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]

The Boy Scouts didn't discriminate against the "nonreligious."

The Boy Scouts in San Diego lost their use of city facilities
because they refused to allow atheist kids to participate.

[cwb]

"Do you honestly equate a religion neutral government with
getting rid of religion?"

No...I equate it with being hostile to people who practice their religion. Do you need more examples of those who have been attacked, fired, suspended, etc. for their personally held beliefs?   

[gcruse]

When neutral means hostile, there can't be much discussion.
Oh, and you didn't comment on the Boy Scouts in San Diego
discriminating on a religious basis. Shall we let that
fall over the side unremarked?

[cwb]

If the Scouts denied a child access because he was an atheist, I may have a problem with that, but this attack on the BS has been going on for several years over the Gay issue. I don't know the details on that case so I'll withold judgment until I research it. But this stuff is BS:

District Ousts Scouts Over Policy on Gays

by Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO--The San Diego school board, objecting to the anti-gay policy of the Boy Souts of America, voted unanimously Tuesday to oust the Scouts from running school-day programs in the eigth-largest district in the nation.

"We have to send a message to the Scout leaders locally and nationally," school board member Ron Ottinger said. "We will welcome you back into our school district when you end this discrimination."

[cwb]

"When neutral means hostile, there can't be much discussion."

That's exactly my point...because we don't have religiously neutral government...and I fear we never will for the reasons I stated.

"Oh, and you didn't comment on the Boy Scouts in San Diego
discriminating on a religious basis. Shall we let that
fall over the side unremarked?"

I don't know...are you going to respond to the descrimination of those who hold religious beliefs and have suffered for them?

[gcruse]

That's exactly my point...because we don't
have religiously neutral government.

We can agree on that.  As long as sessions are
opened with prayers and references to God appear
in the pledge and on the currency, we cannot be
said to have religiously neutral government.

[gcruse]

descrimination of those who hold religious beliefs and have suffered for them?

I thought we put the Inquistion behind us.  And I don't
recall reading about anything so horrific in the US lately.

[gcruse]

Here, lemme help.  This is from the Philadelphia Inquirer

The reason for the conflict is the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding against gays and atheists, dictated by the national organization, said Barbara Grant, the mayor's spokeswoman.

[cwb]

I must have missed it, but what was the atheists name who was excluded? Let me add one more thing on the BS/atheist controversy. How did the BS discover that a kid or whoever was an atheist? Was the person objecting to something in the pledge or criticizing those who were "believers?" Without knowing the "specific" details, let me say that the attitudes of atheists, such as yourself, are not religiously-neutral. Many of you have an agenda that demonizes those of faith and are just as intolerant as those you see as true believers.

Canada, in their attempt to be a religiously neutral government wants to ban the Bible. Is that a neutral position on religion...or a hostile one? As I said, your fascination with secularism is only breeding the same intolerance and prejudice that you accuse others of harboring. And why do you keep bringing up the "inquisitions" in 21st America? Can't you defend the "discrimination" that has been leveled at those of who have religious beliefs. They're not out to get you...but I can see you're out to get them.

[cwb]

"We can agree on that.  As long as sessions are
opened with prayers and references to God appear
in the pledge and on the currency, we cannot be
said to have religiously neutral government"

Cry me a river...you poor oppressed, atheist (didn't you say that to me once).

[gcruse]

I only know what I read on the forum from the San Diego papers. It's been several months, though, so I don't remember any names. Sorry.

" Many of you have an agenda that demonizes those of faith and are just as intolerant as those you see as true believers. "

I just want to get it out of government. You'd think church, home, and Sunday school would be adequate venues for worship.
Paul's (?) admonition about praying out of doors could be seen
as hostile to religion, too, under your lights.

[gcruse]

I'm not oppressed. I can vent my feelings at will.
That doesn't mean I go into chapels and proselytize
people who have better things to do with their lives.

[Tribune7]

An advanced civilation will certainly base its understanding of history on a work of fiction with a distinct agenda </sarcasm>

[cwb]

"I just want to get it out of government."

That may be all you want to do, but as I've pointd out...and you've ignored, there are others (People for the American Way and the Senators they support) who don't even want people of faith serving in government...which in itself is violation of the Constitution. They've even boldly used their faith to argue against their service, whether that be on the issue of abortion, Civil (Gay) Rights, etc. So please don't tell me that there aren't those who are discriminated against because of their faith. It's happened in every Senate conformation hearing from Ashcroft to Pryor. But I know...I know; there isn't in inquisition or concentration camps or jailed religions, so it really isn't happening in your world. Anyhow...I've got to leave for a little bit.

[gcruse]

See you later.

[F16Fighter]

"How come these people don't believe the Bible as the inerrant word of God but will believe this crap?"

Great post!

The long lost "code" of a loony eccentric scientist from the 16th century is suddenly feasible if not probable, while the eyewitness account of four different Apostles at the time of Christ is a "fairy-tale"??

The word is out regarding the networks: THEY LIE. TRUST NOTHING THEY SAY.

[Positive]

While I certainly do not consider myself a grammarian, I do consider myself a bit of a semanticist with a substantial founding in sylogistic logic, therefore I enjoy this little give and take we're having. Here are my responses to your repartees: "It became an issue when you said you found it 'interesting.' "I find it interesting..." often carries a negative connotation in today's world."

If finding things interesting often carries a negative connotation, it often carries no connotation at all. As in I find this interesting so I will look into it further. In my usage of the statement I held no negative connotation.

"On the other hand, if this hypothetical Joe were an eyewitness to what I said, you would have reason to believe him, now wouldn't you? Unless, of course, he was a pathological liar."

I have read and heard that often there are many different version of "eye witness" accounts. I do not accept everything anyone says as true, let alone correct. I think a person can misinterprate what he sees or hears or both, and that wouldn't mean that he is neccessarily a "pathological liar" or even a just plain ordinary liar.

I remember a famous phrase by President Reagan, "trust but verify." I don't think he was implying that everyone was a pathological liar.

Since you don't, you'll just have to accept the multiple corroborating witnesses, two of whom wrote first-hand and two of whom wrote from first-hand sources. If you can't, it's not for lack of evidence, it's for unbelief in the evidence.

Oh, I can refuse to accept hearsay testimony as fact and still believe in the conclusion that might be drawn from that testimony, there's no contradiction there.

As for the absence of proof that these historically famous personages wrote anything down, that does mean that they didn't...I just happen to find it interesting, you know for converstational purposes...don't you?

[R. Scott]

What is so unreasonable about the Christ being married?
He was a rabbi, and would have been bound to “go forth and multiply”.

[Bohemund]

What is so unreasonable about the Christ being married? He was a rabbi, and would have been bound to “go forth and multiply”.

Well, first off, in 1st Century Palestine, there were no "rabbis" as we currently understand them (as leaders of synagogues, etc). But that's neither here not there.

There is nothing unreasonable about the statement that any given man in 1st Century Palestine was likely to be married. It is unreasonable, though, to say that Jesus Christ, the best-attested personage from antiquity, whose family was venerated to the third or fourth generation, would have had a wife that nobody knew about.

It is equally unreasonable to say that the Son of God, who overturned the old order, would be bound by social conventions.

[R. Scott]

Well, first off, in 1st Century Palestine, there were no "rabbis" as we currently understand them (as leaders of synagogues, etc).

No, back then there were Jewish priests. The Christ was a religious leader, and (unless my various translations of the Holy Bible are in error) He was refered to as “rabbi”.

…would have had a wife that nobody knew about.

Wives had little status at the time, and would not have been germane to the message.

It is equally unreasonable to say that the Son of God, who overturned the old order, would be bound by social conventions.

He did amend a few of the Old Testament dictates – an eye for an eye is a good example – but it can hardly be said that He “overturned the old order”. He appeared to be an observant Jew. The old order was overturned much later when the Word was spread to the Gentiles and non-Jews took over.