beausox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 It's not portrayed as fiction? What book did you read? As to the rest of your reply, the book doesn't portray Jesus as the deceiver, it portrays elements of the Church as the deceivers. There's a big difference. You didn't answer what your feelings are on all the other inconsistencies of works of fiction, including the Bible. Do you get your panties in a wringer over them too? 302770[/snapback] So. Jesus has an "affair"- if only cause it was secret- with Mary Magdalene, best friend of His mother and He has not deceived us? Furthermore He begat children because His bloodline was required to continue. Nevermind we know not why.It would be one thing if this "patriarchal" myth/fraud had been conjured up by male clerics on their own but that is not enough this conspiracy needs Jesus' affirmation. As to "other works of fiction" including the Bible. As a Catholic I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the "Old Testament" which is rich and replete with object lessons on faith (Abraham, Job et al). Did they occur exactly as reported? I do not know but I do know the point remained: faith and fidelity were important. The New Testament is an historical, eye witness account in which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fail to mention a bit of minutia, to wit, Jesus "married" MM and bore child(ren?) so as to create a Royal Bloodline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 And then you wonder why religions and alcohol don't mix. As to "other works of fiction" including the Bible. As a Catholic I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the "Old Testament" ..... ... The New Testament is an historical, eye witness account ...... 326547[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 And then you wonder why religions and alcohol don't mix. 326563[/snapback] Thank you mini-me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 And then you wonder why religions and alcohol don't mix. 326563[/snapback] Did you see him confuse "fiction" and "non-fiction" in the 24 thread on the other board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 The New Testament is an historical, eye witness account in which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fail to mention a bit of minutia, to wit, Jesus "married" MM and bore child(ren?) so as to create a Royal Bloodline. 326547[/snapback] Who says it's eye witness account? The accounts in the gospels were recorded, at the earliest, 30-60 years after Jesus' death. That's not an eyewitness account- or at least- it's an eyewitness account 30-60 years removed from the event. As to things left out, all three accounts relate different stories- so each leaves several things out. The NT leaves out thirty years. Maybe those 30 years were originally recorded. Maybe not. Maybe a few pages got lost since the original recording. Whatever. Neither of us knows, and Brown's idea was...again...fiction, filling in some of that gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 "Who says it's eye witness account? The accounts in the gospels were recorded, at the earliest, 30-60 years after Jesus' death. That's not an eyewitness account- or at least- it's an eyewitness account 30-60 years removed from the event." I respond:As usual only superficially true. Whether Mark or Matthew were first is debated. Either was as early as 37 AD (my apology for the politically incorrect term) or 40 AD. Let us see Jesus dies circa 33 and the gospels are penned/published? in 37 or 40? You really should do a little critical thinking. Matthew was an Apostle and Mark a contemporary (of Christ) Evangelist. The different treatments that the" Big Four "employed is because each had basically different audiences- Matthew addressed Jews; Mark, the Romans; Luke, the Greeks ;and John the Gentiles. Same story, different emphasis; Kingdom of Heaven, miracles, parables and conversation respectively. You claim: "As to things left out, all three accounts relate different stories- so each leaves several things out. The NT leaves out thirty years. Maybe those 30 years were originally recorded. Maybe not. Maybe a few pages got lost since the original recording. Whatever. Neither of us knows, and Brown's idea was...again...fiction, filling in some of that gap." I respond: One of the things left out was that Jesus had an heir? John, the writer of the last Gospel (c.85AD) and the one Leonardo paints as next to Jesus at Last Supper failed to mention that rather insignificant fact? This from the author of the easy to understand "Book of Revelations" did not think we could handle the intricacy. Surely, you jest. 326636[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Did you see him confuse "fiction" and "non-fiction" in the 24 thread on the other board? 326628[/snapback] Television sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 This thing is still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 This thing is still alive? 327550[/snapback] In as much as it ever was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 In as much as it ever was... 327564[/snapback] Just make sure Opus dai doesn't shave my balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Just make sure Opus dai doesn't shave my balls. 327566[/snapback] The work of god is Opus Dei If your nads He doth shave And reduce thy balls omay He Increase thou shrill to falsetto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 "Yawn..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts