Not to speak for PoD, but I don't think that's it. It seems more like anger toward something people have used as a weapon. Sad that some people do use religion as a weapon, or maybe I should say misuse it as a weapon, but that can't be denied. I think anger about that is justified.
Jesus existed, comebackgirl. You don't have to think he was anything more than a typical human who just walked the earth and died. But, he existed. Denying that deems one completely ignorant of history.
The question is why would anyone (including an atheist) deny the existence of a man who clearly existed?
I don't deny his existence. While I don't practice religion and am still struggling to figure out my own beliefs, I do see religion as a very important strength for a lot of people and as a positive in their lives. I support that. Unfortunately I have also seen it used as a weapon by some, and to create internal pain for others. That's the part I'm speaking to, and that's the part that will justifiably cause anger.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
yes, I do, seen as you have been given countless points by other people here to prove he walked this earth.
Uh.. well actually, none of those "prove" he walked the earth. Any more than stories about Paul Bunyan.
However, here's at least something to back up my suggestion that this is just another retelling of a similar story:
The Sun-god Horus was worshipped nearly 1,000 years before the story of Jesus. Now check these parallels:
• Both were conceived of a virgin.
• Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)
• Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.
• Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.
• Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.
• Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.
• Both births were announced by angels
• Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.
• Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".
• After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.
• To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."
• Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at their coming-of-age ritual. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.
• Both were baptized at age 30.
• Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. (Both Anup and John were later beheaded.)
• Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.
• Both have 12 disciples.
• Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind.
• Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (notie the similarity in names when you say them out loud. PLUS... Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)
• Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu").
• Both delivered a Sermon on the Mount.
And then of course...
• Both were crucified.
• Both were crucified next to two thieves.
• Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).
• Both had their resurrection announced by women.
• Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.
• Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one").
• Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower.
• Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).
• Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook.
• Horus was identified with the Tau (cross). Jesus & Christianity is also symbolized by the cross.
You do realize that almost everything on this list pertaining to Horus is 100% fabricated? Just complete horseshit made up out of thin air? Seriously, you need to FACT CHECK Zeitgeist. It is utter nonsense.
Seriously, try to find ANY of that shit here (The Pyramid Texts)
or here Writings of Plutarch (an initiate) on Osiris & Isis
There is very little written of the story of Osiris and none of it would be wasted on the drivel posted above. The story was too important (and deals with the triumph of truth & knowledge over ignorance and superstition) to be caught up in silly little details like that.
Post edited by DriftingByTheStorm on
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I said your hate seethes. That's all I personally said. And I think that's evident.
I wasn't talking about you. I'll let you in on a secret... I seldom pay attention to anything you have to say.
Sorry.
I also showed you that you are factually wrong and Jesus did exist. This fact is historically evident. You continue to dodge that though.
1) you haven't shown anything. Just repeated that you believe the stories and true and although we can't see you, I'm guessing jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears shouting "HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL."
2) There is a difference between "dodging" and "ignoring." When you say my "hate seethes," I'm really not interested in any kind of discourse with you.
Not to speak for PoD, but I don't think that's it. It seems more like anger toward something people have used as a weapon. Sad that some people do use religion as a weapon, or maybe I should say misuse it as a weapon, but that can't be denied. I think anger about that is justified.
Jesus existed, comebackgirl. You don't have to think he was anything more than a typical human who just walked the earth and died. But, he existed. Denying that deems one completely ignorant of history.
The question is why would anyone (including an atheist) deny the existence of a man who clearly existed?
I don't deny his existence. While I don't practice religion and am still struggling to figure out my own beliefs, I do see religion as a very important strength for a lot of people and as a positive in their lives. I support that. Unfortunately I have also seen it used as a weapon by some, and to create internal pain for others. That's the part I'm speaking to, and that's the part that will justifiably cause anger.
Spewing hate to the religious people is still spewing hate.
I said your hate seethes. That's all I personally said. And I think that's evident.
I wasn't talking about you. I'll let you in on a secret... I seldom pay attention to anything you have to say.
Sorry.
I also showed you that you are factually wrong and Jesus did exist. This fact is historically evident. You continue to dodge that though.
1) you haven't shown anything. Just repeated that you believe the stories and true and although we can't see you, I'm guessing jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears shouting "HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL."
2) There is a difference between "dodging" and "ignoring." When you say my "hate seethes," I'm really not interested in any kind of discourse with you.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[11][12] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[13][14][15] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[16][17][18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
You do realize that almost everything on this list pertaining to Horus is 100% falsified? Just complete horseshit made up out of thin air? Seriously, you need to FACT CHECK Zeitgeist. It is utter nonsense.
Seriously, try to find ANY of that shit here (The Pyramid Texts)
or here Writings of Plutarch (an initiate) on Osiris & Isis
There is very little written of the story of Osiris and none of it would be wasted on the drivel posted above. The story was too important (and deals with the triumph of truth & knowledge over ignorance and superstition) to be caught up in silly little details like that.
He doesn't care if he's putting out complete shit.
He's baiting.That's his objective. To rile people up.
my guess is a man did exist that the jesus "myth" is attributed to...he probably did some of the things recounted in the bible, and probably didn't do others. But as far as traditions go, it was probably a merging of pagaen traditions into the christian fold so as to incorporate more followers. The church was/is a business after all, but that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.
OK, well then we can meet in the middle.
While there may have been a person named Jesus who was an actual person, the stories and events attributed to him are probably so exaggerated, made up and warped that the person in the bible that people now worship is... for lack of a better word... a "folk hero."
my guess is a man did exist that the jesus "myth" is attributed to...he probably did some of the things recounted in the bible, and probably didn't do others. But as far as traditions go, it was probably a merging of pagaen traditions into the christian fold so as to incorporate more followers. The church was/is a business after all, but that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.
OK, well then we can meet in the middle.
While there may have been a person named Jesus who was an actual person, the stories and events attributed to him are probably so exaggerated, made up and warped that the person in the bible that people now worship is... for lack of a better word... a "folk hero."
that is what I thought you may have meant. I find it hard to believe the stories as well, which I guess is why they call it faith...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
OK... and... so the only two things that nobody really debates is that there was a person who was baptized and later crucified.
Well, boy... that proves he was the son of god who walked on water and stuff, doesn't it? :fp:
Ok enough. If the discussion is now debating the existence of Jesus, then stick to that topic. No more personal comments. The bickering will get you banned.
The topic you have derailed to should actually be on a different thread. This thread began as a discussion of whether or not smearing Mary Magdalene was the result of people saying she was Jesus's wife because they didn't or couldn't accept that fact or non-fact...my head is spinning...you discuss.
Well, boy... that proves he was the son of god who walked on water and stuff, doesn't it? :fp:
Did you read any of what i posted regarding The Logos and The Son of God?
Do you understand that what the bible was trying to convey is not that Jesus (the person) ALONE was the "son of god" but that ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE "SONS" OF GOD.
Literally.
There is ONE LIFE in the world.
ONE LIFE.
That life "fragmented" in to all of incarnation.
We are all sparks from the one fire of the one life.
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE STORY IS CONVEYING.
It is not asking you to worship Jesus, the man, as the ONLY son of god.
John and Jesus' own words make it clear that YOU TOO CAN RECOGNIZE THIS and accept your OWN place as a Son of God.
I get that you don't believe in god, I'm just trying to explain to you what the story was intended to convey.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This thread began as a discussion of whether or not smearing Mary Magdalene was the result of people saying she was Jesus's wife because they didn't or couldn't accept that fact or non-fact.
Thanks for refereeing, Kat. I get tired of the personal attack thread derailments myself.
However, to your point above, I think it got derailed so quickly because on the one side, ALL we have is this ONE SHRED OF A PAPYRUS and on the other side, all we really have is the hate of certain Catholic officials throughout history for Mary Magdalene.
There really isn't anything to debate or discuss.
We are entirely absent of any body of evidence (or ANYthing really) of substance for a debate to occur on.
However, my personal opinion, given that large segments of esoteric tradition (upon which "The Bible" is based almost entirely) deal with the UNION OF THE MALE AND FEMALE IN TO A COMPLETE ONE SOUL, is that Jesus probably WAS married. In fact, SOME esoteric sources claim that you can NOT be a true "alchemist" UNTIL you are married.
On the opposite side, you could argue that the Essene Community (of which Jesus is argued to be a member) was structured in a outer and inner division. The outer community of members were the lower initiates, or non-initiates who COULD MARRY. The inner community were the more "perfect" core, and they DID NOT MARRY (and arguably were entirely celebate).
So...
???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
Who knows why the Catholic Church does what it does, it is a strange institution, to be sure.
Straight from Wiki (vis a vis the Bible):
The earliest Christian leaders were largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 , Luke 4:38 , and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15 : "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
"You take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye!" :P
The celibacy issue makes me wonder...sure, some choose to be, both inside and outside of religion. It's the to-the-T followings that can be a problem. Aren't those constraints going against...human nature?
And, are priests supposed to live their lives as Jesus did, or is it more about sharing who he was?
Does it matter if Jesus got it on with MM as her husband or as her john?
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate
Makes sense, hostis, as you explain this.
But it also raises the question - if it's OK to be married to the church, why is it not OK to be married to someone of the same sex?
There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.
RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate
Makes sense, hostis, as you explain this.
But it also raises the question - if it's OK to be married to the church, why is it not OK to be married to someone of the same sex?
Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.
I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....
Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.
I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....
I don't think you meant this, but so others don't get misled, this isn't what Catholics believe from what I understand. This nun was off.
They believe that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not that it is inherently a sin in and of itself.
Acting on it is a sin to them. Just like acting on anything on sex outside of marriage is considered to them to be a sin.
Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?
But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.
For posting guidelines, see Sharia.
dude ... your post got locked because you and others exhibited a level of class that is shameful ... and you did it twice ...
a lot of shit gets said on this forum and i don't necessarily agree with the majority of locked/deleted threads but yours yesterday was offensive - in a way, i would probably have preferred if the thread remained open so we can see what kind of people some really are ...
The ironic part... it was Americans making fun of a foreigner who died exercising their freedom of speech.
i think it's a fair and reasonable conclusion which does not require significant assumption but if she did not intend that at all ... then i'm more than happy to admit i'm wrong and apologize ...
Sorry, there's no objective evidence either way. Things that offend Christians don't offend you, so in your personal worldview there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that this might be intentionally offensive (i.e., vituperative and baited). Put differently -- it wouldn't occur to you immediately to be offended, so how could OP have meant it that way?
On the other hand, OP doesn't say "mary m was a whore" or, worse, "Jesus married a whore" explicitly. And, technically, OP doesn't even imply that mary m was a whore. Instead she assumes the standpoint that mary m was painted as a whore (whether fairly or unfairly, and by whom, we don't know from the OP's perspective) and asks if the contents of the article (the existence of this new piece of writing) were the reason for mary m to be painted as a whore.
As I said before, I think the post could be read either way. Also for the record, I'm not really looking for any admittance or apology, other than perhaps that OP could very reasonably be interpreted either way.
Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.
I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....
I don't think you meant this, but so others don't get misled, this isn't what Catholics believe from what I understand. This nun was off.
They believe that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not that it is inherently a sin in and of itself.
Acting on it is a sin to them. Just like acting on anything on sex outside of marriage is considered to them to be a sin.
And it's not a mortal sin either.
I'm not sure about homosexuality (thinking vs acting), but the New Testament is much more strict on sexual activity versus sexual thoughts:
Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Comments
I said your hate seethes. That's all I personally said. And I think that's evident.
I also showed you that you are factually wrong and Jesus did exist. This fact is historically evident. You continue to dodge that though.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You do realize that almost everything on this list pertaining to Horus is 100% fabricated? Just complete horseshit made up out of thin air? Seriously, you need to FACT CHECK Zeitgeist. It is utter nonsense.
Seriously, try to find ANY of that shit here (The Pyramid Texts)
or here Writings of Plutarch (an initiate) on Osiris & Isis
There is very little written of the story of Osiris and none of it would be wasted on the drivel posted above. The story was too important (and deals with the triumph of truth & knowledge over ignorance and superstition) to be caught up in silly little details like that.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I wasn't talking about you. I'll let you in on a secret... I seldom pay attention to anything you have to say.
Sorry.
1) you haven't shown anything. Just repeated that you believe the stories and true and although we can't see you, I'm guessing jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears shouting "HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL HE WAS REAL."
2) There is a difference between "dodging" and "ignoring." When you say my "hate seethes," I'm really not interested in any kind of discourse with you.
Spewing hate to the religious people is still spewing hate.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[11][12] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[13][14][15] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[16][17][18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
He doesn't care if he's putting out complete shit.
He's baiting.That's his objective. To rile people up.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Probably. I think it's all utter nonsense.
But the point is that anyone can make up any silly story and write it down... doesn't make any of it true.
Oh I'm sorry... am I supposed to end posts like that with "woot" to make it ok?
So, you're admitting you were wrong - OK.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
that is what I thought you may have meant. I find it hard to believe the stories as well, which I guess is why they call it faith...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
OK... and... so the only two things that nobody really debates is that there was a person who was baptized and later crucified.
Well, boy... that proves he was the son of god who walked on water and stuff, doesn't it? :fp:
If it makes you feel better to think that, then sure.
It does. I'm glad you did. Thanks.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The topic you have derailed to should actually be on a different thread. This thread began as a discussion of whether or not smearing Mary Magdalene was the result of people saying she was Jesus's wife because they didn't or couldn't accept that fact or non-fact...my head is spinning...you discuss.
But stop the personal comments...NOW.
Did you read any of what i posted regarding The Logos and The Son of God?
Do you understand that what the bible was trying to convey is not that Jesus (the person) ALONE was the "son of god" but that ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE "SONS" OF GOD.
Literally.
There is ONE LIFE in the world.
ONE LIFE.
That life "fragmented" in to all of incarnation.
We are all sparks from the one fire of the one life.
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE STORY IS CONVEYING.
It is not asking you to worship Jesus, the man, as the ONLY son of god.
John and Jesus' own words make it clear that YOU TOO CAN RECOGNIZE THIS and accept your OWN place as a Son of God.
I get that you don't believe in god, I'm just trying to explain to you what the story was intended to convey.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thanks for refereeing, Kat. I get tired of the personal attack thread derailments myself.
However, to your point above, I think it got derailed so quickly because on the one side, ALL we have is this ONE SHRED OF A PAPYRUS and on the other side, all we really have is the hate of certain Catholic officials throughout history for Mary Magdalene.
There really isn't anything to debate or discuss.
We are entirely absent of any body of evidence (or ANYthing really) of substance for a debate to occur on.
However, my personal opinion, given that large segments of esoteric tradition (upon which "The Bible" is based almost entirely) deal with the UNION OF THE MALE AND FEMALE IN TO A COMPLETE ONE SOUL, is that Jesus probably WAS married. In fact, SOME esoteric sources claim that you can NOT be a true "alchemist" UNTIL you are married.
On the opposite side, you could argue that the Essene Community (of which Jesus is argued to be a member) was structured in a outer and inner division. The outer community of members were the lower initiates, or non-initiates who COULD MARRY. The inner community were the more "perfect" core, and they DID NOT MARRY (and arguably were entirely celebate).
So...
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Who knows why the Catholic Church does what it does, it is a strange institution, to be sure.
Straight from Wiki (vis a vis the Bible):
The earliest Christian leaders were largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 , Luke 4:38 , and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15 : "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate
The celibacy issue makes me wonder...sure, some choose to be, both inside and outside of religion. It's the to-the-T followings that can be a problem. Aren't those constraints going against...human nature?
And, are priests supposed to live their lives as Jesus did, or is it more about sharing who he was?
Does it matter if Jesus got it on with MM as her husband or as her john?
But it also raises the question - if it's OK to be married to the church, why is it not OK to be married to someone of the same sex?
Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.
I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....
I don't think you meant this, but so others don't get misled, this isn't what Catholics believe from what I understand. This nun was off.
They believe that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not that it is inherently a sin in and of itself.
Acting on it is a sin to them. Just like acting on anything on sex outside of marriage is considered to them to be a sin.
And it's not a mortal sin either.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
On the other hand, OP doesn't say "mary m was a whore" or, worse, "Jesus married a whore" explicitly. And, technically, OP doesn't even imply that mary m was a whore. Instead she assumes the standpoint that mary m was painted as a whore (whether fairly or unfairly, and by whom, we don't know from the OP's perspective) and asks if the contents of the article (the existence of this new piece of writing) were the reason for mary m to be painted as a whore.
As I said before, I think the post could be read either way. Also for the record, I'm not really looking for any admittance or apology, other than perhaps that OP could very reasonably be interpreted either way.
Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
well shit, I might as well go the distance!!!