Bone Box Authentic Afterall?

[Dymphna]

I think the key in that is "fiction". Not not religious at all, but one thing I always go on...don't believe fiction as true. I think too many people don't understand that. Would probably make a good story though. I've read the "Da Vinci code", it was pretty good.

I haven't read the book, but I saw a very interesting documentary on it and it's sources.

The whole business about a secret society is bogus, but the idea that Christ had children was based on another book, a non-fiction book that traced the legends about Christ's decendants and tried to find evidence for or against.

One of the authors of that book kept saying that they'd come to the conclusion that it was quite possible that many of the legends were true. At the same time, nothing they found contradicted the Bible, it just talked of things that may have been omitted. Things that mostly happened AFTER Christ died and in locations not covered by the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say Christ was celibate.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I haven't read the book, but I saw a very interesting documentary on it and it's sources.

The whole business about a secret society is bogus, but the idea that Christ had children was based on another book, a non-fiction book that traced the legends about Christ's decendants and tried to find evidence for or against.

One of the authors of that book kept saying that they'd come to the conclusion that it was quite possible that many of the legends were true. At the same time, nothing they found contradicted the Bible, it just talked of things that may have been omitted. Things that mostly happened AFTER Christ died and in locations not covered by the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say Christ was celibate.

That is true, but nowhere in the Bible does it say He got married and He certainly wouldn't have been a fornicator. If He were, then His sacrifice on the cross would have been for nothing because He would have only been a sinner like us.

 

[Dymphna]

That is true, but nowhere in the Bible does it say He got married and He certainly wouldn't have been a fornicator. If He were, then His sacrifice on the cross would have been for nothing because He would have only been a sinner like us.

No, he certainly wasn't a fornicator. But people got married quite young and He was in his 30s. My point is, maybe he was married, maybe he wasn't. The Bible doesn't address this issue at all. Maybe it was just assumed that he was because of his age, so no one felt the need to mention it. :shrug: No one knows for sure, but regardless, it doesn't change who he was or what he did.

 

[huntr1]

No, he certainly wasn't a fornicator. But people got married quite young and He was in his 30s. My point is, maybe he was married, maybe he wasn't. The Bible doesn't address this issue at all. Maybe it was just assumed that he was because of his age, so no one felt the need to mention it. :shrug: No one knows for sure, but regardless, it doesn't change who he was or what he did.

I think that your argument (as in statement, not fight) that Christ was married and the writers of the Bible just left it unsaid since it would have been assumed as common knowledge is correct. This is quite common throughout history. For example, when we went to Williamsburg a couple years ago, I recall one of the demonstrators (cooking) talking about how they had an original recipe for something, but it took them 20 years to figure out how to actually make the recipe come out right. This was because the original recipe left out instructions on how to make certain ingrediants, or basic steps, because they were common knowledge in the time that the recipe was written. In the 200 years since the recipe was written, the "common" knowledge part of the instructions became lost and it was only thru trial and error and further discoveries that they were able to eventually perfect the recipe in the modern times.

 

[2ndAmendment]

No, he certainly wasn't a fornicator. But people got married quite young and He was in his 30s. My point is, maybe he was married, maybe he wasn't. The Bible doesn't address this issue at all. Maybe it was just assumed that he was because of his age, so no one felt the need to mention it. :shrug: No one knows for sure, but regardless, it doesn't change who he was or what he did.

I just think that if He had married, it would have been mentioned in one of the Gospels. The crucifixion accounts mention some of those that were there but there is no mention of Him having a wife.

Matthew 27:55-56
55Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him.

56Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40-41
40There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.

41When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

Luke 23:49
49And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things.

I think this is probably the most telling verse.

John 19:25-27
25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

27Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Why would Jesus have told John to look after His mother if He had a wife? It even mentions His mother's sister. If He had a wife, I think she would have been there and would have certainly been mentioned.

I think this kind of work, "The Di Vinci Code" and the like, is done to make Jesus just a human being instead of God come as man. Just my opinion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think that your argument (as in statement, not fight) that Christ was married and the writers of the Bible just left it unsaid since it would have been assumed as common knowledge is correct. .

I disagree.

This is quite common throughout history. For example, when we went to Williamsburg a couple years ago, I recall one of the demonstrators (cooking) talking about how they had an original recipe for something, but it took them 20 years to figure out how to actually make the recipe come out right. This was because the original recipe left out instructions on how to make certain ingrediants, or basic steps, because they were common knowledge in the time that the recipe was written. In the 200 years since the recipe was written, the "common" knowledge part of the instructions became lost and it was only thru trial and error and further discoveries that they were able to eventually perfect the recipe in the modern times.

The account of the Savior is a bit different than a recipe.

 

[Dymphna]

Perhaps Christ was a widow :shrug: Maybe his wife was going to be leaving the area, as the Da Vinci Code and the legends it was based on says. :shrug:

I'm NOT saying he WAS married, just that he could have been and that it didn't affect who he was or what he did.

For his time, Christ was a middle-aged man. An unmarried middle-aged man was quite scandalous just a few years ago, can you imagine how disreputable one would've been considered 2000 years ago? Yet Christ had thousands of followers in his lifetime, he was hardly disreputable, even among the non-believers of his time. I think if Christ had never been married, the critics of his day would have played that up in a big way.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Perhaps Christ was a widow :shrug: Maybe his wife was going to be leaving the area, as the Da Vinci Code and the legends it was based on says. :shrug:

I'm NOT saying he WAS married, just that he could have been and that it didn't affect who he was or what he did.

For his time, Christ was a middle-aged man. An unmarried middle-aged man was quite scandalous just a few years ago, can you imagine how disreputable one would've been considered 2000 years ago? Yet Christ had thousands of followers in his lifetime, he was hardly disreputable, even among the non-believers of his time. I think if Christ had never been married, the critics of his day would have played that up in a big way.

Widower?

I think it was probably not scandalous at all. It was common, as I understand it, during His time to dedicate yourself to God.

The Di Vinci Code and this discussion are pure conjecture. I'll leave you to it. I'll base my belief on the Bible.

 

[Railroad]

I sure didn't mean to start a whole lot of coulda been and mighta been discussions. I used the word fiction because Christ was as pure as He could be - and He had to be, as God in human form on earth, sent to die for our sins. To me it's interesting to read a work of fiction that talks about Christ - related things. It was a fascinating read, and it was quite realistic in many respects - but realistic is not the same thing as real or truthful.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I sure didn't mean to start a whole lot of coulda been and mighta been discussions. I used the word fiction because Christ was as pure as He could be - and He had to be, as God in human form on earth, sent to die for our sins. To me it's interesting to read a work of fiction that talks about Christ - related things. It was a fascinating read, and it was quite realistic in many respects - but realistic is not the same thing as real or truthful.

Too many people base what they really believe on some Hollywood rendition of events or a fictional book. It just seems so real; it could be true. Not saying that anyone specific does that. Just an observation. After all, many people believe Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911.

 

[AMP]

I just think that if He had married, it would have been mentioned in one of the Gospels. The crucifixion accounts mention some of those that were there but there is no mention of Him having a wife.


I think this is probably the most telling verse.
Why would Jesus have told John to look after His mother if He had a wife? It even mentions His mother's sister. If He had a wife, I think she would have been there and would have certainly been mentioned.

I think this kind of work, "The Di Vinci Code" and the like, is done to make Jesus just a human being instead of God come as man. Just my opinion.

2A, please direct me to the passages which refer to John being "the disciple whom Jesus loved." I have a need of them for some other reading I am doing.

Thanks.

 

[Penn]

2A, please direct me to the passages which refer to John being "the disciple whom Jesus loved." I have a need of them for some other reading I am doing.

Thanks.

Hi, I can't give you specific verses where this occurs, however that is how John described himself. It is primarily found in the Gospel of John.

During the Last Supper, it was mentioned, and I know in Chapt. 21 it is mentioned again as Peter and Jesus are walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter sees "the disciple that Jesus loved", and asks Jesus, "What about him?"

That is when Jesus says to Peter: "If I choose to let him live until I return, what is that to you? You follow me."

The big deal about Jesus being married all seems to be centered around the custom of Jewish men being married by a certain age. It is what they were expected to do; almost an unwritten law: You WILL get married, have children and part of the community.

Only one thing wrong here though: Jesus Christ did not come to this earth just to follow the customs of man. Yes, He was a man, like any other, but He was God in man's human form, without sin, and destined to die for our sins.

That's about the best I can do for now.

 

[Nickel]

I just think that if He had married, it would have been mentioned in one of the Gospels. The crucifixion accounts mention some of those that were there but there is no mention of Him having a wife.



I think this is probably the most telling verse.
Why would Jesus have told John to look after His mother if He had a wife? It even mentions His mother's sister. If He had a wife, I think she would have been there and would have certainly been mentioned.

I think this kind of work, "The Di Vinci Code" and the like, is done to make Jesus just a human being instead of God come as man. Just my opinion.

I have to agree, and I just made up my mind about it right now. After reading the Da Vinci Code, I, like others, pondered the thought of Jesus being married, because it was very common at the time. But the Da Vinci Code is fiction; albeit very well written and at times persuasive; and we can't accept it as fact. I think 2A's point that Mary Magdalene was referred to as just that: "Mary Magdalene" and not "the wife of Jesus", as others' wives were called (i.e. "Mary, the wife of Clopas"), clears it up. I can accept that if a marriage existed, it might have been overlooked a few times, but I don't think that when referring to Mary Magdalene, they would leave out her role every single time. I believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were close. I'm not sure if I saw the same documentary as Dymphna, but I did watch one where they looked back on how the importance of Mary Magdalene has been downplayed by the Catholic church throughout history (because, as we all know, there was a time when women were deemed far inferior, and it was ridiculous to assume that our Saviour would trust a woman).

 

[Nickel]

The whole business about a secret society is bogus

Not necessarily. Dan Brown will have you believe that the Priory of Sion was an actual "organization", if you will, derived from the Knights Templar, with the sole purpose of "protecting" the holy grail.

This link, to a religious-based website, claims that the Priory is a hoax, simply because there is little historic record. (Isn't that the point of a "secret" society? That it's kept secret? )

This site will give you the entire history of the Knights Templar, and the Priory. I find it hard to believe that a society that has eluded the history books has found it's way onto the world wide web only to reveal all of their secrets, but who knows these days.

Either way, I think it's an interesting concept. I don't necessarily believe that the Priory's claim is fact, but I do believe that there are people out there who do.

 

[AMP]

Not necessarily. Dan Brown will have you believe that the Priory of Sion was an actual "organization", if you will, derived from the Knights Templar, with the sole purpose of "protecting" the holy grail.

This link, to a religious-based website, claims that the Priory is a hoax, simply because there is little historic record. (Isn't that the point of a "secret" society? That it's kept secret? )

This site will give you the entire history of the Knights Templar, and the Priory. I find it hard to believe that a society that has eluded the history books has found it's way onto the world wide web only to reveal all of their secrets, but who knows these days.

Either way, I think it's an interesting concept. I don't necessarily believe that the Priory's claim is fact, but I do believe that there are people out there who do.

There is a lot of substantial research out there, on the Templars, on the Grail, on Mary Magdala. Remember the part in the book where Langdon 's publisher could not beleive the book he was going to write until he showed him the research, and the publisher was like, oh wait these are all respected historians? I have a feeling that really happened to Brown.

There is a bit of fact sprinkled into Brown's book. The name of the curator who is murdered in Brown's book, Sauniere, is also a name connected with Grail/Magdelene history, he was a priest at Rennes-LeChateau in early 1900 (died 1917) who supposedly made a discovery at the church there, a church heavily imbued with grail and Mary legends. The Priory was extremely interested, but decided that what Sauniere discovered was an old parchment.

And I am convinced that (Lee) Teabing from teh book is an anagram of Baigent (and Leigh), two of the more well known Templar historians.

I beleive Brown's book is a pleasant work of fiction, but when you go off and start your own reading of Templar, Grail, etc etc tomes, there is much to be learned about what lead up to his pleasing fiction.

 

[AMP]

Hi, I can't give you specific verses where this occurs, however that is how John described himself. It is primarily found in the Gospel of John.

During the Last Supper, it was mentioned, and I know in Chapt. 21 it is mentioned again as Peter and Jesus are walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter sees "the disciple that Jesus loved", and asks Jesus, "What about him?"

That is when Jesus says to Peter: "If I choose to let him live until I return, what is that to you? You follow me."

The big deal about Jesus being married all seems to be centered around the custom of Jewish men being married by a certain age. It is what they were expected to do; almost an unwritten law: You WILL get married, have children and part of the community.

Only one thing wrong here though: Jesus Christ did not come to this earth just to follow the customs of man. Yes, He was a man, like any other, but He was God in man's human form, without sin, and destined to die for our sins.

That's about the best I can do for now.

Thank you! I will look through John.

Yes, it was custom, which makes me worry about who took what out of the New Testament of the Bible. Is Jesus mentioned outside the Bible? Where? Why? How could the Son of Man be only trumpeted after His death by Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul (the old flip-flopper)? What if the writings of Mary Magdelene, recently discovered, become as authentic as the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I take what is in the Bible on faith, but in my mind I think there is still more. (I know 2A and maybe some others will slam me on that one, but it is how I feel right now.)

 

[AMP]

Until 2A posts some more reference on the disciple Jesus loved, JUST for argument's and conjecture's sake, let's look at this:
John 19:25-27
25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
27Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Could Mary Magdelene not have been a disciple of Christ? If it was James, why not say James (the whole behold your son thing)? The passage makes it seem like it was only a crowd of women standing there, so why could the disciple Jesus loved have not been a woman? And why is this statement, issued from Jesus' own lips, only found in John? Why not all the Gospels?

Again, my feeling is that what is in the Bible is what is left of God's inspired Word. No offense meant, just my opinion.

 

[Dymphna]

I'm not sure if I saw the same documentary as Dymphna, but I did watch one where they looked back on how the importance of Mary Magdalene has been downplayed by the Catholic church throughout history (because, as we all know, there was a time when women were deemed far inferior, and it was ridiculous to assume that our Saviour would trust a woman).

That was a different documentary. I saw that one too. There was actually several other "gospels" writen about Jesus, including one, commonly called the "Gospel of Mary" I think there was a thread a couple of weeks ago about it. I didn't read the thread. Anyway, it plays up the role of Mary Magdalene. The scrolls where it was written, as well as several others were found AFTER the Bible was compiled. I think the Da Vinci code mentions them (again, I didn't read that book) and basically says that the Church was hiding them or that some sect was hiding them from the Church, to prevent their destruction. Historians generally believe they were just "lost."

 

[Railroad]

Fascinating reading, folks!! You're some very bright people!

From a belief standpoint, an authoritative Word standpoint, I have to stick with what's in the Bible. I'm not blessed with the power to adjudge the authenticity of anything, and so I have to stick with what I believe to be the one true Word of God. I'm not saying that the scrolls reported to be Mary's writings are fake and I'm not saying they're authentic, and I'm not saying they're right or wrong - I'm saying that I have to stick with God's word, not Mary's or anyone else's.

But would I read them? You betcha!! Intellectually, this is great stuff!!

 

[Bustem' Down]

I think that all this just doesn't matter anymore. If we were all sitting around at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, sure, it would, but, it's just been too long. I don't think it matters if Jesus had siblings, children, wife or even wives. It was just too long ago and people should focus on the moral issues of his life, and not so much the historical issues. I love history, but I'll be the first to say, the actual history of things is rather incosequential, it's what you come away with and learn that's important. This coming from a self proclaimed aethiest.