Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:18:54 pm [NT]
Well...
QuickMay 8, 2006 3:20:39 pm
create a fake ruckus because they know this flick will drive more people INTO the church.
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:26:42 pm
Even if it's true. Even if Jesus married Mary. So what?
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Yes, that makes him 200%, thus a unique person in history.
But anyway, one of the reasons God sent Jesus to earth was to walk among us AS one of us. Intimate love is a very strong form of love and I'm sure Jesus would have felt that.
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Yes, that makes him 200%, thus a unique person in history.
But anyway, one of the reasons God sent Jesus to earth was to walk among us AS one of us. Intimate love is a very strong form of love and I'm sure Jesus would have felt that.
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 3:31:38 pm
i think a lot of people can't wrap their mind around the "jesus was fully man" concept. they dont like anything that seems to de-deify him.
if jesus married magdelene and had earthly children, it doesnt necessarily contradict the idea that he was god.
if jesus married magdelene and had earthly children, it doesnt necessarily contradict the idea that he was god.
QuickMay 8, 2006 3:51:53 pm
but its just more tit for tat crap, imo.
omg teh passion! boycott!
omg teh da vinci code! boycott!
just more dumb crap.
omg teh passion! boycott!
omg teh da vinci code! boycott!
just more dumb crap.
ThorMay 8, 2006 3:22:34 pm [NT]
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:23:39 pm
In fact I'm surprised why the rest of Xtian denominations are keeping silent about it. That movie is anti-Xtian in general, not specifically anti-Catholic.
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:27:11 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 3:27:56 pm [NT]
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:28:20 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 3:29:59 pm
they rejected the gospel of judas so it was deemed heretical early on (if i'm correct)
but in addition to that, it contradicts the accepted (and promoted) interpretation of events from early on in the catholic church
but in addition to that, it contradicts the accepted (and promoted) interpretation of events from early on in the catholic church
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:40:01 pm
I'm more of a "meat and potatoes" Christian.
Jesus is the son of God. He suffered and died as a perfect man and a perfect God. Only in following Christ to the best of my ability can I get to heaven.
The rest is doctrine. Not saying that doctrine is good or bad, but doctrine is where most churches split and argue. I attend a Southern Baptist church but when someone asks me, I tell them I am a Christian. I see doctrine as being between you and God.
Jesus is the son of God. He suffered and died as a perfect man and a perfect God. Only in following Christ to the best of my ability can I get to heaven.
The rest is doctrine. Not saying that doctrine is good or bad, but doctrine is where most churches split and argue. I attend a Southern Baptist church but when someone asks me, I tell them I am a Christian. I see doctrine as being between you and God.
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 3:43:11 pm
because it challenges their authority, and while it is a work of fiction, it forwards a thought experiment of what might happen if their doctrine was wrong. they claim roots to divinity in the very structure of the church (i.e., the pope's infallibility), and if it turned out that they were wrong about something, what would it mean to the authority of the church? it would mean the whole thing was a self-perpetuating sham
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:46:38 pm
Catholic Church denounced the doctrine of Pope's infallibility and the Church's infallibility quite some time ago. They are willing to look back and admit mistakes, they just aren't willing to incorporate bullshit into their doctrine.
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 4:00:17 pm
i thought they were still of the mind that the pope was an infallible figure who had some special sort of divine relationship
GryxMay 8, 2006 4:02:43 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 8, 2006 4:05:26 pm
like i thought it meant the pope could do no wrong. but instead it means only that the pope can make pronouncements and declare that they are infallible pronouncements. but this only applies when he says it applies.
i dont see anythign saying that the church ever denounced papal infallibility though. if you can find a date or statement that shows that, it would be helpful
i dont see anythign saying that the church ever denounced papal infallibility though. if you can find a date or statement that shows that, it would be helpful
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:49:37 pm [NT]
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:29:28 pm
Why would the son of God need to have children? His mission was very simple: Get in, Preach, Die, Res, GTFO. End of story.
Sure, Jesus the Man, could have gotten married, but that makes no sense for Jesus the God. Basically, the premise of marriage and children casts a serious shadow on Christ's divinity.
imho.
Sure, Jesus the Man, could have gotten married, but that makes no sense for Jesus the God. Basically, the premise of marriage and children casts a serious shadow on Christ's divinity.
imho.
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:32:12 pm
"the premise of marriage and children casts a serious shadow on Christ's divinity."
I think God wanted Jesus to experience a full range of human emotions. Sadness (as he entered Jerusalem), anger (tossing temple tables), love of fellow man/fellowship, love of wife, love of children, etc.
I think God wanted Jesus to experience a full range of human emotions. Sadness (as he entered Jerusalem), anger (tossing temple tables), love of fellow man/fellowship, love of wife, love of children, etc.
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:36:34 pm
it creates a theological nightmare. Are those kids human or divine? Both? Are they mortal? Are they subject to earthly sins? Are they on equal standing with Jesus? Most importantly, WTF is their purpose on Earth?
Jesus had a very clear and specific purpose, I'm not quite so sure as to what purpose would his offspring have.
Jesus had a very clear and specific purpose, I'm not quite so sure as to what purpose would his offspring have.
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:47:12 pm
Keep in mind. I'm far from a theologen, but...
Are those kids human or divine? Both?
I would say human. The divine aspect of Jesus was his spirit. His body bled. He got hungry. He got tired. Etc.
Are they mortal?
See above.
Are they subject to earthly sins?
I would think so because of the "human" part above.
Are they on equal standing with Jesus?
I don't think so, see above.
WTF is their purpose on Earth?
What is OUR purpose on earth? I don't think they would have a specific purpose, similar to us. Suggested reading is Purpoose Driven Life by Rick Warren.
Are those kids human or divine? Both?
I would say human. The divine aspect of Jesus was his spirit. His body bled. He got hungry. He got tired. Etc.
Are they mortal?
See above.
Are they subject to earthly sins?
I would think so because of the "human" part above.
Are they on equal standing with Jesus?
I don't think so, see above.
WTF is their purpose on Earth?
What is OUR purpose on earth? I don't think they would have a specific purpose, similar to us. Suggested reading is Purpoose Driven Life by Rick Warren.
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:50:33 pm
Why would Jesus bother fathering kids if he knew he was gonna leave 'em high and dry? Doesn't sound like a very responsible thing to do, and he surely cannot claim ignorance.
BimMay 8, 2006 3:51:15 pm [NT]
GryxMay 8, 2006 3:51:56 pm [NT]
BimMay 8, 2006 3:55:02 pm [NT]
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:55:07 pm
I'm not claiming to know what God was thinking, I'm just more curious why it would have been so terrible (in the Catholic's eyes) for Jusus to be a father.
The only thing I can think of is that God is our Heavenly Father. The Jesus aspect of the trinity was not a father. He had no frame of reference as to what sacrificing your child would be like. Jesus would not have known the love a father has for his children.
Could you imagine sacrificing your daughter for a world that would hate/ridicule her? Again, it brings the sacrifice full circle. IMO.
The only thing I can think of is that God is our Heavenly Father. The Jesus aspect of the trinity was not a father. He had no frame of reference as to what sacrificing your child would be like. Jesus would not have known the love a father has for his children.
Could you imagine sacrificing your daughter for a world that would hate/ridicule her? Again, it brings the sacrifice full circle. IMO.
GryxMay 8, 2006 4:01:53 pm
He has all of God's knowledge by default, as well as understands God's love for humanity.
Anyhow, this whole Catholic conspiracy thing makes even less sense, considering that Catholic Chucrch had pretty much zero influence on that region until the Crusades. The Xtians in the region were dominated by the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and other denominations, and not a single one of them has a single word on Jesus being married.
Furthermore, if you're wuilling to accept the possibility of Jesus getting married, then you have to accept the fact that Gospel is flawed and inaccurate, since it would have been a crime on behalf of the Apostles to omit such a major event in Jesus' life.
Anyhow, this whole Catholic conspiracy thing makes even less sense, considering that Catholic Chucrch had pretty much zero influence on that region until the Crusades. The Xtians in the region were dominated by the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and other denominations, and not a single one of them has a single word on Jesus being married.
Furthermore, if you're wuilling to accept the possibility of Jesus getting married, then you have to accept the fact that Gospel is flawed and inaccurate, since it would have been a crime on behalf of the Apostles to omit such a major event in Jesus' life.
DaJetson's CodeMay 8, 2006 3:37:56 pm [NT]
BimMay 8, 2006 3:39:40 pm [NT]
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:40:47 pm [NT]
BimMay 8, 2006 3:42:01 pm [NT]
Deacon Stryker *prays*May 8, 2006 3:48:26 pm [NT]
Post Reply