"Jesus, Mary Magdalen, & DaVinci"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

ABC-TV is promoting a blasphemous "documentary" titled, Jesus, Mary Magdalen and Da Vinci. It is scheduled to air Monday evening, 8 PM, EST, November 3, 2003. In this attack on the human perfection of Jesus Christ, Who has two natures, one Divine and the other human, but only one Personhood, a Divine Person, the network that is in the forefront of every conceivable impurity spawned by the homosexual activists within the media, especially at ABC-Disney, suggests that Our Lord and Savior may have been married to St. Mary Magdalen.

Part of the hypothesis is supposedly proven by Leonardo Da Vinci's image of the Last Supper. To bolster this incredible claim and mortal sin against the Holy Ghost, ABC asks the dissenting priest and heretic, Richard McBrien, if this is possible, and he of course answers yes. No more need be said.

Even if ABC were to conclude in the negative, the suggestion of this possibility alone is so blasphemous in of itself as to defy human reasoning, let alone the grace of God. Please contact ABC:

Mailing Address: ABC, Inc. 500 S. Buena Vista Street Burbank, CA 91521-4551

Phone number: (818) 460-7477

E-Mail:

netaudr@abc.com

An Act of Reparation and Consecration to the Sacred Heart

O Most Merciful Heart of Jesus, Divine Mercy-seat, for Whose sake the Eternal Father has promised that He would always hear our prayers!

I unite myself to Thee in offering to Thine Eternal Father this poor and needy heart of mine, contrite and humbled in His Divine presence, and desirous of making complete reparation for the offenses that are committed against Him, especially those which Thou dost continually suffer in the Holy Eucharist, and more particularly those which I myself have unhappily so often committed. Would that I could wash them away with my tears, O Sacred Heart of Jesus, and blot out with my own heart's blood the ingratitude wherewith we have repaid Thy tender love. I unite my sorrow, slight as it is, with the mortal agony which caused Thy sweat to become as drops of blood in the Garden of Olives at the very thought of our sins. Do Thou offer it, dear Lord, to Thine Eternal Father in union with Thy Sacred Heart. Render Him infinite thanks for the manifold blessings which He constantly showers upon us, and let Thy love supply for our want of thankfulness and remembrance. Grant me the grace always to present myself in a spirit of deepest reverence before the face of Thy Divine Majesty, in order thus to repair in some measure the irreverences and outrages which I have dared to commit before Thee; grant also, that from this day forth, I may devote myself with all my might to drawing, both by word and example, many souls to know Thee and to experience the riches of Thy Heart. From this moment I offer and dedicate myself wholly to propagating the honor due to Thy most sweet Sacred Heart.

I choose It as the object of all my affection, and desires, and from this hour forevermore I set up in It my perpetual abode, thanking, adoring and loving It with all my heart, inasmuch as It is the Heart of my Jesus, Who is worthy to be loved, the Heart of my King and sovereign Lord, the Bridegroom of my soul, my Shepherd and Master, my truest Friend, my loving Father, my sure Guide, my unfailing protection and my everlasting blessedness.

Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 03, 2003

Answers

Careful. Though the theory that Mary Magdalene married Jesus is old, and been aroudn a whole, the statement tha asks who will beelve this is dangerous.

Repeared often enough, a statement becomes a popular myth accepted as truth. Durther the media is a large componant in shaping society.

Just a warning.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 03, 2003.


Shows and productions such as ABC's and the Oliver Stone fallacy of a movie work only to bring Christians together more strongly in their faith.

I will watch the show with a smile on my face.

-- Mike Kirsch (mikeykirsch@attbi.com), November 03, 2003.


I read in the New York Times is that there is only one Catholic Scholar on the discussion panel or whatever it is. And this guy is some weirdo at Notre Dame that is no longer faithful to Catholic doctrine. They also said that the producers said that the reason for this was because the Catholic view had been expressed by the Protestants.

Here is the address.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/arts/television/03HEFF.html?th

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), November 04, 2003.


I watched it.

Things I thought were too farfetched:

The whole marriage, child, holy grail thing. The "V" in the painting being a symbol.

Things I thought were possibly plausible:

Woman in the painting. If that is not a woman, he is entirely too "chummy" in that pose.... Now who that woman is--well, it could be almost any of the women, like another Mary, or Martha, or....? That Mary Magdalene, even if she wasn't an apostle, probably did enough in her way to teach and spread the Word so as to pave the way for women in the Church to even become priests someday.

Just my opinions, of course. ;-)

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 04, 2003.


I watched the show and though some of it sounded as if it could have been possible, some things did seem farfetched. On the same token, many of the happenings in the Bible seem farfetched, but we still believe. Is there anything wrong with hearing others opinions, then researching it yourself and forming your own opinion? To me, the show was actually thought provoking- definitely not saying I believe- but I try to keep an open mind on matters, even as it pertains to religion. ABC had every right to air the show. They did not come to a final "conclusion" or opinion on the subject and they did not encourage people to believe, they just put the thought out there. Whatever the case is, none of us will really know until the very END. I will not be angry at ABC or anyone else who poses questions about Christianity, Jesus, or the Bible. That is how we all learn, asking questions, seeking knowlege, etc. Nor will I judge others who decide to believe the things brought up in the show or other references like the Divinci Code. That is thier choice and their belief- and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs. I will not make claims that they will go to Hell or that their souls will not be saved. That is not our call. It is the Lord's. All I know at the end of the day is that I love The Lord, and my soul is safe with Him. May God Bless us and keep us...

-- natasha (ndegans@aol.com), November 04, 2003.


I was reading more about Mary Magdalene because I found out about the Da Vinci Code from one of my office friends. I think that's pretty facinating actually. Many say that she wasn't a prostitute and that she was Jesus's wife. I don't see why there is such a big controversy about the fact that Jesus was married. According to the Jewish customs, a Rabbi should have been married. Jesus was a Jew and I think a lot of people forget about that. He followed and obeyed the laws and Jewish customs. I also believe that there was a great significance that he showed up first to Mary Magdalene after his death. None of the words in the Bible were written without purpose and the order of practically all events are important and have a greater meaning to it than meets the eye. I'm going to look into that and see if I can find anything about why he didn't want to be touched. And plus. Why would she want to come and hug him if he wasn't close to her? Wasn't it a bad thing for a woman to touch a man that wasn't her husband? Or maybe I'm thinking about a different culture.

The Da Vinci code is definitely stirring things up. It's almost like someone is telling the world that it's round, not flat. I'm not supporting the Da Vinci code and telling people it's completely right. I'm just saying it shouldn't be looked down upon or ridiculed. It's an idea people don't like to hear because it's different. Not only that, I think it shows how human he was. He was both God and man at the same time.

Why is it such a big deal that Jesus was married? Is it because sex is supposed to be a sin? In my honest opinion, sex is not suppose to be a bad thing. I think what it's suppose to do is share their love emotionally as well as physically. It becomes a sin when it is out of wedlock or when it is abused, such as adultery, prostitution, homosexuality and rape. Sex shows how much people love each other and how much they are committed to one another. Without having sex with the opposite sex (sorry, no pun intended), none of us would be here right now. I don't know about you, but my dad or mom didn't chop a finger off and then I grew from a petri dish. I was born because they shared their marriage bed. Maybe later in the years, biotechology and microbiology can make a human grow by mixing two fingers in a petri dish. But I honestly think that they would be lacking many important traits that science would never be able to explain or recreate. Okay, that was way off the subject. What I was getting at is sex is a necessity for life to be created. Why would something like that be a sin? Abuse of anything good can become bad... which is why I think sex is portrayed so negatively.

It always amazed me on how much emphasis was on people being married in the bible, yet Jesus wasn't married. How can he preach and tell people what to do if he hasn't experienced marriage himself? Also, if he didn't walk the walk, how could he talk the talk. I honestly think Jesus was probably tempted by adultery through some other means, but he didn't succumb to it.

Many people think Da Vinci was a nut. He was a man with crazy ideas. But you can say the same thing to many others, like Issac Newton, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell (even if he didn't invent the telephone, he still had some crazy ideas), and Christopher Columbus. I think people who have offbeat ideas are the ones with revolutionary movements. The renaissance wasn't just about art and literature, but about people's change in ideas and outlook upon life.

Christianity itself was brought out by a miracle and an offbeat situation. The resurrection of Christ. I know more than enough people who think that is a crazy idea and haven't hesitated to tell me so. Well, it's one of the basis of Christianity. Actually, it's what separates any religion from Christianity is the birth and death of Jesus Christ who came to die for our sinful nature.

I believe Jesus Christ came and died for my sins. Hard to swallow for some because it's new and different. So, why is it so hard to believe that a human being like Jesus was married? I'll never know. And personally, in my book, Jesus is still my savior and Lord.... married or unmarried. He was pure. A man without sin who came to this world to take mine away. That's the most important message that the bible brings to us and we shouldn't forget that. The message we should be sharing to others is that Christ is alive... not about if he was married or not.



-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 04, 2003.


Of all people, Sean Hannity (radio guy) put it the best yesterday....Our Lord was infinitely perfect and virtuous, and was above "all that." God gave us the pleasure of marital relations to fulfil our concuspicence (sp?) which came as a result of Original Sin. Our Lord didn't have those desires, urges and weaknesses which were a result of Original Sin. Yes, it makes one wonder how we would reproduce if it weren't for Original Sin...probably the same way, but it probably wouldn't be such a big deal..

-- Christina (introibo2000@nospam.com), November 04, 2003.

Can anyone answer why it was so bad he was married? He was a Jewish Rabbi... wasn't he suppose to be married?

And in the bible it never says sex was the original sin. I'm wondering where you got that from. It may imply the fact that sex shouldn't be abused, but it never says it is a sin. If at all, I think the original sin is deception and lying. (starting from the Serpent who tempted Eve). And plus didn't God create woman so that man wouldn't be alone? Everything else had a match, why wouldn't Adam the first man?

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 05, 2003.


Can anyone answer why it was so bad he was married? He was a Jewish Rabbi... wasn't he suppose to be married?

And in the bible it never says sex was the original sin. I'm wondering where you got that from. It may imply the fact that sex shouldn't be abused, but it never says it is a sin. If at all, I think the original sin is deception and lying. (starting from the Serpent who tempted Eve). I honestly think if it were a sin, it would have been on the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not have sex. It wouldn't have needed to specify that commiting adultry was a sin if sex itself was a sin.

So why would it be so ungodly for Jesus to have been married and have a child? I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or make it sound like I'm demeaning what you believe in. I just really want to know, in bibically sound proof, why it is so bad for Jesus to have been married with Mary Magdelene and have a child. (considering that Mary Magdelene wasn't a prostitute).

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 05, 2003.


It was miraculous that God chose a human being, one of His creatures, to be His mother. The ramifications of His also choosing a human being to be His wife are really unthinkable. Mrs. God?? Jesus was both human and divine because one of His parents was human and the other divine. If Jesus married and had children - which He was surely capable of as a man - the nature(s) of those children would be an ongoing major issue in Christian theology. Would they have a divine nature? Would they be fully human and fully divine, like their Dad? Would they be 1/2 God and 1/2 human? Or 1/4 God and 3/4 human? Would they be the offspring of their father - or only of one of their father's two natures? How could anyone be the offspring of part of his father? Then again, how could anyone have a divine nature without being eternal? It boggles the mind - or rather, it would if it was worth thinking about. Fortunately it isn't, since it didn't happen.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2003.


We know Christ was pure and celibate. Not because marriage is impure, far from it. Jesus had a mission to accomplish in the years appointed to Him. He knew the hour of His coming death. He was young, yet had no time in the short lifetime decreed for Him by the Father, for raising a family.

He never even had a place of His own where He could lay His head down!

All that is beside the point. If Our Lord had actually taken a wife, and whether or not that wife be one of His followers, --the truth would have been known. Peter and the apostles would have clearly stated it to their followers. It was nothing to be ashamed of. Yet, nobody declared it so.

If Jesus and Mary Magdalene had had some private affair; to be left out of the gospels; as this dirty novel suggests:

He would have been a sinner. His mission would have been meaningless; He could not have been the Son of God at all and we would have no Gospel ! And, that's what this blasphemous story tells you. He was just fooling the people. The greatest cause to denounce it absolutely!

By the way; Hannity is wrong. In the sense that Christ didn't have male feelings or urges; or that He was above that. Jesus was every bit as male as the others. He was made a man like all men in every way but sin, (Heb 4 :15).

This points to the simple fact that the sex drive isn't sinful in the least. But it must be controlled, and we know Christ controlled Himself. He was a man of prayer. Jesus was holy; He was very disciplined. He was pure of heart; and He loved without any trace of selfishness. If Hannity were correct, our Jesus was emasculated or withdrawn. What a poor evaluation of the Son of God! How could that kind of personality have steeled itself to the inevitable way of the Cross? Never /

His manliness is without question, and yet He remained holy and sinless. On the way to Calvary Jesus stumbled and fell to the ground three times. He was lifted up bodily, and continued upwards without self-pity or anger at His tormentors. He had courage to spare.

We know and we'll say it; to those who rave about the vile story they call Duh - Da Vinci Code. When Jesus Christ is ready; He will return in great majesty and power. He will be King and Judge of all the living and the dead. Only then will these blasphemers realise how stupid they've been. His time will come.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 05, 2003.


Chrisis Magazine had a good article on why this fiction is, well, fiction and an assult on the Catholic faith by people with a lot of agendas including New Age theology and goddess worship. This story is based upon the book 'The Da Vinci Code', and then they took even more license with the 'story'.

See: http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.


Oh my goodness, of course sex wasn't the Original Sin, and I in no way implied that. What I was saying was that as a result of original sin, man is in a weakened state. He has strong desires for things that make him feel good - eating food just because it tastes good, etc, the sexual urge, etc.. This is called concupiscence. Look it up in the dictionary. These urges need to be curbed and restrained to a certain extent. I don't believe Our Lord had these needs or desires, being in a perfect state (being God). (now don't come back and say He didn't eat, because obviously physically he needed to eat!)

-- Christina (introibo2000@noapam.com), November 05, 2003.

Okay, so say that Jesus didn't have a child. Why would it be wrong of him to be married? He was a Jewish Rabbi afterall.

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 06, 2003.

I didn't mean to make it seem like I was attacking your view, Christina. And by the way you wrote it, it seemed like you were implying it was the original sin. and yes, I do use the dictionary.

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 06, 2003.


Jesus was the Son of God. Being a ''Rabbi'' is some considerable level lower. Nevertheless, to answer this question: --Why would it be wrong of him to be married?

Nobody says it would be wrong. It would be wriong to keep it a secret, however. It would have been misleading if the gospels had shown Christ to be celibate while yet having a wife.

The gospels, as you know are the Word of God. God doesn't keep the truth concealed from His faithful. We would have known for sure, if Christ had been married.

Instead, we know for sure He wasn't. And we also see in the same gospels, no one called Mary Magdalene the wife of Jesus, nor an apostle called by Him. He called twelve men; only men, and only twelve.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 06, 2003.


What do you mean by being a "Rabbi" would be considered lower level? Wasn't Jesus a son of a carpenter as well? Once you believe Jesus Christ is the savior, don't we become a child of God? I'm curious in why people think it's wrong for him to have been married.

Throughout the Bible, there are times when they didn't include the women when they counted people... what makes you think they didn't do it now? And I never said that Mary Magdelene was an Apostle. Someone above mentioned that she might have been a saint... and that confused me. I'm still trying to look into that.

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 06, 2003.


Religion is based on faith. Man writes the religious text. Which includes mans interpretations, agendas and perceptions. There is no physical evidence of most biblical stories. Although some may be true, one has to question how factual they are. Critical and analytical thinking forces us to question text written by man about God. There is no harm in questioning thing. I paraphrase, “ God helps those that help themselves”. This is very powerful, meaning man can help himself. Of course that is my interpretation!!

FGA

-- F.G. Advinci (cdfilm@aol.com), November 07, 2003.


Dear Ives:
If the thought of Jesus being the Rabbi holds more fascination for you than being the only-begotten Son of God, then no wonder you care so badly whether He married or not / Just because Rabbis marry is no charge to bring against the Son of God. And, for the last time, let's get something understood; nobody said it would have been wrong. But it would be very wrong to insist that just because Jesus was Jewish and a Rabbi, He must have been married. We have all the facts.

If you believe the culture of His day didn't hold women in honor you're just mistaken. God Himself, Yahweh, governed the status of each person and of both sexes in Israel. He commanded what we see in the Old Testament. Israel was a true theocracy. God was supreme, and His prophets didn't make laws, they just received them from Yahweh and announced them to His people. Women occupied the place God gave to them, not a place assigned by men. Women understood this, and their status gave glory to God. If you doubt this, you can't be a true believer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 07, 2003.


I know what I believe in and that doesn't need to come into question. What I believe is that if Jesus was married or had a child does not make him any less of a God or any less of a human being. To me, I feel as though it completes his life. I'm just wondering why people think it was so bad for him to be married or to have had a child. That's why it fascinates me. I'm just curious to why that is so bad for him to have a family... just like the bible says we all should. And didn't he teach us that we shouldn't preach what we don't know? How would he be able to talk about the bond between a husband and wife if he didn't experience it also? And yes, I know he's God... but there was a reason why he came down to experience all of this... I think it's because he wanted to show us that it could be done. Just because he had a child doesn't make the child half man and half God and it doesn't make any of us less connected to God than we are through Jesus Christ.

I never said that God didn't honor women. What I meant is that they didn't count them when they counted people in large groups (literally). They only counted the men. If women weren't honored or blessed not even Jesus would have been here.

Call me an inexperienced and naive in biblical theology...It's true... or else I wouldn't be trying to find out all of this through the internet, books, pastors and my family. I am trying to make sense of things of why some people make such big deals about sex, homosexuality, adultery and things like that when lying, stealing and cheating are sins too, but people tend to go right ahead and do them in everyday life. A Sin is a Sin... I just don't see why it would be such a sin for God to be married and have children. That is, IF he was. Jesus was Sinless and blameless when he was on earth as a human being, I don't doubt that. I'm just wondering why it would be so bad for him to have been married and had a child. I know I won't have all the answers and I believe I'm not suppose to, but that doesn't stop me from searching. I thought someone might be able to help me on my journey.

One more thing. I honestly don't think you have the right question my faith. I may say some outlandish things, but that doesn't make me love God or Jesus less. I have come a long way from the person that I used to be, but I also have a lot more room to grow. And God loves me just the way I am, was and will be. I don't question that. I know God came here to save me from my sins and he resurrected from the grave in three days and will come back for the second coming. I am a sinner... but that doesn't make me any less of God's child because I believe in Jesus Christ and no sin is too small for him to cleanse when I ask for forgiveness. Whether he was married or had a child, he's still the Son of God, He was Jewish and he was a Rabbi. It says so in the bible directly. However, the most important thing that I shouldn't forget to mention is that he's my savior.

I never tried to pretend that I was some big shot theologian... and I don't think that should matter. I came on to this site searching for answers to my questions and to discuss them. I didn't come here to be judged by other christians about my faith. And to be honest, I feel that a person who can say you are not a true believer to someone without knowning them fully is someone that doesn't fully know the Grace of God.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings while I was writing this. I tried to use tact, but it prevented me from telling you how I honestly felt and I feel that it is terribly wrong to make someone feel like they don't deserve to be a Christian because they don't know theology. You may not have thought that, but that's the way I took it. To be a Christian is to accept Jesus into your life and have him as your guiding light on how to live a righteous life. Christianity isn't about how you can save yourself but how God saves others through you.

I don't know who you are... but I know God does. May God bless you and have mercy on you. I apologize if I stepped on a few of your toes, but you stepped on my heart... I thought I should let you know so you won't do it to someone else who didn't believe in Jesus Christ. Because, I think that would have been a turn off for people who are searching Him and testing the waters to believe.

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 12, 2003.


Ives: --How is it you continue arguing, ''I just don't see why it would be such a sin for God to be married and have children. That is, IF he was. Jesus was Sinless and blameless when he was on earth as a human being, I don't doubt that. I'm just wondering why it would be so bad for him to have been married and had a child.''-- ?

Did we say it was bad; or a sin? Never! If it were the truth, it would be good! But it can't be the truth simply because you think it would've been terrific!

I feel I would have been a terrific opera singer. But I'm NOT. People can wonder why ? ? ? Why would that BE ??? --so bad; --Gene the opera singer?

It isn't any way to give me the voice of an opera singer. Has NOTHING to do with anything BAD about singing in the opera! Understand what I'm saying?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.


Incest is a sin.

A father having sex with his child is wrong. I'm surprised this wasn't brought up.

-- Jacob Rainey (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.


interesting. can anyone explain?

-- Ives (itsallgood@idontlikespameither.com), November 17, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ