the Bible vs the Davinci Code

[cerridwen]

I was just wondering what folks thought about the idea that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had kids... and that Mary wasn't really a prostitute... and how Leonardo DaVinci painted her at Jesus' right hand at the last supper but not the chalis, with the theory that maybe she was the chalis holding his children etc... I mean there's no real proof either way but it'd be a good debate...

[mynameiskc]

i do like the ideas put forth in the book about how the chauvanistic romans of the day subverted the sacred role of the female in spiritual life. those romans DID have a history of of it. but i don't know of the veractiy of christ having children with mary. i must say that it would make more sense to me. after all, god's first requirement of us was to give him grandchildren. sex with a spouse is not sinful. therefore the idea of jesus having a wife and child is not in the least disturbing to me, i rather like it.

[Nathan11]

Yeah, I believe Christ did exist. (How can you not) But I don't believe he was the only son of God. But, I also believe that he did have children. Whether or not is was with Mary, I do not know. But, I do believe that Christ and Mary were closer than any of the other deciples.

Does anyone think that all of the information in The Da Vinci code is true?

[Brocktoon]

Just so we are all clear on the basics..


The DaVinci Code is a ficticious novel.
Ron Howard is directing a movie based on this fiction.

Im not intending to insult anyones intelligence here - just want to make sure we are all clear on this first?

[mynameiskc]

no worries, we all understand that very well. however, i have no doubt whatsoever the da vinci believed very much in the relationship of mary to christ. hell, i think he'd even do it just ot be contrary and controversial. that's not really the point. however, the book does raise some brilliant ideas in regards to the conflicts of the female power withing the church: subjugation and empowerment. they can't quite make up their minds. why is MM called a whore? why are women not more apparent in the final compilation of texts?

[Nathan11]

Yeah, I'm not really clear on why MM was called a prostitue in the first place. It doesn't mention that in the Bible at all, right?

[mynameiskc]

no, i don't think so. besides, there were SO MANY marys.

[Brocktoon]

Its not clear that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene and 'The Woman that annoited Jesus feet but was a sinner', are necessarily the one in the same Mary Magdelene.

Prostitution is the 'likely guess' but certainly she had commited adultery (which could umbrella adultery charges).

There is no reason to believe that Mary M married Jesus, however, if you assume that all three 'Mary's' are the same Mary - then put all the accounts 'together' into a 'mini-story' - then become romanticly minded and imagine that love and forgiveness refered to are 'relationship' orientated sentiments....

then...

You can certainly 'Imagine' something 'wink wink' might be going on between the lines?

As for the conspiracy theories involving 'pompous chauvanists' who have re-written a fraudulent account in order to 'keep women from haughty places'?

Can I please remind people that the Super-culture the Early Church arose in was Rome.
And their culture worshipped who?
The Female Goddess Diana.

In fact, many many historians DO have a concern over the 'vaulting' of feminine vs masculine figures found in the New Testament.. but its WOMAN being 'overly touted' that concerns them most.
In the 6th century, far too many Christians (perhaps many coming from their Goddess worshipping cultures) were a little too zealous to glorify both Mary M and Mary 'Mother of God'.

In any case.
Imagining Jesus had a wife (whom he knew he would make a widow) ..
or Davinci himself (who was an ARTIST NOT A PRIEST OR FRIEND OF The Apostles by the way)
Is simply that - speculation and imagination.

Good luck with that.

[mynameiskc]

the fact that the pagan romans did in fact worship a goddess, under jupiter, of course, would be more cause to stamp out the sacred female. women played such a pivotal role in the founding of the early church, by opening their homes to the apostles and having home gatherings for believers. and yet, they're not mentioned much. there's also the bizarre concept that christ's mother would no longer be pure if she were to have sex with and bear more children for joseph. my god, you tell some RC's this and they fly off the handle! it was her JOB to bear more children for her husband. how does sexual relations with her man become so anathema that her virginity must be so virulently defended? why is a woman's sexuality so repugnant?

[Brocktoon]

KC,


I think you will have to ask other women those questions about 'repugnant' sexuality and why or why not there is some shame held to child birth?

I do know that a lot of Christians got persecuted or even killed for reforming the popular belief that Mary stayed a Virgin until death.

Speaking of which.

Mary is one of THE most recognisable and written about figures in the New Testament.
Mary Magdalene certainly is too and in particular - Jesus makes his first appearance after his resurrection to women.

One of the most talked about figures in the New Testament.. (and a VERY important figure in terms of Christianity and Jesus ministry) was a Samaritan woman met at the well.

She is 'Major' because she is one of the first non-Jews who spread the Gospel. This makes her highly signifigant!

Lots of signifigant women found in the early Church and several epistles are written lauding and praising God for them.

Not to forget Ruth either hehe.. she has her own book in the Old Testament

[mynameiskc]

a few scattered characters, when in fact they played such a pivotal role. not that i even would think christ was a misogynist, frankly i think he was one of the first feminists. i'm not hard-core, blaming men for everything, but there is clearly a striving to control women by subsequent followers of christ that would surely have him and his mom saying "what the heck?!""

[Nathan11]

KC, I've heard a theory somewhere that the way Mary had other children is from Joseph. They didn't have sex, he had children from another marriage.

Iive heard that there is a verse in the Bible to support this.

I don't know if this is true, but, it's raises questions, no?

[mynameiskc]

yeah, i do know that joseph had children, since they're referred to as christ's brothers. the controversy is over WHO'S the mother. i would think that the same proof that people require for mary's lack of virginity should go the other way, too. a woman staying pure doesn't mean that she never had sex with her husband, since, after all, in that society, it was her JOB to keep his home and bear his children. even if joseph DID have children by another wife, there's no indication that they ALL were from a different wife.

[Nathan11]

yeah, i do know that joseph had children, since they're referred to as christ's brothers. the controversy is over WHO'S the mother. i would think that the same proof that people require for mary's lack of virginity should go the other way, too. a woman staying pure doesn't mean that she never had sex with her husband, since, after all, in that society, it was her JOB to keep his home and bear his children. even if joseph DID have children by another wife, there's no indication that they ALL were from a different wife.
Aye, but 'tis a possibility, no?

[mynameiskc]

yeah, for sure, but one that i'm not going to stand firm on. i'm mean, the poor woman never being allowed to experience one of the most sacred and powerful gifts to mankind?

[Nathan11]

Yeah, I personally don't believe that.
I'm just pointing out the posibility.
I believe she had more children with her husband.
That's what married people do. (or did, back then)
It would have been awefully strange to not have children of your own back then, right?

[mynameiskc]

yeah, it really would. just as it would have been very strange for a healthy jewish male not to have a wife.

[Kilgore Trout]

"You knew Jesus?"
"Know him? shit! Nigger owes me twenty bucks."

[Alsharad]

And a paraphrase from that movie (Dogma):

To believe in the virgin birth is an act of faith. To believe that a husband and his wife never got it on is just plain gullibility.

Sorry guys, but it is just seems that it would not be consistent with humanity for a husband and wife to never form a sexual union. Heck, is the marriage legitimate since (if Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ) the marriage was never consummated? In fact, a marriage that is not consummated is not considered complete.

Hmmm...

And no, Jesus couldn't have had chillins...

Why? Because the first thing that a parent gives to a child is the child's nature (it could be said that nature and life are given simultaneously). A human child has human offspring, cats have kittens, dogs have puppies, etc. What would a God have? Yep, God. Since Christ had a dual nature he would pass that nature on. He was as much divine as He was human. Any children he would have would share that same dual nature. In short, his "line" would be a lineage of God (not gods... they would ALL be God).

Note: this is why people were shocked when Jesus said He was the Son of God. They knew that "Son of" meant that they shared the same essence and nature. Since God is unique in Judaism, to claim to have the same essence and nature as God is to claim to BE God. It is also interesting to note that He called Himself the Son of God AND the Son of Man; a clear reference to His dual natures.

Jesus might have married, that is at least possible, but children? No way. Would it alter the Christian faith if He were married? I don't think so. It should be pointed out that a lot of the hogwash in the davinci code was pulled from "gospels" that were written at least 200 years after Christ died. In fact, none of the early christian church leaders really commented on them (because they didn't exist yet). There is a ton of information here:

http://www.ntcanon.org/

Also the author of the DaVinci Code hasn't really gotten his facts straight either. At one point, when discussing the "gospel" of Thomas (I think it was Thomas... maybe Phillip) one of the main characters comments that "in the original Aramaic, companion often meant spouse." What's funny is that the "gospel" of Thomas was written in GREEK. Even then, neither the Greek nor the Aramaic words for companion meant "spouse."

[Brocktoon]

Gotta be quick here..

Thanks Alsharad.. sometimes I wish you would post a lot more.

KC. It seems this book has had an influence on you.
What worries me is that you will begin to unduly absorb the bitterness and strife and neglect the peace and charity you are already gifted with.

Nathan - you can certainly 'Suppose' Jesus had a wife. It would indeed be highly unusual for a Prophet to have a wife back in that culture.
It would also be contrary to just about anything we know about Jesus...

Here is someone who taught the 'shocking' philosophy that life itself was about living and loving one another.
He was very big on the whole 'do nothing to hurt another person' thing.

Then, we would have to believe that, contrary to everthing else he did - He was willing to make a commitment to loving a woman, marrying her -YET- know that he was going to leave her a widow in just a short time??

Put aside whether you think Jesus was God or a Savior for a minute.
I just cant see Jesus being that cruel, that selfish to subject any woman to that kind of ... well.. it would almost be a cruel joke of sorts.


One thing I have noticed with the whole Gnostic/Feminisism movement is that they LOVE to 'gloss over' whatever does not fuel their idealism.. but 'magnify' what does fuel their cause.
Example:
Mary is, was and always has been lauded, praised and, at times, almost 'worshipped' as one of THE central and most important figures in the life of Jesus and Christianity.

This is somehow 'glossed over' by the ones who want to believe women were 'oppressed' and 'therefore' a New Gospel should be trusted in.

Now take the 'Gospel' of Thomas. (The 'Premiere' Gnostic Gospel touted by the Davinci Code followers).
In one quote - Jesus is purportedly said to have taught that women are NOT able to make it into Heaven.. lol... and that He will 'Turn them into Men' so they can pass through!!!?!

Oh.. no one wants to mention THAT from the Gnostic Gospels they believe in.

OK gotta go.
Thanks!

[mynameiskc]

placing a womanon an unrealistically high altar when she is in fact just human is hardly good for the rest of the women in this world. jesus could be perfect because he was god, mary was perfect just because? hardly satisfying. most won't live up to it. as for the book having an effect, i'm sorry to say i was a pain in the ass to bible studies long before i read it. my family is atheistic, so their questions and rage naturally ahve always filtered in. however, my blame has never lain with god, rather with the political and social preferences of the fallable human beings.

[Jozak]

Mary was human, she obviously sinned, however, I (Catholics) believe she was born without original sin, so that Christ would not be tainted as he was conceived. She is, I beleive, our holy mother in heaven in addition to the mother of Christ, as well as queen of heaven.

[Brocktoon]

Then Mary's mother and Father were born without original sin too?


Please reply as this is an honest question.

[mynameiskc]

i never saw how that was necessary, for mary to be born without original sin. how does that happen, anyway? this is one of those points that gives me a headache.


glad you're back, jozak.

[Alsharad]

Jozak, I definitely understand why you would believe that. After it would be a necessary condition that Christ be born without a sinful nature (or what you call "original sin"). If all humans have fallen and have original sin, then how could one give birth to a human that does NOT have original sin? There are two possibilities:

1. Mary was born without a sinful nature (original sin). This is what many Roman Catholics believe and is not a completely unreasonable statement. However, it does bring up a few questions. How was SHE born without a sinful nature? Did God intervene and remove the original sin from her in the womb? In my opinion, it leaves too many questions.

2. Original sin is passed from FATHER to child. It is the male in the relationship that gives the child original sin. This is demonstrated at least once in scripture. Notice in the Garden of Eden that Eve sinned before Adam, but that creation didn't fall. What logically follows is this: women do not pass their own sinful nature to their offspring. Creation fell only after Adam ate the fruit. This is called Federal Headship. As the Federal Head of creation, when Adam fell, so did all of creation. All humanity fell with him, because all humanity would be his offspring and would have the sinful nature. The thing about this that works, in my opinion, is that it makes the virgin birth logically necessary. For Christ to still be human but not have a sinful nature he would have to be born from a woman but have no human father.

I think that option 2 is more consistent, answers questions instead of raising more questions, and makes sense of the virign birth. It answers the question "why did Christ have to be born of a virgin?" He could have no earthly father (so as to not have a sinful nature) and to prove that He had no earthly father, he was born from a woman who had never slept with a man.

Does that make sense?

[TrippinBTM]

(I haven't read through all the posts, sorry if someone already said this)

Personally, I'm doubtful about whether Jesus ever existed, but if he did, how could he not have kids or be married? As a Jewish man 2000 years ago, he would have been married by age 20 or so, if not sooner. Every man got married, it was basically required.

And I don't see why this is such a big deal to believers. If he was fully human (as well as fully divine, i know, i know...), having a wife and kids is just another human thing he did. You aren't out there saying he didn't eat, or laugh, or cry. Sexual urges and the need for closeness, love, etc are all human traits. And with social pressure to get married, and not starting his preaching till he was around 30, he had some time to kill (lol).

[TrippinBTM]

Now take the 'Gospel' of Thomas. (The 'Premiere' Gnostic Gospel touted by the Davinci Code followers).
In one quote - Jesus is purportedly said to have taught that women are NOT able to make it into Heaven.. lol... and that He will 'Turn them into Men' so they can pass through!!!?!

Oh.. no one wants to mention THAT from the Gnostic Gospels they believe in
Well, put into context, this comes from a society that is entirely male-dominated, including religion. You could take that literally, and then you would miss the point. Keep in mind the Gnostic Gospels are FULL of symbolism and allegory. So could this simply mean that women would be made equal and elligible for heaven? That it was put in that specific phrasing to make it understandable to the intended audience (which was an audience living nearly 2000 years ago in a male dominated society...not a modern society that is more equal). I think that is more likely.

[mynameiskc]

Jozak, I definitely understand why you would believe that. After it would be a necessary condition that Christ be born without a sinful nature (or what you call "original sin"). If all humans have fallen and have original sin, then how could one give birth to a human that does NOT have original sin? There are two possibilities:

1. Mary was born without a sinful nature (original sin). This is what many Roman Catholics believe and is not a completely unreasonable statement. However, it does bring up a few questions. How was SHE born without a sinful nature? Did God intervene and remove the original sin from her in the womb? In my opinion, it leaves too many questions.

2. Original sin is passed from FATHER to child. It is the male in the relationship that gives the child original sin. This is demonstrated at least once in scripture. Notice in the Garden of Eden that Eve sinned before Adam, but that creation didn't fall. What logically follows is this: women do not pass their own sinful nature to their offspring. Creation fell only after Adam ate the fruit. This is called Federal Headship. As the Federal Head of creation, when Adam fell, so did all of creation. All humanity fell with him, because all humanity would be his offspring and would have the sinful nature. The thing about this that works, in my opinion, is that it makes the virgin birth logically necessary. For Christ to still be human but not have a sinful nature he would have to be born from a woman but have no human father.

I think that option 2 is more consistent, answers questions instead of raising more questions, and makes sense of the virign birth. It answers the question "why did Christ have to be born of a virgin?" He could have no earthly father (so as to not have a sinful nature) and to prove that He had no earthly father, he was born from a woman who had never slept with a man.

Does that make sense?
actually, that is helpful. but as to why MARY had to be born sinless (was her father perfect?) i'm still in a fog.

[Alsharad]

actually, that is helpful. but as to why MARY had to be born sinless (was her father perfect?) i'm still in a fog.
It comes from a fallacious line of thinking. The basic idea is that a child has the nature of its parents. Therefore, if Christ was the son of a sinful mother then He would have a sinful nature. Since God's nature cannot be sinful, then for Christ to be God and have a sinful nature yeilds direct contradiction. To deal with the issue, the Roman Catholics (I don't know about Eastern Orthodox) assert that Mary had no sinful nature and the contradiction is resolved.

The fallacy, I believe, is the idea that a child has the nature of its parents. It is just as likely that the sinful nature stems from only one of the two parents. This is not explicitly stated, but we do know of one woman who was perfect and then fell... however, her fall did not doom all of mankind. It was Adam's fall that affected his descendents. That would seem to imply that Eve's nature, though sinful, would only doom herself (not her offspring). Read up on federal headship and it will make more sense... I am not very good at explaining things. Anyway, without the idea that males pass on their sinful nature I find it hard to justify the Virgin Birth. Why is it logically necessary that Christ had to be born of a virgin? In my opinion, it only makes sense if you say that He could have no biological father because that would imbue something contrary to God's nature. The only thing in us that is contrary to God's nature is our sinful nature. Therefore, it is not a large logical leap to see that having a biological father would imbue a sinful nature, but apparently, a sinful mother would NOT. Therefore, you have the virgin birth as a logical necessity for it is the only way that a human could have the nature of a human without being tainted from the beginning.

Hmmm... makes you wonder... could sin be genetic as well as spiritual?

[Alsharad]

Well, put into context, this comes from a society that is entirely male-dominated, including religion. You could take that literally, and then you would miss the point. Keep in mind the Gnostic Gospels are FULL of symbolism and allegory. So could this simply mean that women would be made equal and elligible for heaven? That it was put in that specific phrasing to make it understandable to the intended audience (which was an audience living nearly 2000 years ago in a male dominated society...not a modern society that is more equal). I think that is more likely.
You cannot put the "gospel" of Thomas into context. All the quotes are taken completely out of any sort of context. It's like me saying "That really sucks." Your reaction would probably be "What sucks?" You would lack context and would ask "what sucks" in order to clarify what the heck I am talking about. A series of cryptic quotes that are supposedly from Jesus are nothing more than jibberish as we have no idea what the heck He was talking about (even if they ARE legitimate quotes). Anyway, back to Thomas. It is a poor excuse for a gospel... in fact, it isn't one. A gospel tells the good news, Thomas is just a collection of supposed quotes and, as a work of historic literature, has pratically no leg to stand on in terms of its authenticity. All mentions of it from the early church writers (and I mean pre-Nicean, pre-Constantine writers) are negative at best. They all spoke poorly of it if they said anything at all. And the "gospel" of Thomas cannot be verified to exist before 200-300 AD (where as the big 4 legitimate gospels and Acts are all verified to have been written pre-100).

[mynameiskc]

It comes from a fallacious line of thinking. The basic idea is that a child has the nature of its parents. Therefore, if Christ was the son of a sinful mother then He would have a sinful nature. Since God's nature cannot be sinful, then for Christ to be God and have a sinful nature yeilds direct contradiction. To deal with the issue, the Roman Catholics (I don't know about Eastern Orthodox) assert that Mary had no sinful nature and the contradiction is resolved.

The fallacy, I believe, is the idea that a child has the nature of its parents. It is just as likely that the sinful nature stems from only one of the two parents. This is not explicitly stated, but we do know of one woman who was perfect and then fell... however, her fall did not doom all of mankind. It was Adam's fall that affected his descendents. That would seem to imply that Eve's nature, though sinful, would only doom herself (not her offspring). Read up on federal headship and it will make more sense... I am not very good at explaining things. Anyway, without the idea that males pass on their sinful nature I find it hard to justify the Virgin Birth. Why is it logically necessary that Christ had to be born of a virgin? In my opinion, it only makes sense if you say that He could have no biological father because that would imbue something contrary to God's nature. The only thing in us that is contrary to God's nature is our sinful nature. Therefore, it is not a large logical leap to see that having a biological father would imbue a sinful nature, but apparently, a sinful mother would NOT. Therefore, you have the virgin birth as a logical necessity for it is the only way that a human could have the nature of a human without being tainted from the beginning.

Hmmm... makes you wonder... could sin be genetic as well as spiritual?
i think you did a good job of explaining it. though i have a hard time believing that sin is passed down through genetics, rather, through attitudes that are impossible to change, as well as though what is now genetic responsibility for our own actions. i think all of our human drives are the same, if more complex than animals. however, our knowledge and our requirements demand a degree of responsibility for our behavior.

[Jozak]

Then Mary's mother and Father were born without original sin too?


Please reply as this is an honest question.
No. Think about it like this: Christ is a direct heir of King David. Would King David and all the men down to Christ have to be sons of god? No, just as Mary could have been specially conceived by her parents, Christ was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit.

[Jozak]

Jozak, I definitely understand why you would believe that. After it would be a necessary condition that Christ be born without a sinful nature (or what you call "original sin"). If all humans have fallen and have original sin, then how could one give birth to a human that does NOT have original sin? There are two possibilities:

[quote]1. Mary was born without a sinful nature (original sin). This is what many Roman Catholics believe and is not a completely unreasonable statement. However, it does bring up a few questions. How was SHE born without a sinful nature? Did God intervene and remove the original sin from her in the womb? In my opinion, it leaves too many questions.The Book of James (Which ironically, was left out of the bible at the Synod Of Hippo in 393 AD, so the focus of the bible would be on God/Christ and not on Mary) is mostly about Mary, the powers she posesses, and details (If I am not mistaken) the validity of her abstainment from originial sin. The Early Church fathers clearly recognized the Immaculate conception, and Mary's freedom of original sin. Even in the gospel of Luke he states Mary was, "FULL OF GRACE". There is a greek word that it is translated from and it means "Angel Like" or somthing to that effect, I'll look it up, cant recall of the top of my head.

2. Original sin is passed from FATHER to child. It is the male in the relationship that gives the child original sin. This is demonstrated at least once in scripture. Notice in the Garden of Eden that Eve sinned before Adam, but that creation didn't fall. What logically follows is this: women do not pass their own sinful nature to their offspring. Creation fell only after Adam ate the fruit. This is called Federal Headship. As the Federal Head of creation, when Adam fell, so did all of creation. All humanity fell with him, because all humanity would be his offspring and would have the sinful nature. The thing about this that works, in my opinion, is that it makes the virgin birth logically necessary. For Christ to still be human but not have a sinful nature he would have to be born from a woman but have no human father.

I think that option 2 is more consistent, answers questions instead of raising more questions, and makes sense of the virign birth. It answers the question "why did Christ have to be born of a virgin?" He could have no earthly father (so as to not have a sinful nature) and to prove that He had no earthly father, he was born from a woman who had never slept with a man.

Does that make sense?That is a good analysis and opinion, and I can see what you are saying. But it really would not matter all that much, conisdering Joseph was not Jesus's biological father, as you have stated above. I just happen to think that it is unlikely Christ would be born from a sinful womb, even if his "original sin" would have to be from Joseph.

[Epiphany]

The bible says that all of mankind is born with a sinful nature. It is true that this isn't fully developed until the child grows and matures. However, it's man's fall from grace that made us this way. That is why Jesus died on a cross. He came to save us from our sinful nature. The word of God says that he looked down upon Mary with favor. No where does it say that Mary was born without sin. Regardless of how he came into the world, Jesus couldn't have been born with sin in the first place because he is God manifested in the flesh!!! That is why he was born of the holy spirit and not the seed of Joseph. Revelation tells us that the antichrist is a man possessed with the spirit of satan. Does that mean his parents were born directly into allegiance with the devil? Mary was chosen to be the vessel that bore Christ in the flesh. Abraham was chosen by God to be the father of all nations. God chose to reveal himself to Moses upon mount Sinai. These people were merely mortals who were whole-heartedly committed to God and therefore blessed by him. But they themselves are humans just as you and I.

[mynameiskc]

if christ was born without the natural tendency to sin, then his sinless life wouldn't really be a triumph. he'd have had it easy.

[TheChaosFactor]

Just so we are all clear on the basics..


The DaVinci Code is a ficticious novel.
Ron Howard is directing a movie based on this fiction.

Im not intending to insult anyones intelligence here - just want to make sure we are all clear on this first?
My problem is that I don't think your precious Bible bears many more facts then "Code" does.

[Alsharad]

The Book of James (Which ironically, was left out of the bible at the Synod Of Hippo in 393 AD, so the focus of the bible would be on God/Christ and not on Mary) is mostly about Mary, the powers she posesses, and details (If I am not mistaken) the validity of her abstainment from originial sin. The Early Church fathers clearly recognized the Immaculate conception, and Mary's freedom of original sin. Even in the gospel of Luke he states Mary was, "FULL OF GRACE". There is a greek word that it is translated from and it means "Angel Like" or somthing to that effect, I'll look it up, cant recall of the top of my head.
Where is James is it detailed? I just looked through it (it's a short book) and I didn't find any references to Mary. I am not saying that they are not there, I am simply looking for where you found them.

I just happen to think that it is unlikely Christ would be born from a sinful womb, even if his "original sin" would have to be from Joseph.
Why do you think that? If spending time with sinners for 33 years did not corrupt Him, then why would a "sinful" womb?

if christ was born without the natural tendency to sin, then his sinless life wouldn't really be a triumph. he'd have had it easy.
He would be unable to sin, yes. The triumph comes not from His living a sinless life, but from His freely sacrificing that perfect life for us. And just because He couldn't sin didn't make it easy. It would be easy to not sin, but that wouldn't make the reprocusions any less hard. Imagine being the only boy in school who couldn't lie or cheat. Imagine living a life that when someone strikes you unfairly, you cannot strike back in vengeance... you can't even get angry. Even if you want to... No, I do not think that His life was easy.

[mynameiskc]

He would be unable to sin, yes. The triumph comes not from His living a sinless life, but from His freely sacrificing that perfect life for us. And just because He couldn't sin didn't make it easy. It would be easy to not sin, but that wouldn't make the reprocusions any less hard. Imagine being the only boy in school who couldn't lie or cheat. Imagine living a life that when someone strikes you unfairly, you cannot strike back in vengeance... you can't even get angry. Even if you want to... No, I do not think that His life was easy.
i disagree. life WOULD be easier without the torments and temptations. it's EASY to keep your cool when that's just how you are. no, i think it was crucial for him to have the same nature as us and to overcome it, to show that it COULD be done.

[Jozak]

Where is James is it detailed? I just looked through it (it's a short book) and I didn't find any references to Mary. I am not saying that they are not there, I am simply looking for where you found them.Maybe I am thinking of the wrong book http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/sad.gif I just watched a HUGE documentary on the books that were left out of the bible and one of them details this with Mary, I could have sworn it was James. At any rate, I'll see what I can find.


Why do you think that? If spending time with sinners for 33 years did not corrupt Him, then why would a "sinful" womb?Christ could have sinned if he had wanted to. He was 100% man and god. It's not necessarily that the womb would have corrupted him, but like I said, the Early Church fathers beleived in the Immaclate conception as well, and Mary was, as the bible said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene.

From Catholic.com:
"The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

[Jozak]

The bible says that all of mankind is born with a sinful nature. It is true that this isn't fully developed until the child grows and matures. However, it's man's fall from grace that made us this way. That is why Jesus died on a cross. He came to save us from our sinful nature. The word of God says that he looked down upon Mary with favor. No where does it say that Mary was born without sin. Regardless of how he came into the world, Jesus couldn't have been born with sin in the first place because he is God manifested in the flesh!!! That is why he was born of the holy spirit and not the seed of Joseph. Revelation tells us that the antichrist is a man possessed with the spirit of satan. Does that mean his parents were born directly into allegiance with the devil? Mary was chosen to be the vessel that bore Christ in the flesh. Abraham was chosen by God to be the father of all nations. God chose to reveal himself to Moses upon mount Sinai. These people were merely mortals who were whole-heartedly committed to God and therefore blessed by him. But they themselves are humans just as you and I.
Again, I point to writings of Early Church fathers and apostoles that recognize the Immaculate conception. You are basing your opinion on the non-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. You dismiss ANYTHING that is not found in the bible. I hope you are aware of who actually compiled the bible--The Church, and it wasn't completed until the 3rd century, so what do you think Christians relied on up until that point? Tradition.

[Alsharad]

i disagree. life WOULD be easier without the torments and temptations. it's EASY to keep your cool when that's just how you are. no, i think it was crucial for him to have the same nature as us and to overcome it, to show that it COULD be done.
Ummm... what "torments" are you talking about? Why would it be crucial for Him to have a sinful nature? Why would it be necessary to "show" that it could be done? The point of the Crucifixtion was that no one CAN. It is impossible for anyone with the exception of God. And that leads us to the next quote...

Christ could have sinned if he had wanted to. He was 100% man and god.
Wait. Sin is anything that does not conform to God's Will and Nature (you could say Will or Nature, but God's Will and Nature are always in perfect unity, so I left it as "and"). God cannot do anything outside His own will or nature (i.e. God cannot sin). If Christ was God, then Christ could NOT sin because God cannot sin.

Back to the point... I am not sure that you can make a claim regarding anything based on ONE verse. Are there any other non-apocryphal books that follow that idea?

[campbell34]

Here is a good article.....


Breaking The Da Vinci Code

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html

[mynameiskc]

Ummm... what "torments" are you talking about? Why would it be crucial for Him to have a sinful nature? Why would it be necessary to "show" that it could be done? The point of the Crucifixtion was that no one CAN. It is impossible for anyone with the exception of God. And that leads us to the next quote...
i still have to disagree with you. i feel the power of christ's understanding, and his work as our MEDIATOR with god is his human nature, which is like that of the rest of us. what would be the point of the devil taking jesus on in the wilderness with all the temptations? knowing god is perfect, and jesus is completely free of sin or even the ability to sin, where's the interest for the devil? it's like saying to a rock "don't be a rock anymore." and the rock 'decides' to stay a rock. big deal.

[Jozak]

Back to the point... I am not sure that you can make a claim regarding anything based on ONE verse. Are there any other non-apocryphal books that follow that idea?
I am not basing it off any apopcryphal verses, that I can recall. Why would have Satan tempted Christ if he could not, not sin? Christ could have if he wanted to (Now that would have caused problems in heaven obviously) but he did not, based on his love for us. I think KC and I agree on this point and she obviously would not use the "Apocryphal Books", she's not Catholic.

[Alsharad]

Okay. I did some more research and this is what I found.

Christ did not have a sin nature, but that doesn't make it impossible to sin. Adam also did not have a sin nature, but he could still be tempted and coud still sin. Christ could not have had a sin nature because even if He never sinned in action, He would still be imperfect.

"If Jesus' human nature existed by itself, apart from the divine nature, it would have been a normal human nature and capable of sin. But, Jesus' human nature is not separate from His divine nature which is morally pure and incapable of sin. It would then seem that Jesus was able to be tempted in His human nature but not in His divine. In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Col/col_2.htm#him)). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human."

I got the above from www.carm.org. You can read the whole essay here:
http://www.carm.org/christadelphian/Jesus_nature.htm

Anyway, after looking at it, I can see how Christ could have sinned but at the same time did not at all have a sinful nature. I am not sure I agree with it, but at the same time, at least I can see how it is possible.

[mynameiskc]

that's a total brain-cramper, ain't it?

[cerridwen]

it is quite complicated....

[Hikaru Zero]

Does anyone think that all of the information in The Da Vinci code is true?

It says right in the front of the book.

All references to works, artwork, places texts, secret rituals, etc., is entirely factual, and they can still be seen today.

Just so we are all clear on the basics..


The DaVinci Code is a ficticious novel.
Ron Howard is directing a movie based on this fiction.

Im not intending to insult anyones intelligence here - just want to make sure we are all clear on this first?

Yes, the DaVinci Code is a story, with made up characters and a pretty crazy plot.

However, it was originally intended to be a documentary based on fact and uncovered texts from the past. There are several articles out there which talk about this and explore it more in-depth.

But the Church made enough noise for the author to turn it into a fictional story instead of a documentary, so that they could dismiss it as "fictional," when in truth, the book is based very, very highly in fact.

Though to be fair, there are many criticisms of the book, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code. However, most of the criticisms listed here are criticisms of the plot, not the underlying "code" or references to real things -- they are criticisms like "Silas escaped from prison because of an earthquake, but the prison he escaped from is not in a seismically active region," etc.

Yeah, I'm not really clear on why MM was called a prostitue in the first place. It doesn't mention that in the Bible at all, right?

You should read the book "Angels and Demons," the precursor to the DaVinci Code. It explains a bit more on the whole Mary Magdalene story, and the other 106 gospels that were left out of the Bible but were recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Personally I found the end of Angels and Demons to be slightly better. It was the same kind of novel -- twists and turns on every page -- but the ending left nothing to be desired and left a couple important questions unanswered (to keep you wondering), whereas the DaVinci Code just kind of answered most of its questions at the end, and there was no "BANG" in the ending, haha.

Both are fun to read, though, whether or not you consider it all fantasy.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

And Holy Blood Holy Grail, which goes in depth about the bloodlines, and how they connect the house of David, with the house of Benjamin connecting back to Ancient Israel.

[spook13]

Whatever the direction the speculations in the da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons take, the fact is that there is no history of Jesus Christ from the ages of 12 to 30...it's possible to hypothesize about many scenarios for Jesus's life during that time period, whether you take the Gospels as literally true or not.

I've read both books, they were entertaining and interesting.