Posted on 11/01/2003 7:19:13 AM PST by Happy2BMe
ABC asks (but in the wee hours): Was Jesus married?
|
|
The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- ABC News correspondent Elizabeth Vargas concedes her network is stepping into a theological minefield with its one-hour exploration of whether Jesus Christ had a wife.
The ABC News special, "Jesus, Mary and DaVinci," is scheduled to air Tuesday, November 3rd, at 3:35 a.m. (The prime time slot on Monday is occupied by Monday Night Football.)
"You can't talk about this subject without intriguing people or offending people," Vargas said earlier this week. "We're trying to do it as respectfully as we can."
ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, The DaVinci Code, which claims to be partly grounded in historical fact.
The book asserts that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife -- not a prostitute, as in some teachings -- and that she fled Jerusalem with his child after his crucifixion.
The story was kept alive for centuries by a secret society that included the painter Leonardo DaVinci, who supposedly inserted clues about it in his art, the book claimed.
The ABC special speaks to several theologians who either discount the story or assert that it is possible. Vargas said ABC found no proof that Jesus had a wife, but couldn't completely discount it, either.
Vargas, who was raised a Roman Catholic, said her own parents said to her, "Oh, my goodness, what are you doing?" when they found out she was working on the story.
It drew some immediate criticism, particularly from a representative of the Catholic League, who said ABC News relied too heavily on the opinion of the Rev. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, who believes Mary Magdalene's importance has been historically understated and that it's possible she was his wife.
"The facts themselves scream out that this is a crackpot theory," said Joseph DeFeo, policy analyst for the Catholic League.
"Neither NBC, ABC or PBS would even dare to consider to portray Mohammed and Islam this way. It would cause a firestorm that would explode."
He's a good target ... a pedaphile, a gigalo (sp) and a false phophet who preached hate and intolerance. Instead it is poised as a "peaceful religion". LOL!
It would never occur to them to verify this nonsense with the Bible. NOWHERE does it state, suggest or hint that He was married. Then again homosexuals have tried to make Him a fellow homosexual because He spent time with His disciples. Verifyin this with the Bible didn't stop them from claiming this as "truth".
So sad. Someday ... they will discover the truth the hard way and they'll have eternity to think about it.
John 2
1 And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were called to the marriage.
4 Jesus said unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come."
5 His mother said unto the servants, "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it."
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.
7 Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said unto them, "Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast." And they took it.
Isn't the whole passage rather bizarre and cryptic anyway? Mary tells Jesus that there is no wine, as if she knows that he is planning to do something about it. He replies by saying his hour has not yet come. In preparation, Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them to do. Jesus then tells the servants to fill the waterpots.
The whole sequence is just so odd, as if something has been deleted or omitted. The story just doesn't flow.
Questions:
1. Why is Mary so concerned that there's no wine?
2. Did they both plan that Jesus would do something at the wedding? Or was Mary aware of Jesus' plan? - Mary says to the servants: "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it."
3. Why is Jesus deliberately rude to her? - "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" - Might not a better translation read (if applicable): "Mother, what does that have to do with me?" [That would be closer to the way a son would speak to his mother.] - "Mother, what does that have to do with me?" (and then whispering) "It's not time yet." [Sorry to rewrite the Bible, but these thoughts are just occurring to me because of the oddness of the passage.]
4. How does this first of Jesus' miracles "manifest forth his glory"? Is it because "His disciples [then] believed in Him"?
5. Why does he initially disavow that he is planning to do anything, yet in the very next instant, after his mother has spoken to the servants, he then gives orders to the servants?
I'd love to see the stuff that didn't make it into the official version of the Bible - the stuff that's hidden away in the Vatican - some of these stories might then make more sense.
Precisely!
If Jesus was not a sinless man, truly born of a virgin which would be the only way to start out sinless and remain sinless until death, the He was not the "spotless Lamb of God" our atoning sacrifice.
If Jesus was not the "way, the truth and the life" or better translated into modern speech; "I Am the way, the true way, the way to eternal life. No one comes to the Father but by me".
If Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, then we are basically screwed and have no hope or prayer in this world...or the next.
I like this one:
That was when the New Testament was compiled. Not re-written. There is a difference. Some of the Epistles didn’t make the cut. I assume they did a lot of praying to decide what was divinely inspired and what was not. There are some pretty dire warnings in Revelation about taking away or adding to the book.
-- In addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there were other stories of the life of Jesus.
Yes there were. However most of those were written after the Gospels and were not considered as either inspired or very authentic.
-- Jesus married and had children.
No, he didn't. Sorry. There is no evidence of this claim.
-- There were more than 12 Apostles, and some were women.
Of course, there were more then 12 Apostles. There were Matthias, Barnabas and Paul to name three. There were 12 chosen before His death though. The Bible is clear on that point. The others became apostles later. Were some women? Not real likely but slightly possible. Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied so there were women in at least minor positions in the Church. In fact according to 1 Corinthians 12 prophets came right after apostles in the church hierarchy.
(And because of that last part I am bound to get flamed.)
Excerpt:
The Bishops' Committee had taken issue with the author's [Richard McBrien] treatment of grace and other points of doctrine which, it said, "remain confusing and ambiguous: for example, the description of the virginal conception of Jesus as a 'theologoumenon' (in McBrien's words: 'A non-doctrinal theological interpretation that cannot be verified or refuted on the basis of historical evidence, but that can be affirmed because of the close connection with some defined doctrine about God' (p.1252)); the treatment of the perpetual virginity of Mary (cf. page 542), of the foundation of the Church, and of the binding force of the Marian dogmas."The Bishops also noted "sections of the book ... in which the presentation is not supportive of the Church's authoritative teaching as would be expected in a text entitled Catholicism. Such sections are those which discuss contraception and the ordination of women." The Committee further questioned the manner in which McBrien made use of dissenting theologians, creating thereby the impression that the official teachings of the Magisterium have validity only when received or confirmed by the 'consensus' of theologians (also including Protestant/Anglican theologians).
In assessing McBrien's "understanding of contemporary theological insights," the Committee noted that many such are "admittedly of a hypothetical nature and some of which it seems difficult to reconcile with authoritative Catholic doctrine."
Inadequate presentation
Yet, on examining the third edition of Catholicism, we find McBrien's unsatisfactory presentations of Catholic doctrine persisting in precisely the areas noted by the Bishops' Committee, such as the sinfulness of contraception and homosexual acts (e.g., pp. 982-992; 996-1000). For McBrien, such moral questions are to be left up to the supremacy of individual conscience - meaning, in practice, that an individual will be guided by the views of a paramagisterium of theologians and scholars rather than the Magisterium.
For McBrien, papal judgments in matters of faith and morals (if not infallibly proclaimed) do not bind the consciences of the faithful: "The Church has never explicitly claimed to speak infallibly on a moral question, so there is probably no instance as yet of a conflict between an individual's fallible decision in conscience and a teaching of the Church which is immune from error ... While Catholics give antecedent attention and respect to official teachings, they must also take account of other sources of moral reflection and counsel, e.g., their associates, the findings of scientific disciplines, the Bible, the writings of theologians ..."
McBrien's book denies the fact that the historical Christ founded the Catholic Church as a visible society with the mission to "teach all nations" (p. 577): "Did Jesus intend to found a Church? The answer is 'No' If by 'found' we mean some direct, explicit, deliberate act by which Jesus established a new religious organization ... One should not be surprised, therefore, to find no evidence of a specific act of founding a Church or of gathering together a community of the elect ... 'The majority of scholars today support the assumption that Jesus expected the end to come soon' (see Frederick J. Cwiekowski, The Beginnings of the Church, p. 44)."
For McBrien the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but are the products of the later Christian communities who concocted miraculous events as a method of conveying certain "theological meanings" and for communicating their faith in Christ as divine (pp. 341-343).
McBrien depicts Christ as if he did not always know who he was. Taking his cue from certain biblical scholars, he attributes both ignorance and error to Christ: "Did Jesus, finally, know himself to be the unique Son of God? It is true that Jesus spoke of God as his Father in such a way as to suggest a special, intimate relationship. But there is no incontrovertible proof that he claimed a unique sonship not open to other persons" (p. 551). McBrien even supports the case that Christ could have sinned (p. 547).
The Church's dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are viewed as not belonging to the essential core of the faith, so that one can still be a good member of the Church in sincerely rejecting them (pp. 1102-1103).
The author plays down the Catholic doctrine affirming that the sacrament of ordination brings about an intrinsic change in the priest's relationship to Christ and the Church: "It is not clear," writes McBrien, "... that anyone in particular was commissioned to preside over the Eucharist in the beginning ... There is no compelling evidence that they presided when they were present, or that a chain of ordination from Apostle to bishop to priest was required for the presiding" (pp. 866-867).
The moral theory of proportionalism (as developed by Fr Richard McCormick) is defended despite its rejection by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (pp. 966-967), while the Pope's teaching on the relationship between individual conscience and the magisterium as set forth in the same encyclical is distorted; the theory of "fundamental option" censured by the Pope in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (1984) is still proposed (p. 797; 957-967).
McBrien's "understanding" of the doctrine of Original Sin reads as follows: "Although the later doctrine of Original Sin has been read back into Paul's Letter to the Romans, neither biblical scholars nor theologians would agree that it is, in fact, there" (p. 186); "Contemporary theologians, especially Rahner, reject the notion that Original Sin is simply the sin of the first human being or is a matter of collective guilt. These views, they hold, cannot be sustained biblically or theologically" (p. 198).
McBrien denies that the concept of infallibility (indispensable for the certainty of Catholics regarding faith and morals) is contained in the New Testament: "The concept of infallibility does not appear in the New Testament, although the concern for sound doctrine does. There was, however, a growing conviction in the early centuries of the Church that Rome, and the bishop of Rome in particular, was a reliable touchstone of orthodoxy. And yet popes were conceded to have erred in matters of faith" (p. 781). The hierarchical infallibility of the Church is, in fact, nullified by McBrien's version of a two-fold magisterium, i.e., the official hierarchical one and that of the "magisterium of the theologians" (pp. 65-70).
McBrien's uncritical reliance on Karl Rahner's 'evolutionary' theology lies at the root of an approach which reduces magisterial doctrine to an opinion able to be explained away or rejected when not found conforming to the 'latest contemporary scholarship': "... until the beginning of the nineteenth century the virginal conception of Jesus, even in this biological sense, was universally believed by Christians. What happened to change that virtual unanimity of belief? Two of the same factors which generated a change in our understanding of Jesus Christ and of Christian faith itself, namely, a newly critical way of reading the New Testament, and a newly evolutionary way of perceiving human existence and human history" (p. 543).
As Msgr George A. Kelly of St John's University, New York, observed in reviewing McBrien's original edition, (in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, December 1980) even when McBrien admits the existence of some infallible dogmas, he places such constraints on them as cultural conditioning and the ever-changing "historical consciousness" as to limit their significance.
Another critic of the first edition, Msgr Nelson W. Logal, concluded: "McBrien's book illustrates how some of our dissenting theologians can put the Faith of the Catholic Church through the shredder of their updating speculations and still claim that the bits and pieces represent Catholicism" (Confraternity of Catholic Clergy Newsletter, October-November 1980).
Despite all the fanfare, and the claim that this 3rd edition is a 'sanitized' version of what drew serious criticism from both the Australian and U.S. Bishops in the 1980s, the reality is that much of the original officially criticized presentation of Church teachings remains intact.
This is a serious matter, since many Catholics (notably R.E. teachers) may be persuaded that McBrien's 'new look' Catholicism is a fit vehicle for 'understanding' the Catechism of the Catholic Church. LINK
You have the right to be wrong.
The difficulty with the BC/AD notation is that even the Church knows it is innaccurate.
This difficulty does not arise if you use CE, wheter you consider it "Common Era" (the commonly recognised dating) or "Chirstian Era" (the dating established by the Christian Church.)
There were women DISCIPLES, not women Apostles. He chose twelve, not 14, not 20. Twelve.
They are not all hidden away in the Vatican.
You can read The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran; The Coptic Scrolls at Nag Hammadi; The Book of Enoch; The translation of Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi manuscript that includes "The Secret Book of James," "The Gospel of Thomas," "The Book of Thomas," and "The Secret Book of John." you can read the gospel of Philip and all sorts of stuff.
Just do a Google search on any of these topic/titles and you will come up with way more than you aked for.
The problem is, will they solidify your faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ {meaning: "The Anointed One"] or will it take away from Him in your life?
Bottom line: is Jesus Christ who and what He said He is? Is the testimony of the gospels and epistles concerning him true, or is it all a lie and false testimony? It can't be both. If it is false, then it is all false and none of it can or should be trusted. If it is true, then it can be trusted. How can it be trusted? By the confirmation of the Holy Spirit Himself. Otherwise to your mind only, it's utter foolishness.
I've heard more than once that Jesus and John could have been lovers but then, I lived in San Francissyco for 4 years so you're likely to hear anything there.
I Plead ignorance on this point. Please cite the scripture you have in mind.
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.