Posted on 10/31/2003 9:30:53 AM PST by nypokerface
A leading US TV news reporter has said her network is taking a risk with a news special which asks whether Jesus Christ had a wife.
ABC's Elizabeth Vargas said Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci, to be shown in the US on Monday night, was being made "as respectfully as we can".
But she admitted: "You can't talk about this subject without intriguing people or offending people."
The programme is partly based on the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code.
The book alleges Mary Magdalene - a biblical figure widely thought to have been a prostitute - was actually Jesus's wife.
The book also asserts Magdalene fled Jerusalem with Jesus' child after his crucifixion.
This story was supposed to have been kept alive by a secret society that included the medieval painter and inventor Leonardo Da Vinci.
Da Vinci left clues about the story in his art, the novel alleged.
ABC have already screened the special, which talks to some theologians to try and unravel the theory, for some journalists and religious leaders.
'Crackpot theory'
It has already drawn criticism from a representative of the Catholic League, Joseph Feo, who said the news special had relied too much on the opinions of Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame.
Father McBrien is said to believe the historical importance of Mary Magdalene had been under-rated.
Mr De Feo said: "The majority of the people who spoke believed in either the plausibility or the outright truth of [book author] Dan Brown's claims. The facts themselves scream out that this is a crackpot theory."
Vargas said ABC had not found any proof as to whether Jesus had a wife, but could not completely discount the theory either.
"For me, it's made religion more real and, ironically, much more interesting - which is what we're hoping to do for our viewers," she said.
Verses 15 and 16:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Now you'll say some scholar asserts that these were added later because the Logos obviously isn't human, and his personal opinion trumps the text.
I love Mormon logic. He was just speculating about His train, so therefore pay no attention to the fact that the speculation consisted of saying the train was His wife and children. Nope, no claim that Jesus was married there.
Kinda like how Lorenzo Snow's most famous blasphemy was "just a couplet". Apparently no more than one fact can be true about a thing at once. So if it's true that it's in couplet form, it can't also be true that it asserts God was once as we are now.
Don't you find it odd that denominations that don't claim prophetic authority for their leaders spend so much less time calling their leaders' comments "just speculation" "just a couplet" "speaking as a man", ect?
Rather than read it and see what all the fuss is really about??? It is next on my list.
(Romans 10:10
Maranatha!!
It truly doesn't. There is no luck involved in the personal acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Very interesting. I've got a stack of other books on "alternative" history, including some really wacky books, as well as some that are more scholarly in their approach. I enjoy the story telling ability of Knight & Lomas. I also enjoy Robert Bauval & Graham Hancock and have several of their books. If you ever want to compare notes, just freepmail me.
Funny you should mention Zecharia Sitchin. I was going to admit that he was the author of the "wacky" books in my library, but was kind of embarassed. I've actually read the entire "earth chronicles" series, and have an autographed copy of "The Cosmic Code". I saw one of his lectures in Baltimore in 1999, it was great fun. I've only perused Velikovsky's stuff at the library, but no kooky info library is quite complete without at least one work by Erich von Daniken.
Actually, you are the one ignoring the intellectual environment of the Hellenistic world of that time.
A serious intellectual question of the day was the nature of the "seminal word," the "uncaused cause" of Aristotelian thought.
John descrtibed it as Christ, whereby "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..."
Prior to this verse, there was nothing in the the Gospel of John with which Aristotelian thinkers could disagree, the writer was merely describing the universally agreed upon nature of the seminal logos: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."
This was a noncontroversial repetition of the nature of the Word. Anyone hearing it back then would have agreed with it. It was basic to Aristotelianism.
The next bit, though, was the corker. It was an idea never conceived of before:
"And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" "And the word was made (became) flesh, and dwelt among us."
THAT was how Christianity introduced itself into the Helllenistic world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.