Hi I dont believe for onr minute what the da vinche code says about Jesus had a child with Mary Magdeline. Jesus died on the cross to save us all from sin. Theres always storys coming out to try and discredit him . What are your opinions on this subject. God bless juditha

I really believe , the part where it is said. he died to save us ,to remove our sins ,well its baloney. We are each responsible for our own misdoings, so he could not take away our sins, we have to balance out our own energy or else how will we learn.

Theres so much within that book that just doesn't add up.Sorry but I'd start to look else where for my answers, you may never make it home otherwise.

Juditha,

Yes, I definitely believe in the DaVinci Code. Of course if I say anything more about it then Donald will challenge me to prove it. 

Love, Mairlyn

Berserk wrote:
Quote:


Sorry but I have to disagree there. Jesus was considered many things but bast-ard wasn't one of them.
The fact that Mary was able to conceive being a virgin was never public knowledge.
She was a married woman and skeptics always thought Joseph to be Jesus father. People speaking of Jesus at times referred to him as the son of the carpenter, amongst other things.
I think it would've been unconcievable in those times for a man to raise another man's child. The Bible also tells of an angel that came to Joseph in a dream, to let him know God plans for Mary and not to abandon her for adultery, so he stayed and the truth was never known.
Besides common sense tells me skeptics wouldn't have believed it if it had been leaked to them anyway. Faced with the options of either believing Jesus' mother was a virgin or Jesus father was the man who married Mary and raised him as his son, I think they would've gone for the latter.

Having said that I do agree with you in everything else. He was never married and the Da Vinci Code is nothing more than a fiction book.
I watched a documentary on TV once where a journalist investigated the existence of the holy grail with Dan Brown's book in hand.
Step by step he visited places, interviewed people, checked historic records ..... the works!. In the end he discovered it was all made up by two french men wanting to feel important. By the way the french guys confessed on an interview on a radio station years ago. Well  if D. Brown had documented that his book would not have sold as many copies I guess.
Apparently, the two men included their names to the list of members of the order that was meant to guard the secret of the holy grail and named the order, using part of the name of the village they came from or something like that.

Peace.

SC.

Quote:


Don,
I also want to add that I Cor. Chapters 6-7 gives reasons why God would rather men never marry at all.  These chapters say that married people are more concerned with each other than with God.  However, this passage also says it is better to marry than to indulge ourselves in sexual immorality.  Jesus had no problem with sexual immorality because we know He was a man without sin.  I'm guessing this is another reason why He never married.

-Bug

Woah!

Jesus merely concedes that, for some, celibacy, is a viable lifestyle (Matthew 19:11-12).  Paul reveals that Jesus' disciples and brothers were married and insists that he too has the right to get married: "Don't we have a right to bring a wife along with us, just as the disciples and the Lord's brothers and Peter do (1 Corinthians 9:5)?"  Apostolic morality had a very earthy view of the joys of marital sex,  The Song of Songs was part of their Bible and this document is erotic poetry!

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul recommends celibacy as a temporarily viable lifestyle without insisting on it.  But he only recommends it "because of the present crisis" (7:26) of religious persecution that makes a stable family life difficult for Corinthian Christians.  In any case, Paul repeatedly makes it clear that he is just offering his nonbinding opinion on such questions and distinguishes that opinion from Jesus' teaching. (7:6, 12, 25, 40).  Elsewhere Paul celebrates the married state and puts it in a grand theological context (Ephesians 5:22-32).  He later insists that a bishop or deacon should be "the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:6)."

Most of the early bishop of Rome seem to have been married.   Around the end of the 2nd century, Manichaean influence caused many Catholics to view celibacy as preferable to marriage.  

Don

Before I begin, I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Catholic Church. Since I've gone on about Catholic matters before and someone still assumed I was Catholic even though I stated I wasn't, I repeat myself: I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. Don't take me to task for what the Catholic Church teaches just because I happen to have studied Catholicism, on my own at that. And no, I don't have to be rabidly anti-Catholic to prove anything to anyone when I write about Catholic things. The icon of the Ascended Master Mary to the left is there because I have a relationship with her that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church (or any other belief system). Thanks.

Celibacy is a matter of discipline, not theology. The Catholic Church HAS NOW and has aways had married priests. Before I go any further, when I say Catholic, I mean in full communion with (some would say under) the Pope in Rome, as Catholic as any Catholic in good standing that you know.

Not all Catholics are Roman. Not all Catholic priests are celibate. There are married Eastern Catholic priests. There are even married Roman Catholic priests. Confused yet? You're not alone.

The Catholic Church is a actually a communion of 21 particular autonomous and semi-autonomous churches that comprise the Universal Church on Earth. One of these, and by far the largest, is what most people call the Roman Catholic Church. It's so huge that a lot of people mistakenly believe that its rituals, mindset, Latin/Western spirituality and disciplines are the very definition of Catholic. Only partially true.

The other 20 Churches are Eastern (as was/is the Churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, et al.). Most of them have lots of married priests, esp. overseas in their homelands where there are far fewer Latin priets and bishops to object. They never made mandatory the discipline of celibacy for priests, although they have many celibate priests as well. At bit of clarification is needed here. These Churches do not allow priests to get married. They must be married before ordination. If their spouse dies they remain celibate and cannot remarry. All eastern bishops are drawn from the celibate clergy, usually monks.

In the Latin ("Roman") Church, there are convert clergy from the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and other communions who came with their wives and children into the Catholic Church. They are now Roman Catholic priests serving in Roman Catholic parishes and elsewhere. The Catholic Church didn't make them give up their families when they joined. There are also Eastern Catholics with married priests in several countries where Latins are dominate, with their parishes often located near a Roman parish or sometimes even sharing the same church buildings and facilities.

BTW, the Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, et al) are considered by the Catholic Church to have a valid priesthood. They are considered to be true particular Churches and Sister Churches to the particular Catholic Churches, even though they are not in full communion with Rome. They have LOTS of married priests. When an Orthodox priest joins the Catholic Church, he's not reordained and he brings his family with him.

Even if the Latins wanted to start ordaining married men in large numbers, there are very real practical considerations. In the Eastern Churches the priests are usually supported by their respective parishes. That means salary, medical insurance, living quarters (for a family), a car, and other expenses. A lot of Roman Catholic parishes could not afford those things nor to modify or build new rectories to house a family. Then there's the problem of educating Catholics themselves. A lot of Catholics don't understand their faith very well, let alone an 'innovation' such as married priests. There would be controvesy without end, something the Catholic Church doesn't need right now, nevermind the expense.

Rob

Sasuke,

Good points for those that think of Jesus as Christians do. But for non-Christians Jesus is a huge issue as most of them spend their entire lives living among, working, and even married to Christians, many of whom are less than tolerant of those who might disagree with the (their) "Truth."

Rob