The Smiley Smile Message Board

Are you saying you believe Christ was married or am I missing the point?

I think it has something to do with the Da Vinci Code. I'm a non-Christian (but I do believe in God; I just "belong" to one specific religion) but I watch Christian programs on occasion, and Jack Van Impe was tearing into it, and mentioned something about the book saying Christ was married (and sounded very angry when he said that).

Let me be clear about this:  I've not read the Da Vinci Code or seen the movie, so I have no positive or negative criticism to offer concerning  either.

The quote is something someone else said.  I found it to be an interesting quote, as I found it to be saying, if you can't accept the possibility that Christ may have had a wife during his adult life on earth, if you think that theory is an attack on Christianity, your Christian faith is weak. 

I believe there's absolutely no evidence Jesus had a wife or children.  I don't find the theory He did have them to be an attack, just unfounded speculation.  I don't believe saying He did not have a wife or children is the sign of a small or closed mind.

However, He has a bride:  the Church, all those who have answered His call to salvation.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Since we are discussing this, let me say this as well:  the popular notion that Jesus was an all right kind of guy, that the "basic system for living espoused in the Bible" is acceptable as long as you can strip them of the parts you don't like, is absurd.  Take it or leave it, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are smart or wise enough to figure out the good and bad parts of the Bible.  Either take the whole thing, or reject it.  But understand:  to take it means work on your part.  It takes research and thinking that never ends.

If Jesus is supposed to be an example to people, what is wrong with the idea of him having a wife?  John 20:16.

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.  But he's not going to have two of them, and his bride is the Church.

Totally agree with all you said, Chuck.

Yep CS Lewis once wrote (paraphrase) "He was either crazy or the Son of God." Because he was making claims to the former when he was alive.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

Rerun, what I meant was:  He's going to have a wife, and the bride is the Church.  He did NOT have a wife during His earthly ministry.

I'll speak contextually here.  Mary was "a sinner", definitely (he "cast seven devils" out of her.)  Who, besides Jesus, is not in her category?  "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."  To say the "Church" that Jesus is supposed to marry is going to be "without sin", unlike Mary Magdalene...who are the qualifying members of it, if it is supposed to be sinless?

Jesus's suffering and death on the cross was the balance, the payment, the necessary demand of the law, for our sins.  Without it, no one would be able to spend eternity with God in Heaven, as there is no room for sin there. 

Yes, here, despite our adoption into the family of God, we still sin.  But God's children will not always have to fight the desires of the flesh.

So perhaps the marriage of Christ to His bride is the ultimate [truer?] meaning of marriage and that our physical earthly marriages and unions here on earth are actually shadows...of the real thing... ??? I mean sometimes we can say that Jesus missed out on something just like a Catholic priest who is single and celibate, but Jesus is actually waiting for his bride...Adam and Eve were create by God and married by God himself... :-\

A nice way of putting it, yes.  Though I don't think of our marriages here to be shadows of the real thing, but types of the ultimate marriage.  They are important in helping us understand the marriage of Jesus and the Church.

(http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/49bdaf0af5.jpg) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

Did I *miss* something, Chuck? Are you still banned from the Smile Shop? Did I delete you from my blog? 'Cause I don't see any reason why you should be talking about that over here, when you're specifically referring to things that I wrote ON MY BLOG and ON THE OTHER BOARD.


Namely me...


You "found" wrong. As per usual, you totally misinterpreted what I said, or managed to twist it to suit your own needs. What I said was: if you find that the entire idea of salvation through Christ vanishes or feels "under attack" based on speculation that Christ is married, then your faith wasn't based on much -- I mean, honestly, think about that statement for a minute. The minute you add a possible wife or children, suddenly Salvation is negated?? Why on earth would that possibly be? Jesus still died for your sins, whether or not he was married. And he still rose again from the dead.

The basis for my faith isn't based on whether or not Christ was celibate or married or whatever. Its based on him dying for my sins. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I personally don't care either way -- I find it an intriguing and compelling idea, Chuck, but I dont' think it matters one way or another. What I'm saying is: IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE FINAL MESSAGE OF CHRIST in any way to say that he's married. And when people paint The DaVinci code as an "attack on religion," that's what they're essentially saying.

Its just fine to disagree. I don't necessarily agree myself. What I'm saying is that the words themselves are not tantamount to an attack on the faith.


Meaning "from me..."


Again, Chuck, did I ever say that? You're again totally twisting my words around. I don't think Jesus was just "an all right kind of guy." Dude -- if I thought Jesus was just an "all right kind of guy" and not the Messiah, why would I bother being in a Christian church? What would be the bloody point? Wouldn't I essentially be a Jew, or possibly an atheist who reads the Bible a lot? You want my beliefs? They are this: I believe Christ is the Son of God, sent to earth to die for our sins. Good enough for you?

When I was writing on my blog, I was trying very hard to not be specific. I was hoping that perhaps my writing would spur folks to think about their relationship to their faith -- ANY faith. I have a lotta Jewish readers who are close friends of mine. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to ram my beliefs down their throats. So I was writing very generally in the hopes that maybe it would spur them into thinking and maybe return to THEIR faith. That's IT. It doesn't mean I think Jesus was a "pretty neat guy."

I don't feel I've stripped the Bible of any part I don't like. What I was talking about in my blog post  was that I finally realized that it was okay if I didn't agree with PARTICULAR DEMONINATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS TO HOW THE BIBLE IS INTERPRETED. In other words: if I don't subscribe to the same system belief as you right-wing fundies do, its perfectly alright with God. It was a personal writing about how I came to return to the Church. It had nothing to do with "taking or leaving parts of the Bible."


Nor should you, Chuck, fool yourself into thinking that your interpretation of the Bible and its teachings are the only possible correct ones for Christians to have.


I do plenty of research and thinking, Chuck.

And I also take GREAT EXCEPTION to having my faith questioned.

My comment is that the theory that Christ was married with children does not jive with the history of the New Testament...he died and rose again...he was single and celibate by most accounts in scripture...I mean I am just writing this from the top of my head, I have no particular verse to quote but I am also not offended by Davinci Code. I mean I have never read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus got married or had kids...he did attend a wedding, he said suffered the children to come unto me...but not himself married. Of course I agree that him being married or not doesn't take away from the sacrifice of the cross. But he was fully dedicated to his heavenly Father and not the things of this world (marriage etc...)....

So, marriage is just a thing of this world?  Wha...?

Jon,  I think you're reading WAY  more into it than is necessary. I think your problems with Chuck are causing you to read what he said differently than what was actually stated. He didn't say *you*; there are those in fact who do believe that, sad to say. I know of several personally.

Right...him being banned there affects what he can and cannot say here. Am I following you correctly? So, say I were to ban you here (I'm not; I'm trying to prove a point). So then, if you were to take something I said in a different thread on this site (let's use the Kurt Cobain thread for an example), and mention it (without using my name) in a thread over at the shop based on the same topic, then that would be wrong? Is that what you're trying to say?

I have no reason to think we will be anything but brothers and sisters in the afterlife.

Well, yes and no...Christ is waiting for his bride [the church]...

But being married with children is a very time consuming occupation [and a very honorable one] and the apostle Paul advises believers to stay single if they can so that they can devote more time to serving God, obviously very few ever choose this [myself included ;)]. Paul also says if you really want to get married, then go ahead, you have not sinned...

Actually, in the kingdom of God, there will be no more marriage between man and woman, the church will all be married to Christ...

No.  Nothing you or I do, whether it be speculation or anything else, can negate what Jesus did.  I do believe adding or subtracting from God's Word is a slippery slope.  I did not and do not accuse you of that or anything else, nor did I mean to slight or question your faith by treating you like a second class Christian, as people sometimes do by referring to groups of Christians with intended insults like "right wing fundies."  I simply answered someone's question.

Thanks for participating on this board.

Since it's been raised, by me and others, here are some differences I have with my brothers and sisters in the Catholic church:

I don't think Mary either lived a sinless life, nor was she born in a special state regarding sin so that she could birth Christ.
I don't think there's any value in praying to Mary, hailing Mary, or asking her to pray for us. 
I don't believe communion is "morally necessary for salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm)."
I don't believe in transubstantiation.

I'm sure more will come to mind later.

Sounds like we're on the same...lePage...hahaha!....yeah...

Guess what they say is right, then, I'm a right wing fundie PIG.

Im not Catholic but I believe that one. I'm Lutheran.

Missouri Synod?

Oh, really? He's specifically quoting me *directly*, at least twice, and indirectly several other times, in his original message. You don't think that gives me a basis to feel personally slighted?

Oh no, of course not, we all know the Smile Shop people are just "overly sensitive." >:(


My point is: he's NOT banned over there. And he knows that, he was just there today, REGISTERED, browing the site. So why he chose to comment on my comments indirectly, HERE, where I'm not a regular poster, rather than a) on my blog, where I MADE the comments or b) on the Shop, where an ongoing discussion of religion is happening that he's clearly following but not participating in, is beyond me.


So you're not referring to me personally when you're talking about people who think Jesus was an "alright guy" who provides a "moral code for living"? And again not referring to me when you're saying that some people think its okay to strip the Bible of certain passages where convenient? Despite the fact that you're directly quoting my words on a blog when you're talking about it, albeit twisting them around to say something I absolutely and totally did not mean?

Dude: your entire paragraph is designed to call people who believe that stuff second-class Christians, and by quoting me directly, it certainly seems that you're absolutely including me within that group. Despite the fact, again, that I did not intend to imply even a single item that you're saying I did. Nor do I believe any of that.

When you attack someone by quoting them in your signature line, or making fun of their site design on your message board, or "quoting them" "indirectly" within your writing, you've provided yourself with a wonderful plausible denial, Chuck. And in case you were wondering, that is why I'm constantly calling you passive-aggressive. Its so easy to make digs at people subtly like that and then just deny they ever happened.

I'm sorry I called you a right-wing fundie. A better tact to take might have been to find a quote of yours that exposes you as right wing, or as a fundamentalist, and put it in my signature line without comment. And if I get called on it, deny it ever happened, or deny I meant anything by it. That's the Smiley Smile board way!!

And yes: I am legitimately sorry I called you a right-wing fundie, Chuck. It was said in the heat of the moment of responding, I was pretty angry, and I apologize.

But Christ was human.  His sacrifice and suffering would be pretty meaningless if he wasn't.  This was the theme of 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. 

So what happened before Jesus?  Presumably Heaven was empty as there's no one without sin, surely?! 

I've been able to browse the Shop board, registered and unregistered, since the "exodus."

Whenever I've posted anything I've been re-banned.  And I've been asked to not post anything on the site.  I chose to comment on your comments here because I was asked here about your comments.  Clearly you are registered here, are welcome to post here, and are willing to post here.  I did leave a comment at your blog.

I think we, and I, just went through Ian bringing an argument here and stirring the soup, and I really don't have the will to go through it anymore.  I'm more than happy to discuss most anything, but I really don't have the energy to trade clever insults right now.

Yeah, that's also what he said when he hung on the cross, "My God, why have you abandoned me", it seems that he himself lost the connection to God and started wondering if God himself did actually exist.

Søren

Chuck: I have not one bit of interest in trading any insults with you, nor of "stirring the soup". How about we call it a truce, and we take whatever discussion regarding personal theology to private emails? I'd actually enjoy discussing things with you,I just don't think I want to do it in a public forum where I am completely, apparently, incapable of responding to you without getting pissed off!

Deal?

Truce?

Deal?

Deal.  Don't sweat it, I seem to have that affect on people.  Or is it "effect?"  I don't know.

f*** you, motherfucker. Read the thread and see who started it. Go to hell.

Irony at its finest.

 :3d

Is telling a Christian to go to Hell the same as questioning their faith?  Inquiring minds really don't want to know.

I appreciate Ian. He digs Spacemen3!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though he told his disciples that he would soon die?  Even though the criminal on the cross found faith through Christ as they both hung there?  How would he have lost faith when he understood his purpose to the very end?

Through God, he performed a multitude of miracles, and when he fulfills his destiny, which he knew about, he questioned God's existence?

It just doesn't make much sense to me.

it would make perfect sense, Christ would be totally abandoned and his suffering and doubts would be equal to that of other human beings that dies. If he was sure that he would be saved, his crucifixion would be more like an act or a show.

Søren

There was a school of thought in early Christianity that espoused that exact view, Soren. One branch of early Christianity believed exactly that -- that God abandoned Christ during the crucifixion.

They got it from the book of Mark, who espouses something very close to that. We have a Christ in agony during the crucifixion, in anguish, pleading with God to end his suffering and finally crying out that God had abandoned him.

The idea is that Christ, to fully atone for our sins, would have had to be, at the moment of his death, most FULLY HUMAN -- and die the way a human would die -- alone, in anguish, in pain, and un-comforted by his holy powers.

Another branch of Christianity held that Christ, rather than being in anguish, was actually calm and collected all through the crucifixion. Again, you can look at the book of Luke -- Luke actually was written late enough that he uses Mark as a source, but you can see how he took Mark's crucifixion scene and changes it around to make Christ completely calm. He takes out the suffering so prevalent in Mark and has Christ almost chatty -- talking calmly to the fellow crucified criminals, totally calm and collected.

I guess I tend towards the former viewpoint, probably.

Actually, this is how I have always took it --

Jesus was on the cross obviously to pay the price to appease God's wrath over sin.  He has enjoyed unbroken fellowship with the Father for His entire life.  Once on the cross, there had to come a point when the sins of the world were applied onto Jesus so He could take them away.  At that point, Jesus in some way (can't get it all clear; God has revealed some of this but it still is a mystery) BECAME sin.  Since the Father cannot stand to look upon sin, He turned away from Jesus while the sacrifice was being made.  At that moment the unbroken fellowship was temporarily gone.  The pain of the torture, the cross?  Bearable.  Jesus was calm.  The pain of the loss of the Father for any period of time?  Sheer agony.  Thus, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  and a change to anguish.  I think that for a short time the Father did in fact turn His back on Jesus.  But I don't think Jesus DOUBTED for a moment.  He just had to deal with the pain of His mission and His choices and the loneliness He had never known.

Yes, I guess I would go with the former too, otherwise Christ's crucifixion wouldn't really be the supreme sacrifice. Also Christ going along with what he felt was God's plan, wouldn't really be an act of total faith either. Faith I guess, is believing despite your doubts.

Søren

I was born into the Catholic church, somehow I ended up going to Lutheran as a younster, have been Methodist for a few years...I am a spiritual shopper I guess....I am actually more spiritual than religious.  I have never really understood why there are so many denominations, shouldn't it be just one faith under God?   :-\

I seriously cannot grasp faith in religion myself. Why does "sin" and "goodness" mean anything? Why is there such an emphasis placed on these two things? People do bad things and they do good things. I don't believe that i'll ever find peace with religion, it seems i've been destined to remain absent of any faith.

I actually think that the split into denominations is sort of God's will.  See, the last time we had a universal church, it grabbed secular power under Constantine.  God has made substantial revelation of His character, but He is so big that we still can't grasp Him perfectly, even grasping just what He has revealed.  I think that the core: the need for Christ, the nature of Christ, how to relate to God, the Scriptures, etc -- are clear enough to grab.  But the more peripheral issues -- how do you baptize?  What does a church service look like?  How do you do communion? -- aren't so clear.  So God allows denominations to let Christians relate with those who take the same stance on non-essential issues so that we don't rub against each other too hard on a weekly basis.  All denominations should agree on things like the Trinity, the humanity and deity of Christ, the purpose of the cross, and so on.  But not necessarily on things like whether you perform liturgy in church or not.  It does occasionally make things confusing, but given the fallenness of human nature it's probably better than the alternative.  The Bible teaches two things it calls a "church": 1) a local body of believers, which we tend to identify with a group who all worship in the same building.  2) the collection of all believers in all groups all over the world.  Denominations are man made, but I think that they probably are a good thing properly understood.  The idea of a "Baptist" church vs. a "Methodist" church is a man made distinction not a biblical one.

I've never given it much thought, but i like your explanation, Jeff.  It allows for differences within the same Body of Christ, as it were. 

I've always believed that Jesus was a pretty tolerant guy...this fits with that, so to speak.

Happy Easter to all.

I've always felt the opposite...but every single church has it's own flavour...even within denominations... 8)

Interesting how people are asked to keep away from politics on these boards because it can be "offensive" ..... but not from religion.

Just an observation.

My faith wavers when I see stuff like that creep in oklahoma who killed that girl.  Where is the justice?  If miracles occur, why not on that date in that apartment building. Hell won't be punishment enough for what he did to that child.

It is definitely a tough one, but if God intervened every time someone chose to be cruel, then free will would be an illusion.  Sometimes He chooses not to stop someone.  It is things like this that make me (for a rare change) almost glad that the Bible teaches there is a hell, because people like that should not be able to get away with it, and prison/death penalty isn't enough.  The sheer evil I read about in his careful planning of torture caused me to get goose bumps.  That was indeed sick.

And Daniele, technically religion is asked to be refrained from as well.  But no one ever seems to follow it, and the Smile Shop has a political thread on Neil Young going at the moment.

Abject cruelty like that DOES boggle the mind...where is God in that situation?  But God is the ultimate mystery; we don't know.  We couldn't know everything - it would be too much.  I have to believe that the hand of God IS there, but i just can't see it.  That's part of my faith - accepting that i don't get to know the reason for everything. 

As for political and religious discussions, i have always permitted them at Shut Down and all of its predecessors.  It hasn't always been pretty, and when people step outside the discussion and get personal, well, then i have to take the hated Administrative Steps, but it's worth it to me to have the open exchange of ideas.  It stays in its own threads on the Off Topic board, and makes for some interesting and informative conversation.

I can see why most admins don't want it, however; it can get pretty ugly if the participants can't keep control of themselves...and religion and politics aren't known for keeping conversationalists reaonsable! :-/

The purpose of Jesus Christ and all of the other stuff is truly a subject that hits this and other sites like hurricane Katrina and rather divides us.  I have a relationship with Jesus but I have learned to KEEP THAT TO MYSELF!!!!! and respect others spirituality as well.  Jesus is pure love and will come into your life and change it.  But it is a walk with some slippery spots as far as trying to reach others and Satan will attack you if you walk with the lord.  I frankly believe that if you are called by Christ to be his own you will be.  But Faith and a relationship with Jesus Christ is and should remain a personal thing as it can sadly be a great divider of freinds.  Just love one another is my belief. IMO. Jesus threads are a touchy often painful reminder of how far some people truly are from his love.

If it gets bad, we can agree to stop.  My experience around here is that people are good at self-policing themselves.  Why cut off meaningful discussions out of fear?

...But what about Jesus' wife, Mary?

(This will keep the thread going a little longer.) ;D

That only depends upon if you believe in the gnostic gospels.  They have been well known for centuries, and were rejected by the Fathers.  Of course this is a contentious issue, but the only people who believe that Jesus was married were generally people with a theological bias against orthodoxy.  There isn't much evidence outside of the Gnostic gospels, and there are plenty of reasons to take those with a grain of salt.  Mr. Hunt has a tendency to be open to this line of thought, but again, without hard evidence, there is no compelling reason to believe it unless you have a reason to believe it.

There is no hard evidence in to prove that Jesus didn't have a wife.  Ergo, I am compelled.

So, you don't believe in witnessing to the unsaved so as to prevent them from an eternity of hell and damnation?


Also, their hasn't been any arguments in this thread at all, just a posing of questions and clarification of beliefs.

Or, well, an open-mind to certain heresy, how about that?

I'm certainly not OPPOSED to orthodox thought, just very open minded to other schools thereof.

There is no hard evidence in to prove that Jesus didn't have a dog.  Therefore, Jesus had a dog.

 ::)

And Old Rake, it's the old "agree to disagree" thing.  My only point is that there is nothing compelling about the Gnostic literature that screams "This was true but ignored."  Certainly it was taught in certain sects, but there is nothing about it that fills in missing gaps or has independent verification.  Some of it (Jesus flying???) is ridiculous and unbelievable.  Others are just products of syncretism pure and simple.  But obviously, since I believe in the doctrine that God acted to preserve what He wanted said as authoritative for the church, I will have a bias against it.  I admit my bias (though obviously a bias is no guarantee of truthhood or falsehood -- I can be biased and right both  ;D ).

Its hard to say. Certainly the gnostic scripture has, IN PLACES, very little in common with common Christian scripture. There's references to weird gods and divine figures that have no place in our cosmology, and weird philosophies abound. That said: SOME of what we consider "gnostic" literature, like Thomas' gospel, really isn't that dissimilar to our own. And isn't really gnostic at all, even if some of it was used by the gnostic practitioners.

And anyway, just because the theology disagrees doesn't mean there aren't kernels of historical truth hidden therein. There may well be items hidden within some of that literature that God didn't feel was important enough to care about -- but its not necessarily 100% all false. Y'know?


Thing is, though: we tend to consider all extra-scriptural writing from that era "gnostic." And it isn't, or isn't all. And having done a little reading just this weekend, at least SOME of it was at least briefly considered part of the official canon, such as a couple of extra letters and one or two apocalyptic texts similar to Revelation.


It's funny -- Jesus did lots of other "ridiculous and unbelievable" things in his lifetime -- why is flying any more "ridiculous" and "unbelievable" than walking on water, if taken at face value and without the predjudice of one being in the official gospels and one not?


Well, thing is: some of the stuff in the history of Christ God obviously considered unimporant. To use your dog example earlier: what if one of the gnostic or -- okay, not gnostic, just extra-scriptural gospels says that Jesus has a dog. Do we automatically assume the dog story is 100% false because it occurs in an extra-scriptural writing? What if God just didn't think whether or not Jesus had a dog was important to our lives -- but through word-of-mouth tradition Jesus' dog became a part of tradition, and actually was based on true events? We've predjudiced ourselves against the dog story because its not in the bible. But if you think about it, LOTS of things aren't in the bible. We don't know if Jesus had a beard or not. We ASSUME he had a beard, because most people in that era had beards. But there's no comment one way or another. If someone in another writing claimed he had a beard, wouldn't we be likely to assume that yeah -- that's probably true, even though it appears not at all in the Bible, since everybody else had a beard?

The same might go for his "wife." Or his dog. Or his relatives. Or where he went to the bathroom. Or what his favorite food was, if he had one. Or what his favorite color was, or his favorite psalm, or whether he liked music or not. We just don't know these things. We're meant not to care, but of course, people are curious. And as some of these things were indeed part of oral tradition, well -- its really hard to know whether they're wholly false. Because why do they all have to be?

I'm not saying Jesus was necessarily married. I mean, really, to me, the point is interesting but moot -- I just think it would be interesting to know more about the HISTORICAL events around which the bible are based. And some of those items don't have a lot of witness other than oral tradition set down by some of the various sects. Stuff like the Judas gospel -- the vast majority of that thing is gibberish, really, but the part about Judas being in collusion with Christ, certainly intrigues.

Jeff: the point is, there isn't 100% positive proof in your favor here.  You would say the same about me.  But, this article at least considers the legitimacy of "Were he?" and "Weren't he?"  The Straight Dope:

Dear Cecil:

I recall reading an article in the Bodega Bay Navigator by one of their staff columnists who is a minister. He said there is some evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were husband and wife. This does seem to make sense. Is it true? --adorablyred, via the Internet

Cecil replies:

You know, can we do something about these stupid screen names? "Adorablyred." "Jojo27." I feel like half you guys out there are little girls playing dress-up and the other half are graffiti taggers.

Now, Mary Magdalene--there's a topic we can go to town on. For the benefit of you heathens, Mary Magdalene is one of only a handful of female figures in the New Testament. All that's definitely stated about her in the Gospels is that (1) she and two other women watched as Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:40) and later as he was laid in the tomb (15:47); (2) she and the other women went to the tomb on the third day to anoint the body but instead found a young man who said that Christ was risen and that they should tell the others, at which point they fled in terror (16:1-8); and (3) subsequently Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, "out of whom he had cast seven devils," and she told the others but they did not believe.

There are a few other details in Matthew and Luke, some of which conflict with the above account on minor points. The most interesting version, however, is in John, thought to be the last Gospel written. In it the empty tomb is discovered and Mary Magdalene keeps vigil beside it, weeping. Jesus appears, but she fails to recognize him and, thinking him the gardener, asks if he knows where the body has been taken. "Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master." One of the most poignant scenes in all of world literature, this no doubt inspired much of the subsequent Mary Magdalene legend. As far as the Gospels go, there's a bit more in John, but that's about it.

You're thinking: wait a sec. Everybody knows that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, that she washed Jesus' feet with her hair, that he forgave her sins, and so on.

Except we don't know that. Luke tells the story of a woman, "a sinner," probably but not certainly a prostitute, who throws herself at Jesus' feet, anoints him, etc., while he's having dinner at the house of a Pharisee. Luke first mentions Mary Magdalene immediately following this incident.

Luke and John also tell us about the disciples Mary and Martha of Bethany, who are sisters. John adds that the women have a brother, Lazarus, who's later raised from the dead, and that Jesus loved all three.

For centuries many have assumed that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the prostitute were one and the same. Indeed, this was made a matter of Christian dogma in the sixth century. You can see what it all adds up to. Mary M. is a sexually licentious woman, but Jesus forgives her and loves her. She watches him die, finds his body gone, sees him but fails to recognize him. Mary. Master. Noli me tangere. Once I was a man, now I am thy God. It's a powerful story of erotic denial and spiritual redemption. A Mary Magdalene cult arose in the Middle Ages and flowered during the Renaissance, when artists depicted her as a beautiful woman, generally in various stages of undress. Only in fairly recent times have people speculated that Mary and Jesus were lovers, e.g., The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (Baigent et al, 1982), the dream sequence in The Last Temptation of Christ. But the undercurrent of sexual desire has been there for a long time.

It's probably all crap. Scholars have believed for a long time that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the prostitute were three separate women. In some ways Mary Magdalene comes off better in this interpretation, since she's stripped of the erotic baggage and emerges as arguably Jesus' most devoted disciple, a witness till the end. But the story doesn't work as well on an emotional level. Hey, my job is popping bubbles, so consider this one popped. But writing at the remove of two thousand years, I can also say: coulda been.

For a fine retelling of the Magdalene's story, from which much of the above is drawn, see Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor (1994) by Susan Haskins.

--CECIL ADAMS

Jon --

There may well be history in the Gnostic gospels.  THAT I will admit.  I just can't give them the same level of divine inspiration.  They are interesting to read, though.  BTW -- there is a strong tradition that Thomas went to India, and if that were true, he might not have been able to write the gospel ascribed to him.

Dig --

Obviously the proof isn't in my favor from a purely empirical stance.  And I think I have done a fair job admitting that bias is at work in my view, my faith in the canon (which did have some extrabiblical things in it in some sects as Jon points out -- those make for interesting reading, even useful for one's faith correctly understood, but aren't what I would call inerrant).  So I was being facetious in my response.

FWIW I think I agree with most everything that the article you quote states.  Certainly I think that the stories about Mary M have built up over time.  I was unaware of them for years, and I took them as three women from my independent reading of Scripture as a teen.  I was confused as to why people took them as one woman.  I have theological issues with a married Christ and the canonical literature has Him single, but certainly Mary has gotten a worse rap than she has deserved over the centuries.

"It's quite suspicious to say the least/Even mentioned it to my local priest/One Our Father, three Hail Marys/Each Saturday night."

Of course, you've just talked us all out of believing ANYTHING...
;-)

That's faith, right?  Believing something *because you believe it*, not because there's hard evidence?

Faith does not mean a formation of belief according to what might be pleasing to envision instead of evidence or rationality; that's called "Wishful thinking".

Sort of.  I can have evidence, even hard evidence, and still have faith.  There IS evidence in favor of the canon as is and I can argue that.  But I can't *conclusively* argue that.  That was my point.  We could both present our cases and the facts alone do not compel faith in one side or the other.  However, that doesn't mean that there is NO evidence.

That said, faith is what makes up the difference there, and yes, my bias is faith.  It just isn't BLIND faith, which I don't recommend for anyone to base their entire life around.

I understand that.  And i'm not here to argue anyone's faith specifically.  Heck - i'm not here to argue anything at all.  But i have no proof whatsoever that there is a higher reason for bad things that happen...and yet i believe that there is.  Maybe i'm just telling myself that th make myself feel better, i don't know.  But if i am, it works.

Wishful thinking works for some people, but the connotation behind the idea of it is that the outcome is usually negative.  Like the stock market crash of 1929.  Not many in the media anticipated it; rather, some were saying that stocks would rise meteorically.  Etc., etc., etc.

Wishful thinking = blind faith.

An examination of the facts with some moving ahead without every single answer or proof, but being consistent and true to what is there as best you can, believing that there are answers to what you don't have = true faith.

There is a difference and those who practice religion are not necessarily practicing wishful thinking.  I know I am not. 

In addition, once experience confirms faith, that in itself is a form of knowledge.  If you will assume with me for a second that Moses parted the Red Sea with the power of God, he could not reproduce that action nor guarantee to those he told who weren't there that something happened.  To a skeptic, it would be tough to use as a proof.  But for Moses himself, that type of experience reduces the faith to knowledge ratio in that Moses has knowledge that God is who He says He is, even if Moses can't reproduce that at will.  Moses would have true knowledge of God (that most of us lack to that degree) and to that degree it would cease to be faith.  Faith for him changes from "Is God there?" to "Will God continue to work in my life?"

I had a semi-interesting talk with a friend, and I guess this is more pointed towards Chuck as a born again Christian and not so much the people here debating historical and theological facts.

So, the main topic was about witnessing or discussing faith, and one thing I think is a shame is that people are honestly afraid to tell others about hell or the Devil.  In fact, many people I know that call themselves Christians almost find it impossible to admit that people, and a lot of them, even ones they know and love, are going to hell.

It was basically about preaching love vs. eternity.  He wants to always concentrate on the love of Christ, which is real and exists, but people need to not only know that, but that if they dont accept Him as their savior, no matter how much they try and live a Godly life or be a good person, they are headed for hell.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about discussing the two threads of thought with non-believers?

Jesus' love for us (and His willingness to die for the sins we have committed, sins that should send us to Hell) is the reason we have any means to not go to Hell.

So, if you are preaching "love" without preaching "eternity," you aren't giving a complete picture of Christ's love for us.

I was pretty much making the same argument -- that its through his love that we are able to escape a fate of hell, and that is the reason for His sacrifice.

It just bugs me that Christians feel like they have to be so PC when talking about their faith because they're afraid they may offend someone.  You can discuss hell and sin and eternity without being a screeching psycho, damning someone to hell in a mocking fashion.  People always say not to 'judge' people as a reason for their timidness, but its not judging to tell the truth, and that is if you're not saved, you're going to hell.  It should be a message told out of love and concern, not belittling.

I don't like having to feel afraid to be open about what I believe.  If you hear somebody say that homosexuality or sex before marriage is sinful, it's almost shocking because its such the norm today.  We have to hush up because somebody may be offended in one way or the other...

Blah, just my thoughts.

FWIW I am a born again Christian too...

I would have a hard time worshipping a god, whose final argument is that people will be tortured in hell, if they don’t believe in him, it would be more like worshipping the Devil. I would feel like an accomplice to something horrible, almost like I would deserve to go to hell if I believed in something like that. I wonder if christians got that right.

Søren

Even though Rerun didn't ask me, I will add in as one who generally chooses to refrain from emphasis on hell when talking to unbelievers.  Are you more interested in winning someone's heart or in checking your box that you shared the gospel?  Most people consider the latter their only responsibility.  So in that case, any old presentation will do.  And you can share as much as you want, with "faith" that "God will make up the rest".  And in fact He might.  But if you care about how someone will receive the message, if you want the message to be received and considered, there are some parts of the faith that while true you just don't bring up.  When talking to unbelievers, for instance, is not the time to discuss the predestination argument, or baptism, or whatever.  Depending upon the situation, you should probably mention hell as the alternative place as a fact, but today what Jonathan Edwards did in Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God will not work.  You should NOT try to scare someone into heaven, and as Soren points out, you're going to lose your audience once you go there.  My experience is that focusing on the person and words of Jesus (by getting them to read the Gospel of John) is quite sufficient to get a person interested in God and then God truly can make up the difference.  So there are other motives involved in refraining from that focus on hell:  primarily that you do not want to lose the audience because you care for their response and hope that they will consider what you say.

I certainly am not AFRAID of talking about hell; I am not a fan of the doctrine but it is clearly taught, and a person has a responsibility in the proper context to make that known as you indicate.  But I would never use it as a motivational tool to accept Jesus.

Yeah, again, I agree with what Jeff said. I guess its not pointed at me since I'm one of the "people here debating theological and historical facts," despite the fact that I'm wholeheartedly a Christian, but I totally agree that spouting the "hell and damnation" speech to your friends is probably NOT a good idea. Y'know, its funny: nobody wants to hear that they're going to hell. I wonder why? Hm. Maybe because implicit in *telling* them they're going to hell is a goodly amount of judgementalism, whether you think its the "truth" or not. Their first response -- for it has been mine, in the past, when someone presents that argument to me -- will be to go on the defensive. "Oh, really? And who are YOU to tell me that?"

The only possible answer to that is "Oh, well, I'm a Christian, and I know I'm right." And then you've lost 'em. Because there's nothing more arrogant-sounding to a non-believer than saying that you know that YOU'RE a better person than THEY are. Even if you believe it. Which you really shouldn't. Because, even in God's eyes, even if you're saved, you're really not.

I find -- and call me crazy, but its worked -- that just living my life according to Jesus' teaching has been about the best way to "witness" to people. I've had several people sort of open their minds and their hearts to the possibility of returning to the faith or coming to it in the first place by just seeing that I strive to be a kind, good person in my daily life -- and hey, look, he goes to church, too,  maybe that's the reason why? Like I said: its certainly worked. I haven't, y'know, coverted millions, but I've definitely planted the seed here and there.


Go ahead and say it, in fact, say whatever you want. But also expect that I'm going to argue vehemently with you on that first point, because I believe the opposite as firmly as you. "We" don't all believe the same things, y'know. Even within Christianity there's a pretty wide range of biblical interpretation, and it would probably do you good to remember that.

The best way to address hell with an unbeliever:  get him reading the words of Jesus and eventually that topic will come up.  That way you avoid the problem Jon describes. At that moment, it is not you as a believer saying "You are going to hell", it is Jesus saying that and that person confronts the words of Jesus.  Far more effective and preserves you from the danger of being judgmental.  And while Jon overstates the situation a bit (I can report the fact that the Bible teaches the destinations after life without being arrogant), it is true to say that the person will interpret you like that most likely.

I will say it again -- best witness of Jesus is to look at Jesus directly.

Oh, sure, you probably *aren't* being arrogant, not even at all, but to a defensive unbeliever, it can *sound* arrogant -- that's all I'm saying! If someone's being defensive anyway, y'know.

I just said to Chuck directly because he actually says he's born-again, which is different than what a lot of people call themselves when they say they're Christians, so it wasn't to be offensive to anyone else.  I just don't know.

Here is one of my worries about hell not being a central topic...

I can tell someone about the love of Jesus, which you should, and I can live a Godly life and be a witness in that way, which I do and am a strong believer in (nothing worse than looking like a hypocrite), but if they don't know that the only way to Heaven is through salvation and they find themselves in Hell one day, wouldn't their thought be, "Why didn't Geoff tell me about this?  He knew I was headed here and all he told me about was how wonderful the Christian life is...my life was good enough and didn't know I NEEDED God.  I thought I was a good person and that would be enough.  Geoff knew the whole time and barely said a word about it."

You know, something along those lines will hold me very responsible.  And again, I believe you can bring up hell without being sadistic about it.  I can tell someone that everyone is a liar, a thief, an adulterer when we lust, and everyone is a sinner.  I can tell them that with sin, we can not enter the kingdom of God and we're all destined for hell...but, God gave us a way out.  He gave us his Son as a sacrifice on the cross to pay the price for us.  That through acceptance of Christ as our Savior we don't need to worry about going to hell...we have a better opportunity thanks to what Christ has done for us.  Our God is a forgiving God, but it is up to us to ask for forgiveness and ask Him into our lives.

You don't always have the chance to give someone the big book o' Jesus and have them read about His life and what he was able to do and what he stood for.  If I'm witnessing to a stranger, there is one important fact above all others that it is my duty to let them know, and that is they need to accept Christ as their Savior so that when we all die, I'll be able to talk with them again in Heaven.

You have an obligation to witness to people about Christ.  That is biblical.

God does not hold you responsible for getting every single fact about salvation into the head of every single person you meet.  That is unbiblical. 

Remember that God is the one saving, God is the one who is the source of faith (I could say more here, but that would bring up an inhouse issue among Christians that doesn't belong here).  Your job is to be a witness as God leads you.  If someone ends up in hell, and you didn't mention that fact to them, there is not a shred of biblical evidence to support your guilt in that person being there.  That is a dangerous doctrine that worries me if you believe it.  Not to say you shouldn't care about where people end up, but God won't hold you responsible for someone else's choices.  Remember that if they were going to hell, it is because of their decisions.  Whether you told a person or not won't change that.  You should witness as commanded, but leave the results to God.