| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BobbyO
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 1822
Location: Brooklyn, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: Protestant DaVinci |
|
|
A lot has been made about the Catholic Church's rejection of the claims that Christ had children.
But what about the Protestants?
What is the view of the Episcopalians? The Methodists? the Lutherans ect ect? Do they share in the rejection? |
|
| Back to top |
|
eynon
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 19134
Location: Minneapolis......
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Protestant DaVinci |
|
|
BobbyO wrote: A lot has been made about the Catholic Church's rejection of the claims that Christ had children.
But what about the Protestants?
What is the view of the Episcopalians? The Methodists? the Lutherans ect ect? Do they share in the rejection?
by in large....yep..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
LetsGetReal
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 5791
Location: Peoria, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would state all "sane" believers do... |
|
| Back to top |
|
ideal
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Location: Wyoming
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's not really fair. The only real reason to assume that Christ never married is the fact that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. That in mind, there's nothing irrational about the possibility that the church may have excluded it from the Bible. The church has been, at different times in history, a manipulative force and Christ never marrying suits their goals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LetsGetReal
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 5791
Location: Peoria, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Huh, are you serious? He wasn't sent her to spread his seed, but to grant eternal salvation. Read the bible more, speak less...(Sorry I'm in a cranky mood) |
|
| Back to top |
|
psholtz
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 23468
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
LetsGetReal wrote: I would state all "sane" believers do...
I would think that all "sane" believers don't really care one way or the other.
Jesus' personal life is Jesus' personal life. What business is it of yours whether or not he was married and had kids? (quoting loosely from John 21:22-23) |
|
| Back to top |
|
psholtz
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 23468
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
LetsGetReal wrote: Huh, are you serious? He wasn't sent her to spread his seed, but to grant eternal salvation. Read the bible more, speak less...(Sorry I'm in a cranky mood)
I did read the Bible..
Did you get to the part about the Parable of the Sower? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snarf
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 5377
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
LetsGetReal wrote: I would state all "sane" believers do...
Sanity implies rationality and reasonableness. Rational people believe that Jesus was a prophet, but a man like any other man, with all that implies. Irrational people support the church and believe that Jesus was a God. That is the dogma of the faith and they accept it without critical thinking. There's nothing sane about believing God walked the earth but was killed on the cross like any other criminal of His day. Those who accept dogma may be rational but they lack critical thinking, and that makes them a little less than ‘sane’… |
|
| Back to top |
|
airo
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 2583
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
garyd
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 691
Location: tulsa, ok
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Idea that the Early Church did not by and large believe Christ to be devine is laughably absurd and without any historical basis in fact whatever.
Thje Bible in the Revelation of John, in fact, mentions as one of the failings of one of the seven churches something that sounds at least vaguely like the gnostic heresy that came to full flower 50 to one hundred years later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
connermt
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1526
Location: CMH OHIO
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
airo wrote: Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything.
Some people (specifically on here) believe it does. Interestingly enough, I have seen many priests say, while they don't BELIEVE He did, it really doesn't matter one way or the other because IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It is taught that Jesus was full God & full man. If that's the case, why wouldn't he be able to marry (or want to marry) if he is indeed full man? If he is ONLY full God, then he probably had other things to worry about. I think this speaks to the church's fear of sex & sexuality in a larger sense, that has been adopted (unwittingly) by many current christians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ideal
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Location: Wyoming
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
LetsGetReal wrote: Huh, are you serious? He wasn't sent her to spread his seed, but to grant eternal salvation. Read the bible more, speak less...(Sorry I'm in a cranky mood)
I've read the bible. I don't remember anything saying Christ never married. I'll point out, however, I'm not arguing that he was, I'm simply saying it's not an irrational assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Saf
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
LetsGetReal wrote: Huh, are you serious? He wasn't sent her to spread his seed, but to grant eternal salvation. Read the bible more, speak less...(Sorry I'm in a cranky mood)
He wasn't sent to build things out of wood or take craps, but he did that too, didn't he? Just because it's outside of your little human worldview doesn't mean it didn't happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
connermt
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1526
Location: CMH OHIO
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Saf wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Huh, are you serious? He wasn't sent her to spread his seed, but to grant eternal salvation. Read the bible more, speak less...(Sorry I'm in a cranky mood)
He wasn't sent to build things out of wood or take craps, but he did that too, didn't he? Just because it's outside of your little human worldview doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Agreed
People believe whatever fits their views I guess....
Expanding on what you said: just because it isn't written in the accepted bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.
A preview of a show talking about how wrong the Da Vinci Code is shows a guy (supposed expert) saying 'There is no proof that Jesus was married!'. There are writtings that Jesus was married, they just aren't accepted by many as 'true' writtings worth believing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
perdidochas
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 15424
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: Re: Protestant DaVinci |
|
|
BobbyO wrote: A lot has been made about the Catholic Church's rejection of the claims that Christ had children.
But what about the Protestants?
What is the view of the Episcopalians? The Methodists? the Lutherans ect ect? Do they share in the rejection?
Protestants are just dupes of the Catholic conspiracy..... :twisted: |
|
| Back to top |
|
airo
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 2583
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connermt wrote: airo wrote: Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything.
Some people (specifically on here) believe it does. Interestingly enough, I have seen many priests say, while they don't BELIEVE He did, it really doesn't matter one way or the other because IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It is taught that Jesus was full God & full man. If that's the case, why wouldn't he be able to marry (or want to marry) if he is indeed full man? If he is ONLY full God, then he probably had other things to worry about. I think this speaks to the church's fear of sex & sexuality in a larger sense, that has been adopted (unwittingly) by many current christians.
I don't think it would either.
If he did have a kid, it's obvious that his blood doesn't carry any mystical God-power, as we don't have Jesus' great-to-the-X-power-son running around putting mud on people's eyes and healing them. So therefore, the only REAL thing they get is to say "Oh, i'm related to Jesus" and pull a Paris Hilton, living of the family name for the rest of their natural lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
connermt
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1526
Location: CMH OHIO
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
airo wrote: connermt wrote: airo wrote: Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything.
Some people (specifically on here) believe it does. Interestingly enough, I have seen many priests say, while they don't BELIEVE He did, it really doesn't matter one way or the other because IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It is taught that Jesus was full God & full man. If that's the case, why wouldn't he be able to marry (or want to marry) if he is indeed full man? If he is ONLY full God, then he probably had other things to worry about. I think this speaks to the church's fear of sex & sexuality in a larger sense, that has been adopted (unwittingly) by many current Christians.
I don't think it would either.
If he did have a kid, it's obvious that his blood doesn't carry any mystical God-power, as we don't have Jesus' great-to-the-X-power-son running around putting mud on people's eyes and healing them. So therefore, the only REAL thing they get is to say "Oh, i'm related to Jesus" and pull a Paris Hilton, living of the family name for the rest of their natural lives.
I think what some people believe (at least how it was explained to me) is that being married & having a 'blood line' would show Jesus either wasn't true God-man or not any part God. Which I find utterly hypocritical since Christians are suppose to value marriage so highly...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
mattwa33193
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connermt wrote: airo wrote: Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything.
Some people (specifically on here) believe it does. Interestingly enough, I have seen many priests say, while they don't BELIEVE He did, it really doesn't matter one way or the other because IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It is taught that Jesus was full God & full man. If that's the case, why wouldn't he be able to marry (or want to marry) if he is indeed full man? If he is ONLY full God, then he probably had other things to worry about. I think this speaks to the church's fear of sex & sexuality in a larger sense, that has been adopted (unwittingly) by many current christians.
But it does matter in one very important way - if Jesus had children, and therefore a bloodline, the Church would no longer be the supreme authority in regards to Christianity. What if His heir denounced the Pope? What if he denounced all Christian teachings of the last 1800 years?
Also, how would the Church deal with the question of the divinity of the heir?
It makes no difference in terms of religion, but it makes a huge difference in terms of the Church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
garyd
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 691
Location: tulsa, ok
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One would think that the Bible would have specifically mention such a Marriage yet no such marriage is ever mention in any manuscript of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
mattwa33193
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garyd wrote: One would think that the Bible would have specifically mention such a Marriage yet no such marriage is ever mention in any manuscript of the time.
History is written by the winners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
