Chuck, based on your Christianity quote...

[carlydenise]

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.

[Jeff Mason]

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.

[Susan]

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! :-/

[Howdy Doody]

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.

[Jeff Mason]

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?

[b.dfzo]

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

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

[Jeff Mason]

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.

[b.dfzo]

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

[Rerun]

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.

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.

[Old Rake]

but the only people who believe that Jesus was married were generally people with a theological bias against orthodoxy.

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.

[Jeff Mason]

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

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  ).

[Old Rake]

My only point is that there is nothing compelling about the Gnostic literature that screams "This was true but ignored."

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?

there is nothing about it that fills in missing gaps or has independent verification.

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.

Some of it (Jesus flying???) is ridiculous and unbelievable.

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?

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.

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.

[b.dfzo]

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

[Jeff Mason]

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.

[b.dfzo]

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

[Susan]

...without hard evidence, there is no compelling reason to believe it unless you have a reason to believe it.

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?

[b.dfzo]

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".

[Jeff Mason]

...without hard evidence, there is no compelling reason to believe it unless you have a reason to believe it.

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?

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.

[Susan]

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.

[b.dfzo]

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.

[Jeff Mason]

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?"

[Rerun]

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?

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

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.

[Rerun]

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.

[Rerun]

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.