Discussion in 'Community' started by DantheJedi, Sep 18, 2012.
You got it.
1. Jesus wasn't married.
2. Women did follow Him in ministry. So in essence they were His disciples, maybe not by that title, but they were.
I hope Jesus was married. I imagine the sting of crucifixion would be all the sharper if he hung upon the cross thinking, "Dear God, I'm going to die a thirty-three-year-old virgin!"
Christian dogma is what it is. A Post-It Note of additional content isn't going to change anything, unless someone wants to found the Church of
Jesus the Father, Husband, Lover, Son, and Holy Ghost.
If so, I'm in, potentially, depending on the details of that holy ghost part.
You know this for an absolute, irrefutable fact? You were there? Or do you simply rely on what the editors at Constantine Publishing decided was canon?
And why would a man, "son of god" or not, be single at that age in 1st Century Palestine, considering that all men were encouraged to be married? His knowing that he was the Messiah and therefore didn't need to be married is such an oh-so-convenient cop out.
Ah, the holy ghost part. It's kinda tricky since the whole wholy trinity thing was borrowed from similar trinities. I think that was meant to be the sorta-kinda "all-encompasing" divine Force of God.
@Darth-Ghost to explain the meaning of the trinity. That's some of the best entertainment there is to be had on this forum.
Encouraged doesn't equal forced. John the Baptist wasn't married, either...
Even nowadays, men (and women) in their 30's are nagged by their parents to hurry up and get married. I don't see why it would be different 2000 years ago.
Yeah, but he still survived on honeys.
Okay, so let's say that Jesus was your typical 1st century Palestinian then and was married, well then, where is she? Why is there no name? No mention of her in any of the 1st century or 2nd century texts?
The Jerusalem Church was entrusted to Jesus' cousin James and after he died his other cousin Simeon, which is why Paul was adamant about asking the other churches to send money to it, because of it's special familial tie, his Blessed Mother, Mary, is widely revered and exalted, his earthly father Jospeh is a Saint, so are his grandparents, St. Joachim and Good St. Anne. You would think that his wife and/or son and daughter, as well as any lineage from them, would have been a big deal in the early church, but there wasn't even the slightest mention anywhere, most likely because there wasn't any.
^ Makes sense.
Mary Magd-- oh, damn, Dan Brown again.
Perhaps. I'm not saying I believe there was one wife or children. Perhaps indeed there weren't any. But there not being a written mention of any family anywhere does not mean they couldn't have existed. Again, what is regarded as canon is a work of consensus between different sects, scholars and early Church leaders in order to establish unity of belief across all early Christian Churches. Amongst the decisions of that consensus was the establishment of the divinity of one Jesus (still questioned as late as 325 AD). So think of Nicea as a major fandom convention where fans, writers and editors chiseled and hammered in the fine details of Jesus Christ Son of God. And if there were rumors or dusty, shadowy mentions of his having a family -- which might've made things thorny in regards to his status as Supreme Being -- well, who's to say those details didn't end up in the cutting room floor and henceforth condemned as heresy?
The Christian Jesus is a literary construct. The literary construct isn't married; he's not married in the gospels. Christians believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. It's funny how often no one gets this. I believe in Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels. That's the Jesus that changed my life. That Jesus is not completely historically accurate; everyone knows that, including us Christians. There are straight up historical contradictions between the Gospels (minor ones, but they are there), so it's literally impossible to say that the Gospels are all entirely historically true. But it's not about the "historical Jesus," at least not for me. It's a "revealed Jesus," given to us in the text. That's the one. If the historical Jesus was married, that doesn't shatter a single thing about the Jesus of the Gospels. It can all be still considered more or less historically accurate and, whether it's more or less, the absolute philosophical and emotional TRUTH of the Jesus of the Gospels doesn't change either. In my opinion. Of course, the news today is looking more toward forgery . . . but what does forgery even mean when you're talking about a scrap of paper the size of a business card that is hundreds of years old? Somebody wrote it down; did they know what they were talking about or not? Hell, we don't even know that about people on the internet today! How can we ever figure such a thing out about someone that wrote something down hundreds of years ago? It's irrelevant, though, historically, I see the interest. But it has literally no ripples whatever for the great body of Christianity.
You accept and recognize that the Christian Jesus is a literary construct -- therefore a work of fiction. So you have this 2,000 year old faith and several hundred different churches that have built a faith around this work of fiction. Hey, I like works of fiction like SW, Star Trek, LOTR and others, but I never let works of fiction guide my life and define my moral compass. I let it during my early years, it served fine in that regard, but as I grew older I knew to recognize it as just that: simple fiction, just like all religions across the history of mankind.
So, 2,000 year old enforced fiction -- sometimes by words, sometimes by the sword -- is still fiction, not enough to warrant belief in otherworldly salvation or redemption. If that were the case, well hey, let's all say that Scientology is indeed worthy of being recognized as a Church worthy of praise and recognition that can be deemed as a true path to salvation. Hallelujah.
You really want me to get started on explaining the Trinity again?
You know how, when you think of something, you have a mental image of that something in their mind?
God has perfect knowledge, so he therefore has perfect self-knowledge, and the mental image of himself has all the qualities he posssesses, including being... from self-knowledge, the Son is generated from the Father.
There is never a time the Father didn' have perfect self-knowledge, so the Son always existed. The Father could not exist without the Son (without perfect self-knowledge), and the Son could not exist without the Father.
You know how, when you love something, you're "giving" yourself away and devoting yourself and investing yourself in the process of love?
The Father and the Son perfectly love one another, so God is therefor perfectly "giving" all of himself through that perfect love, and that procession of self is also a perfect representation of Godand includes all the qualities that the Father and the Son possess, including being... from love, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son).
There was never a time the Father and the Son didn't co-exist, and there was never a time they didn't have a perfect loving relantionship, so the Holy Spirit always existed. The Father and Son could not exist without the Holy Spirit (without perfect love), and the Holy Spirit could not exist without the Father and the Son.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-existent. They are Three Persons, but One God. The Trinity. What we know from the Holy Spirit is that God is love. What we know from the Son is that God is self knowledge. What we know from God is that self-knowledge and love are indistinguishable from each other for the enlightened.
And what I just described is the basic theology of Catholic Christiants, Orthodox Christians, and Protestant Christians, in explaining the theology of the Trinity for over a thousand years.
The Trinity have existed together from the beginning, from before creation of the universe. All three persons existed from the beginning, long before the man Jesus was ever born.
You know how the Son is God's perfect self-knowledge?
God recognizes "himself" in love. And the love in the human Jesus Christ was perfect, especially during his suffering and death, so that all may have eternal life. God recognized himself, perfectly, in Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus was the Incarnation of the Son, fully human and fully God.
What did Jesus teach? That God lives in him, and he lives in God. That all those who truly love dwell in God, and God dwells in all those who truly love. Jesus taught that he will live in those who follow his teachings on how to love one another, and they will dwell in him. Therefore, they will dwell in God the eternal, and God will dwell in them. So God recognizes himself in them too, and they too are the reflection of God ("created in the image of God"). That is the salvation, that is the eternal life that Christianity describes, that is the salvation and eternal life that Christianity promises for all who truly love and for all those who ask for it. Jesus describes the one who has come to live in them, letting them dwell in God, is the one called the Holy Spirit, and that the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide and comfort and dwell in them from now on is made possible by his self-sacrifice on the cross.
Himmlvota! as the missus says. That's an essay for the ages.
If Thomas Kuhn had written a parallel work: The History of Unscientific Revolutions, it probably could have described the development of Christianity fairly accurately as a chronology of paradigm wars, with the paradigm wars that happened earliest most hidden from the prying eyes of the present, most obscured not just because of their distance to us but also because the victors in the paradigm wars suppressed the paradigms of the paradigm losers. This is why we only have these tiny scraps of evidence for the losing paradigms.
Well, there are passages in the Gnostic Gospels that also refer to Jesus as having a female 'companion,' which is another word for 'wife.' And the Gnostic Gospels were suppressed as were their authors or authoresses and their followers.
Fairly. I couldn't help reading part of that wall of text in my mind with Marlon Brando's voice speaking to little Jor-El. "The father becomes the son. The son becomes the father." Or was it the other way around? Russel Crowe will have a hard time recapturing such epicness.
Oh, oh, I remember the Trinity thing from Catholic school.
So this guy called St. Augustine was walking by the seashore, one day contemplating and trying to understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity when he saw a small boy using a sea shell to carry the water from the ocean and place it into a small hole in the sand. The Saint asked, “My boy, what are doing?” The boy replied, “I am trying to bring all the sea into this hole". “But that is impossible, kid, the hole cannot contain all that water”.
The boy stood up, looked into the eyes of the Saint, spat on the ground, and replied, “It is no more impossible than what you are trying to do, you ***ing ****, so you better stop asking ****ing questions or you might find a ****ing angelic blade on your back, geddit, you ****ing dumbass?”
1 and a half can answer for himself, but I would say that his post made it fairly apparent that the historicity of the gospels is not what compels him to be a Christian.
As a side note, I think it's completely acceptable/reasonable to be moved/informed/guided by the moral truths found in works of fiction like LotR or Star Wars. Sometimes, art can serve as a very trustworthy moral compass, as it were.
If you haven't, already, you should read Michel Henry's "I am the Truth: Towards a Philosophy of Christianity"
I think you'd like it.
Who's your dealer? I want some of what he's got you on because that it some seriously trippy, psychotropic stuff.
*a note: I was raised in the episcopal church (have since drifted into atheism) and I know this explanation of the trinity. It has always struck me as a psychedelic, and I always wished that Christian religion copped to its stranger, magical details, instead of being as pedestrianly literal as its become in order to establish its status as a part of the establishment.
pedestrianly is not a word and you KNOW IT!