and sisters and see and understand the PUL that they are.  This in turn gives to us the peace that surpasses all understanding.  In this way we do not give another the power to dictate how we choose to feel.

Does this mean that we condone inappropriate action?  Certainly not.  We merely understand both the love and the fear in another with compassion.

It is to the exact degree that we are able to love and understand our self, that we are able to love and understand another.  The more we are able to love, understand and have compassion for our self, the more we are able to love, understand and have compassion for someone else.

Kathy

even in the wrong of wrongs there is the truth. this is not for fancy saying, it is a fact when you are able to get to the deepest level in all that wrong.
so...very related..When PUL and oneness is mentioned along, i would hesitate to say what somebody feels is his/her responsility...or is gonna be a contradiction. if there is a man crying in a lonely desert in africa, it is likely that i personally am responsible of it in a way.this is not a random example. something is happening there? what is happening in africa? any news, thoughts?  one night right before sleep it almost seem obligatory that i must go to africa. :) i still wish it wasnt a literal obligation that i sont have to travel there?
and no..i true seeker would come to understand sooner or later that finding truth can not be related with letting your mind and soul be burried under the centuries old information. but well yes:), "how soon" would classify one as a a true skeer? i definetly do not know.

oh my, if you are hurt, you are hurt.there is no need for getting into winding roads..if you are cut, you bleed..that simple..it is silly to pretend like it is not here..if  you ignore it you seem like a fool running around with his chin up high and loosing hell a lot of blood. when you are hurt, you admit that and you let that who/what hurt you to know. it is that simple..and then you start healing but unfortunately it sometimes becomes like as heavy a burden as "killing a man" for the person who learns about that hurt and ignores it..
ignorance is the key word i suppose. (if i could spell it correctly). everybody has to learn to take responsibilty of the person across or else it is already a hell and will get deep and we are talking shit.

Hi P A
When you say
'ignorance is the key word i suppose'
you bring out the pun meanings of the word and cause us to face the 2 meanings. Seeing both sides of puns together are supposed to reveal the true reality.
In your example we know to be our brothers' keeper but are ignorant of all the factors that led to him bleeding.   If we ignore those factors we are left with the only true meaning--our actions must be based upon love.
I don't know what religion or philosphy pun wisdom comes from---Buddhism maybe? Have you heard?
bets