Was Jesus Christ A Married Man? (NYPost Review – “a tad confusing – pretty pictures”)

NY Post ^ | November 3, 2003 | Adam Buckman

[dead]

And was Mary Magdalene his wife?

Apparently, a lot of people will be upset if the answer to both these questions is yes.

As explained in tonight's "Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci" - a new ABC News prime-time special inspired by the best-selling novel, "The DaVinci Code" - proof that Jesus of Nazareth was a married man enjoying conjugal relations with his wife would upset the apple cart, so to speak, of all of Christianity since Jesus' divinity has been based for so long, at least in part, on the notion that he was celibate.

[gcruse]

Uhm, I'm an atheist, not a Mormon.

[tracer]

Well, I hope the fall weather in Texas is as beautiful as it is here in the DC area. It's warm and wonderful. All the best.....

[marty60]

No not at a;;. I'm offended at ABC trying to take a heresy and try to turn it into an anti-Catholic diatribe about women in the Priesthood. Actually stating that Mary was a disciple, and that it was a conspiracy of a bunch of men to discredit her and elevate HIS Mother. Actually the more I think about this I get sick to my stomach at the lengths these liberal idiots will go to push their agenda. Frankly, I'm fed up with all of them, Peta, Libers, Dumocrats, Fascist enviro, etc etc etc.

Sorry for the rant. Don't apologize for posting. It's what makes FR.

[tracer]

"I think Mormonism is one of my most despised heresies."

You mean that you're not sure?

BTW, according to Dan Quayle, the correct spelling is "heresys"...... 8~)

[tracer]

Sometimes humor is the best weapon. "Temporary" life insurance from "Carpenters' Mutual," indeed..... 8~)

[biblewonk]

Well I'm starting to really despise denominations with female or gay pastors and gender neutral bibles. I also really despise JW's and RC Marianism. I'd take a Wiccan any day over those, atleast they are not deceiving anyone about what they are.

[tracer]

Oh, yea? I'll bet my wives could whup your girlfriends in a fair fight, Biblewank!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist..... 8~) (waving white flag)

[tracer]

Oh, yea? I'll bet my wives could whup your girlfriends in a fair fight, Biblewank!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist..... 8~) (waving white flag)

[tracer]

Now you've gone and done it. You've really pi$$ed Her off, and the lightning bolts are a'flyin'.....

[madison10]

I think they made John look "gay" in order to give the impression that he was quite young--teenager. Reason why he had no beard. John was also the apostle who carried for Mary, the mother of Jesus.

[madison10]

carried=cared :)

[biblewonk]

Ofcourse, my girlfriends are teens. Hnnnnnnnnn

[tracer]

OK!!OK!! You win!!

BTW, how old???? 8~)

[biblewonk]

Um, they said they're 18.... officer.

[cwb]

Ahh...that explains some of your hostility. I also must address this wish of yours:

"I want to help these tortured souls see that a religion-neutral government is in the best interest of all..."

That's a wonderful thought if we ever had...or ever could have, a religion-neutral government. Nature abhors a vacuum and even if you could get rid of one or all religions, another one would just take it's place. There are more Faiths and religions than just those who worship Deities. Should we embrace the Enviro-Greens who worship the Earth and Mother Nature? Heck, we already have Earth Day were we pay tribute to Mother Earth. Maybe we can pay tribute to the State and worship Man...as most Fascist, Socialist and Communist faiths do. The latter is obviously more dangerous as Man becomes the law-giver and those inalienable rights granted by God are easily replaced by Man.

A religion-neutral government doesn't punish and ridicule those who believe in God (re: Ashcroft, Pryor, Pickering, etc). Hell, we had the liberals in the Senate actually questioning Pryor's parental purrogative to schedule his and his family's (two daughters) trip to Disney World so they wouldn't have to partake of Gay Days? Since when is it "government's" job to concern itself with how a father decides to shield his family from what he considers inappropriate behaviour? That's sure one hell of a religiously-neutral government, huh? It also doesn't punish private organizations for whom they choose to associate with. The Boy Scouts were never referred to as a "religious" organization...nor where they ever punished "before" the gay controversy arose. But now we have a liberal judge labeling the Scouts just that simply because they have a certain moral code they wish to uphold. All of the sudden, "anyone" who has any objection to the Gay lifestyle is assaulted as a religious wacko. Any type of moral character, including judgementalism, is now frowned upon as some sinister religious conversion...to be done away with from the public square.

The fact is, the religously-neutral government you wish to create is actually a religiously-bigoted government, as this secularism has become more hostile to people of Faith. And if you don't believe it, than you're just not paying attention. Heck, the faith (or lack thereof) in your Atheism is a perfect reflection of that hostitlity and intolerance. We have people (like those in Canada) who want to get rid of the Bible because to them, it is hate speech. Great...let's bring back the book-burnings...atheists are such tolerant people. We have teachers getting suspended for wearing crosses or fired for letting a child lead a prayer in respect for another child's death. These are not examples of a religiously-neutral government, or a government "endorsing" religion...and in fact, are examples of a government hostile to those who practice their religion. Granted, no concentration camps, yet...but once you lather-up that hatred for people of Faith, it shouldn't be too long coming. It should also be noted that the very secular-isms that you embrace are not only responsible for more misery in the 20th Century, they are also responsible for the greatest attacks on people of religious faith.

Is it any wonder why Communism and Socialism despise God and religion? After all, how can they demand obedience to the State when religious people have a higher authority in their lives...other than the State. It certainly makes it harder to take away peoples rights when they believe many of those rights are granted to them by God, and not Man. The Faith of Secular-isms has as many, if not more dangers, than that of Christianity. It is essentially a selfish faith with obedience to no one but thyself, and therefore has no boundaries for behaviour. And this is exactly why so many liberals (and Atheists) object to religion because it actually sets some boundaries, that as a civilized society, some have decided to adhere to. That doesn't mean that government has to endorse it...but it does mean they shouldn't punish it, either. You keep thinking that a religion-neutral government can even exist...or is even preferable; that's what the Bolsheviks thought, also. Unfortunately, Once God is removed, so are many of those God-given rights that make way for Man-made laws.

[MattAMiller]

Gee...I wonder if they'd ever do the story: "Was Mohammad a slave-owning, polygamist?" It's simply amazing how Christianity is the only religion that encounters such scrutiny, while other religions are off-limits.

Most American's are Christians and are therefore more interested in discussions of the Bible than discussions of the Koran.

[gcruse]

Nature abhors a vacuum and even if you could get rid of
one or all religions, another one would just take it's place.

Do you honestly equate a religion neutral government with
getting rid of religion?   Now I begin to understand your
antipathy toward separation of church and state
Without the backing of the state, you fear your religion
will disappear.  I have to tell you, this is the first time
I've come across that.

That doesn't mean that government has to endorse [religion]...

Then you have no objection to the removal of religious
symbolism from the government?  There seems to be
a contradiction here.  To me, absence of religious
endorsement is a religion neutral government.

but it does mean they shouldn't punish it, either.

I haven't seen any religion go to jail lately.  And by
removing government perks from organizations that
discriminate against the nonreligious is punishment only
in the eyes of the discriminators.

[R. Scott]

It's also very possible that when the Christian Bible was finally canonized all references to the Christ being a space alien would have been expunged.

There is a difference between probability and possibility.
It is possible that the Christ was married.
It is highly improbable that the Christ was an alien.
To equate His being married to being an alien is absurd.

[Bohemund]

There is a difference between probability and possibility. It is possible that the Christ was married. It is highly improbable that the Christ was an alien. To equate His being married to being an alien is absurd.

Your use of "possible" referred to the likelihood that a given fact would have been expunged, not on the reasonableness of that fact. One surmise premised on disproving a negative is as good as another.

[cwb]

"I haven't seen any religion go to jail lately."

Why don't you respond to the those who have suffered because of their deeply held beliefs (see above) and get off the "jail" and "concentration camp" lingo. Persecution takes many forms.
 
"And by removing government perks from organizations that discriminate against the nonreligious is punishment only..."

The Boy Scouts didn't discriminate against the "nonreligious." They discriminated against a lifestyle that was publically broadcast and that they...and many, see as corrupting, especially to young men. You don't have to be religious to have this belief, as I am an example of that...which is exactly my point: Liberals and atheists as yourself are attacking anyone with any moral standard and calling it religious.