?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Ian

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
03:38 pm: Tuesday and Wednesday
Tuesday was a day I spent doing exciting things like washing clothes and things, but I did spend some time preparing some DVDs and some posters.
Of most note in the short term is that Steve James will be playing a one-off concert at Holy Trinity, Poulton Lancelyn, Bebington on 17th June. Tickets £5. All welcome. See http://stevejamesmusic.com/sjlivedates.html for details.
Last night, our curate Nick gave an ecellent presentation on why the Da Vinci Code is tosh. We can only speculate as to why such a poorly researched piece of writing has become so popular.
Today, we started with a breakfast where John spoke to us from Jude 1:1. That was a very good piece of work too. The breakfast after wasn't bad, either.
Later in the morning, David and I went off to Birkenhead to have lunch, get money, buy books, that sort of thing.

Current Location: CH63 0EB
Current Mood: happyhappy

Comments

[User Picture]
From:lilagrubb
Date:June 7th, 2006 04:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd be interested to hear your curate's reasons. I do know that the DNA thing is trash. At best, it would be possible to prove Sophie was related to Mary, but not direct decent. And even if direct descent could be proved, it would prove nothing about the paternity of Mary's child. In all probability, Mary Magdalene did have children at some point in her life. Most women in her culture did.

I've seen the film but not read the bok. I don't know if I'll bother. I might, out of curiosity, as we do have a copy here.
[User Picture]
From:ringbark
Date:June 7th, 2006 05:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I am in the same position, having seen the film but not read the book. The text that Nick recommended is here, and costs only £1.99 - but to summarise his points quickly:

The Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT the earliest Christian records (p331) - in fact the DSS never mention Christianity
Pope Clement V who burned Templars at the stake and tossed them into the Tiber (p447) ...never visited Rome: his papal seat was in Avignon
The nuns of the Confraternity who gave instructions for "Madonna of the Rocks" (p191) must have been unusual, as the Confraternity was all-male
Paris was not founded by the Merovingians, but as Lutetia before the birth of Christ
The Council of Nicaea did not vote on Jesus' divinity - it was already accepted. And the vote they did have was carried with only 2 votes against.
The Dossier Secrets hasn't been authenticated...in fact, the people who forged it have openly admitted this.

MM was not Jesus' wife...there is one reference in the Gospel of Philip, the text is questionable and this is the only place there is any suggestion. Companion does not literally mean spouse - it has also been used to mean business partners, or co-conspirators to a murder. Not that Aramaic scholars should really be commenting on this: the Gospel of Philip was in Greek.
Although decorum may suggest that a Jewish man would typically be married (p330) there were many instances of rabbis who were unmarried.
The claim that in The Last Supper painting John is actually Mary is unfounded: many pictures from that time depict clearly male characters as looking rather feminine.

Did Constantine rewrite the Bible and exclude 80 other gospels? No. Irenaeus wrote in 181 AD ït is mot possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are", other writers similarly.
And the Gnostics would not be emphasising Christ's humanity: they saw the flesh as evil, and would have emphasised Christ as god more.
Look at the four gospels we do have: they emphasis Christ's humanity clearly: hungry, tired, sleeping, not knowing the future etc.

Did early Christians see Jesus as simply a mortal prophet? No.
Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about them. He described them as a sect worshipping Jesus as a god.
And in Pompeii we see a graffiti of a donkey on a cross with someone kneeling, and a caption "Marcus (somebody) worships his god". Maybe (just maybe) Constantine could tinker with every copy of Pliny's letters, but not with the buried evidence of Pompeii (79AD).

Romans 8:3 clearly shows Paul's view...and that's just one verse.

Nick provided a whole page of different quotations from church fathers showing early belief that Christ was god.

As for the "big one", no, Jesus and MM were not married. If he had been, this would surely have been mentioned somewhere in scripture...when Paul was giving examples of married apostles, he wouldn't have missed out this example if it had been available.

That's just a few brief notes. If you want more on any part, I can either amplify it or point you in the right direction for an expert in the field.
[User Picture]
From:lilagrubb
Date:June 7th, 2006 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Mary would certainly have been referred to as "Mary, wife of Jesus" rather than by where she came from if she had been married to him. In that culture, who a woman's husband, or father if she was ummarried, was considered the most important thing about her. So if she was married to the person the Gospels were all about, it would certainly have been mentioned.
[User Picture]
From:takahe
Date:June 7th, 2006 07:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That was really interesting, thanks for sharing all those points here. Veeeery interesting.
Powered by LiveJournal.com