Did da Vinci paint Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper?
Written by Darren Hewer
In The Da Vinci Code Brown treats the figure in the painting as being undoubtedly Mary Magdalene, but what evidence does he have to back that up? Take another look at The Last Supper in the Art of The Da Vinci Code gallery.
In the book Dan Brown writes:
Sophie examined the figure to Jesus’ immediate right … a wave of astonishment rose within her. The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt… female.
“That’s a woman!” Sophie exclaimed.
Teabing was laughing. “Surprise, surprise. Believe me, it’s no mistake. Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.” (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code)
The person sitting on Jesus’ right (the figure to the left of him in the painting)
does have some feminine-looking features and may appear feminine but there is more evidence that it is a man, not a woman.
Evidence that the figure is not a woman:
- Da Vinci often drew androgynous looking men (men with feminine qualities); for example, see his painting of John the Baptist.
- It was common convention at that time to paint John the disciple with feminine qualities
- It makes sense to have John (called ?the beloved disciple? or ?the one that Jesus loved?) sitting to Jesus’ right.
- The person to Jesus’ right seems to be wearing men’s style clothing
- Surely when the picture was first painted, someone would have noticed it was a woman if indeed it was intended to be a woman. After all it is ?among the most famous paintings in the world?; it seems unlikely that this would just be coming to light now.
- The painting is meant to capture the moment when Jesus tells His disciples He will be betrayed, so all the disciples should be there. But if that is a woman in the painting, then one of the disciples is missing. Remember that at the time of the last supper, Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus so all twelve disciples would have been present.
- Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that’s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred
Sophie was pretty quick to identify the person in the painting as a woman, but what do you think? Looking at the painting is that a man or a woman? Do first impressions sometimes need correction? Is the evidence as obvious as Brown would have us believe?
Connecting Through Technology
so once again I say how can someone remember something exactly that was said at least 30 years before?
Chris (England) I certainly could not state that I could remember but then again I can’t remember what I had for lunch..hahah FYI: Earlier you asked about Jesus having ever written anything down…I have a copy of a book entilted “The Jesus Papers” authored by Michael Baigent…now before anyone takes the time to comment about this book let me say I have not had a chance to read it and therefore am in no place to critique it. As certain as I am typing this I know full well there will be those of you shaking your heads as to the accuracy of this book. Suffice it to say I read almost everything that interests me and some that lets me form opinions that may run contrary to my belief system. Some may view that as fool hardy. But if I had to choose to read or never turn a page I would pick the former.
The Catholic Church held to the prevailing theological (and thus scientific) opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe. For some, the key issue of this controversy was not the objective correctness of the theories being debated, but rather the morality of institutions (or persons) to shape the acceptance of scientific knowledge. For others, it reflects a time where science had not fully separated from its theological and philosophical roots.
Ah, this is emmzee. I seem to be having problems accessing the site at the moment … maybe 350 comments is too much for it to handle? :o
Anywho … Chris, with regards to the 30 years. We don’t have any direct biblical evidence that Jesus wrote things down Himself. The closest we have is John 8:1-11 where Jesus “Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger”. Nevertheless, there are several other things to consider here.
First, Jesus did not often carry on one-on-one conversations during His teaching. Most teaching was done in public (the “crowds”) or to the twelve disciples. The chances of one person remembering correctly would not be too great, but the chances of several people collectively remembering would be much better. Also, it’s reasonable to think that the disciples would have written their own notes, though we have no proof of that.
Moreover, it’s important to remember, again (and I hate to always bring up this point but it’s really important) that the early first century was mainly an oral culture. Most people didn’t read or write, so most communication was done orally. Thus, memorization was much more important then than it is today. Rabbis would memorize entire books of scripture and recite them verbaitm. Such feats of memorization are quite possible; I once heard a person recite the entire Gospel of Luke from memory, that’s 1151 verses! (Okay, he took a break in the middle :)) People in the 1st century (especially Jews, who had for centuries accurately preserved the Old Testament) would have been trained from an early age to have good memories out of necessity.
Finally, don’t forget that, as per my earlier post, the difference between the earliest NT document is really closer to 15 years, not 30, and one of Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians) contains an early creed dated to 5-7 years which includes Jesus’ death & resurrection.
So, we have:
- Many, many people heard Jesus speak, so they could cross-check what they remembered
- 1st century people often had astoundingly good memories
- It’s likely that the disciples would’ve written certain things down
- The earliest New Testament documents were written about 15 years after Jesus’ death and contain even older information (such as the creed found in Paul’s letter, which is not the only such creed)
And, although I know it may seem inplausible to non-Christians, if Jesus was God as He claimed then He inspired the New Testament authors to write accurately.
Tova, with regards to the ‘Jesus Papers’, I won’t say a thing about it. (*thinks to self* “Good thing no one can see me rolling my eyes” ^_^) Just want to point out another one of my articles on this blog:
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/16/what-if-another-view-of-george-washington-came-to-light/
I think it applies to the ‘Jesus Papers’. :)
There are only six popes that can be reasonably described as evil? Oh, thank God! I was afraid there were seven or maybe ten or twenty. (Rolling eyes) While there were good and honorable popes, the history of the church is filled with so many examples of everything to which Jesus was opposed that it is depressing to even consider it.
That one church of which you speak, Gary, is certainly the Catholic church and unless there is another inquisition, that isn?t going to happen. The church isn?t impeccable ? it is far, far from it. A review of my posts give examples and there are many more. Once the decision was made to find another path to a community faith experience, it was like walking upright in the sunshine. I, and many others, who have called ourselves Catholics, would have to see, at minimum, some acknowledgement and then remorse for the abuse of power. I seldom see that in my Catholic sisters and brothers. Is the resident of the vatican the only source for interpretation of scriptures? The church did hold that the earth was unmovable because of that interpretation. Whether Galileo was threatned torture for that belief or for being a ?jerk,? is a side issue. Further, the teachings of Jesus do not allow for torture of those who have the audacity to disagree whether it is for the layout of the universe or for being a jerk.
The defenses I hear in this blog gnaw at the periphery of the issues and often don?t address them. That is, perhaps, one of the reasons that I find comfort in my decision. I see a shell game that ignores the question and finds me scurrying to explain or apologize for the minutiae of my argument while the issue goes unaddressed.
While we have drifted from the main point of this blog and I apologize for my part in that, I return once again to the question of who is sitting by Jesus in Leonardo?s painting. I often return to my copy of the painting, probably 100 years old, untouched by the current controversy, and am constantly amazed that I haven?t seen the feminine qualities of this person. Yes, I know that John was often portrayed with feminine features, but it always renews for me that mystery of the early days of Christianity. And yes, for me, it is a mystery. However, I am content to focus on a God who I know loves me, and the sacrifice made for me. I am content to know that Jesus, who walked the countryside of Israel in the company of 12 Jewish disciples, provided salvation for me and ultimately opened up that faith and discipleship to all women and men of creation.
The mysteries, rather than being a stumbling block, provide for me a diversion and do not compromise my faith. In due course, I will know the answers.
Ok emmzee but of all these people( or as you put it ” crowds ” )why are there only 4 gospels. Surely there must be hundreds maybe thousands more who took notes so to say. Only 4 got in the book. Why?
I don’t doubt that there were others who wrote down what Jesus said and did. Luke gives us a clue regarding this issue at the beginning of his gospel, where he says:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us … Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you … so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
So clearly “many” others had written things down. Whether “many” means a dozen or a hundred, we don’t know, but we can say that, again, because most of the population was not literate (especially the “poor” to whom Jesus often directed His ministry), that many would have heard and remembered but not many would be able to write down. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that most of those who wrote things down may have written down only a saying or two. These snippets would be useful to be collected and compared, but not useful by themselves.
The four gospels we have were included and other writings were not because the four gospels were, and still are, considered the best sources. They are the earliest documents we have and they were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or those who consulted directly with eyewitnesses (Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul and likely the other disciples); but as Luke points out he was at least aware that others had written down things about Jesus, although perhaps not in an organized form. That Luke referenced writings from other eyewitnesses (not to mention oral traditions) in writing his “orderly account” gives it more credibility, and explains why it was included and other documents weren’t. Why not include them all? John suggests in his gospel (with more than a little classic 1st century hyperbole (exaggeration)) that “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” The purpose of the gospel writings were to deliver the gospel message, not to record everything that Jesus ever said and did.
This may lead us to wonder why we need four gospels? Wouldn’t one have been enough?
The gospels were written for different audiences. The Gospel of Matthew was written in particular to 1st century Jews. We can see this focus in, for example, how often Matthew quotes the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), and the fact that he begins with the genealogy (family history) of Jesus (not interesting to us, but early Jews would have been very interested in it). Luke on the other hand wrote primarily for gentiles (non-Jews). Having four also provides an ingenious way of verification: Although they share some material in common (it is likely Matthew and Luke incorporated parts of Mark’s gospel in theirs) the fact that four independently composed gospels (composed by different people independently at different times and places) cohere so well (and with the other books of the NT like Paul’s and Peter’s letters) adds another authenticity check that the NT passes.
Chris in England…the reason there are only 4, as you said, is because they were hand picked. Many others were culled out that did not suite the church’s dogma.
Emmzee..I am so jealous….haha…how are you able to send smiley faces and such on your texts…Good Sabbath to all
Condisdered the best accounts by whom?
Oops Typo- considered#
Chris in England….have you read holy blood holy graile?
Tova, no need for smiley envy :D Do them like this (except without the spaces):
: ) = :)
: D = :D
:( = :(
There’s a full list available here:
http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies#What_Text_Do_I_Type_to_Make_Smileys.3F
Chris, as to who considered them the ‘best’ accounts: The first century church did. The four gospels were the ones used by the early chuch and the ones that were often quoted by the church fathers. They are the only ones that we have good evidence both existed in the 1st century and were used and accepted as authentic by the earliest Christians (ie the ones that actually saw Jesus).
(Tangent): It seems ridiculous to me that people would, now, hundreds of years later, say “Oh, those people who actually saw Jesus and lived in the first century? We know better than them. Verily, let us now choose our own gospels that we think are best based on whatever criteria we feel like.” but that’s exactly what some people try to do. It also seems strange that people are so quick to dismiss the biblical texts (for which we have excellent historical and textual evidence) and so readily accept stuff like the Gospel of Philip, for which we have no such evidence and know that it was composed at a much later date. (/end tangent)
But it wasn’t just the early church and church fathers (early prominent Christian leaders) that considered the four gospels authorative. I noticed something a few nights ago when I was reading about some of the later non-biblical writings. (Do I have too much free time? Hmmm, you decide :D) What I noticed was that almost without exception these later inauthentic documents borrowed heavily from, yes you guessed it, the four biblical gospels and other New Testament books. For example (FWIW, epistle=letter, beside each is when the book was composed):
- “Gospel of Thomas” (approx 140AD) – borrows from Matthew, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, also Luke and some small parts of John
- “Gospel of Philip” (180AD or later) – borrows from Matthew and John, also quotes directly from 1 John, 1 Peter, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Philipians
- “Epistle of the Apostles” (180AD) – numerous quotes or allusions to all four Gospels as well as other New Testament books
- “Epistle to the Laodiceans” (late 200’s AD) – composed almost entirely from quotes from Paul’s NT letters, particularly Philippians
- “Gospel of Truth” (140-180AD) – made use of the Gospels of Matthew and John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation
(Info is from “The Canon of the New Testament” by Bruce Metzger)
And so on. The fact that so many of these later writings tried to give themselves legitimacy by quoting the biblical gospels and other NT books is yet another piece of evidence of their widespread acceptance and use by the early church.
Regarding the ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’ … read it if you want, but it was long ago proved to be a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion#The_Actual_Priory
Extensive details on the hoax are available at http://www.priory-of-sion.com
HBHG was, BTW, the basis for the ‘factual’ info in The Da Vinci Code. :D
re: remembering what was written 30 years before
Chris, two thousand years ago things were greatly different. First, writing was very uncommon. Paper didn’t exist yet, at least not in that part of the world. Writing was done on papyrus which was very hard to come by and extremely bulky. The other option was parchment made from sheep skin and I’m not entirely positive that it was in use at the time. People relied on their memories a lot more than they do now.
Although I believe that the authors of the gospels were writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit and therefore could not make an error, let’s assume for a moment that one of them did. These documents were widely circulated among the local churches and eventually would have been heard by one or more eyewitnesses who would have spoken up.
Besides the details of the life of Jesus, the gospels also contain historical facts about politics and history. Who ruled when, that sort of information. This information was also passed on orally for the same thirty year period but not one error has ever been found in the contextual details of the gospels. In fact discovery after discovery has supported the historical accuracy of the gospels.
emzee…thanks for the tutorial on the smileys :]
Tova, just started reading it. I am still not convinced about this Jesus man. Yes I do believe he existed as it has been proven to a certain extent but could he not be put on the same level as one of our modern day illusionists. If he was the son of man what did he achieve? In my eyes only pain and suffering in this world, wars, etc etc. Is God a dictator? In other words ” Believe or you wont go to heaven ” sounds like a form of blackmail to me.
I’m sorry if I offend anyone but I live in reality and need to see proof not to just read a book and accept it as the truth. People keep saying the church chose this and that. Who chose the church? Who said they can say what is right and what is wrong.
Phew said my bit now lol
Chris, while I can only speak for myself, I would be very surprised if your posts here offended anyone. You have valid questions, the same ones that I had when I was younger.
Maybe it would help if you could tell us what kind of evidence you are looking for. There’s all kinds of evidence to show, as much as anything of a historical nature can be proved, that Jesus was exactly what Christians say He is.
Somebody said the early church chose what goes in the bible. Who chose the early church. If Jesus was here to carry all our sins, why is it stll happening. To me it looks like he was sent to do a job and failed. I have so many questions on the subject!
re: who chose the choosers
My answer to this is going to be different than that of the Protestants here. I believe that, when Jesus established the Church (Matt 16:18), He put Peter at its head. Now obviously Jesus is the head of the Church so I mean earthly head of the Church. The apostles became the first bishops. (The pope is actually a bishop but he has specific authorities over the others.) This means that Judas Iscariot was one of the first bishops and that is particularly important after he dies when the others decide on a replacement for him. The line of bishops as to continue.
It is not quite correct to say that the early Church chose what went into the Bible. For several hundred years there was some debate over which books were inspired and which were not. Finally, at the end of the 4th century, some bishops got together and decided on which books should be in the Bible and which were not. However, the decision was not made binding on all believers. This didn’t happen for more than a thousand years.
re: Jesus and sin
Jesus didn’t come to stop us from sinning; He came so that our sins could be dealt with. God wants us to be able to love Him by our own choice (free will). Sinning, is a rejection of God. If we can’t sin, we are nothing more than robots and our love means nothing because it doesn’t spring from our hearts. HTH.
I agree with most of what Gary has said above. When I said that “the early church” chose the canon, what I meant was the books that were used most often by the early church (ie that the earliest Christians considered accurate and authoritative) are the ones that came to be accepted into the New Testament. Bruce Metzger comments re the canon that “It was, if I may put it this way, an example of ’survival fo the fittest’ … ‘The most traveled roads in Europe are the best roads; that’s why they’re so heavily traveled.’ That’s a good analogy.”
Questions about the books that should or should not be included largely started with a guy named Marcion around 144AD. He had some strange new ideas about Christianity (such as venerating Paul’s letters above the gospels, including only Luke not Mark Matthew or John in his “official” list of writings, and even editing Luke’s gospel to fit his preconceptions). To guard against such deceptions, more earnest discussion began about which books should be considered the authorative ones. Previous to this, there wasn’t much concern about collecting a definitive set of texts. (This lack of concern itself indicates that there was a general concensus regarding the authorative texts.) It was only this new threat to historic Christianity that caused people to want to collect a definitive set. There was a high degree of unanimity even then about which books should be included. The fact that official pronouncements occurred many years later only confirmed what was already being “unofficially” done.
Gary is correct re Jesus and sin. Jesus came not to eliminate sin, but to atone for sin. Even if other religions claim they offer salvation by grace (faith) alone, the fact remains that only Jesus’ death and resurrection provides the foundation for God’s grace.
I hope you guys don’t mind me asking so many questions
We don’t mind. :) I asked a lot of the same questions myself before I became Christian. ‘course I didn’t have this blog to help me out :D
Actually, Gary asked an interesting question a few posts up … what kind of evidence are you looking for? Or to put it another way, what would it take for you personally to come to faith?
Well to be perfectly honest with you all, I really would like to see some kind of physical evidence not just something that is in print. The thing that bothers me is that The bible ( New Testament ) is a biography and so I believe that things may be added that didn’t happen and things may be left out that did happen. After all, the guy this book is about wasn’t or isn’t around to verify it all. Hope that makes sense!
re: physical evidence of Jesus
I’ve been thinking a lot about this one today and, to be honest, I don’t know what kind of physical evidence there could be.
Obviously, we don’t have a corpse. Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven 40 days after He rose from the dead. While I don’t believe that every piece of wood which is claimed to be a piece of the true cross really is one, it’s not unlikely that some of them are what they claim. (The idea that there are a so many pieces of wood which people claim to be a part of the true cross that, if added together, would form hundreds of crosses is not true. Someone in the mid-19th century gathered all of the relevant data and it turns out that if you assume every claim to be true, we still only have about 1/3rd of the cross.)
I read recently that the Veil of Veronica has been rediscovered. This was a cloth which was offered to Jesus when He was carrying the cross which, when given back to the owner, had an image of Jesus on it. According to what I read, the image exactly matches the image on the Shroud of Turin.
Many of the sites in the gospels have been located in the ancient part of Jerusalem. Some of these are better documented than others.
In my opinion, one of the best evidences is the number of martyrs. Tens of thousands of Christians were put to death for what they believed. The word ‘martyr’ comes from the Greek word meaning ‘witness.’ These people, in other words, were eyewitnesses to the events of the New Testament. Why would they have given up their lives, usually in very painful ways, if they knew these things to be false?
Please don’t expect to find hard evidence about every aspect of Christianity and the life of Jesus. It’s not going to happen. These things happen very long ago. In addition, in His plan for us, God has decided that faith is to play an important part in the decision to follow Jesus. I don’t know why He chose to do it this way but it seems to me that if God was willing to send His only Son to die for us, anything else He does is going to be for our benefit. This doesn’t mean to stop asking question; I ask them all the time.
Chris, I agree with your statement above … at least, taken literally, as it’s written: A biography may have things added that didn’t happen or may have left out things that did. But I don’t agree with the underlying suggestion. It doesn’t logically or necessarily follow that because things may have been added that things were added. Although Jesus wasn’t (phyiscally) around to make sure what was written down is true, thousands of eyewitnesses were around to correct any fraudulent claims.
Since we’re talking about a historical event, the type of evidence that comes to us is predominantly in document form. When we test the reliability of the New Testament, it always stands up to historical testing. For example, we can test what the gospels record about famous people and places, and this is where archeology has validated the reliability of the NT. It is also internally consistent; for example the disciples themselves are portrayed rather poorly (the disciples getting into petty arguments, misunderstanding Jesus, John denies Jesus 3 times, Paul gets into an argument with Barnabas, etc). If they were making stuff up, we wouldn’t expect that they’d include stuff like that in it. Of course, neither of these prove the NT is reliable on their own, but they are evidence for its reliability.
Perhaps another way to approach the issue is to look more indepth at the particular event that is central to Christian faith: Jesus’ resurrection. As Paul states in his letter, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor 15:14). Here’s an analysis of a recent debate (March 2006) between two well known scholars, William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, on the topic of the resurrection:
http://www.skepticalchristian.com/d_craigehrman.htm
This may not be the kind of physical evidence you’re looking for; but as Gary noted, what kind of physical evidence could we hope for from 2,000 years ago? When studying history, we have to look at the historical evidence. Edit: Sorry wanted to add this one last point … we shouldn’t decide the truth of something based on the fact that we don’t like the *type* of evidence permitted. Philosophy has no “physical” evidence, but we decide whether a philosophical statement is valid by examining its logical arguments. In the same way, we have to judge historical claims by looking at the historical basis, and in this case, where we wouldn’t expect to find physical evidence of the … ? I don’t even know what kind ? … the evidence to look at are the documents and the claims made therein.
I’ve tweaked the site to allow everyone to view this article again.
Where has everything gone?
Hey Chris. We’re still here! :) Well … the traffic coming to the blog from the movie hype has pretty much died down by now, but this thread has taken on a life of its own anyways.
Did you have a chance to check out the link to the debate analysis I posted above? The interesting thing about the “four facts” argument is that it isn’t dependent on biblical inerrancy. The four facts Craig discuesses are not disputed by most historical scholars, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. Based on these four undisputed facts, Craig builds what I think is an excellent case for the historical resurrection. The main defense that his debate partner comes up with is that miracles are impossible … or, at least, they shouldn’t be considered when discussing history. But surely if God exists, miracles are possible. And closing ourselves off entirely to the possibility that a miracle could have occurred, when that’s where the evidence leads, is not intellectually honest ….. at least, that’s how I see it :D Here’s that article again:
http://www.skepticalchristian.com/d_craigehrman.htm
Glad to see this blog is back. For several days the page would not open. Yikes! True it has taken on a life of its own but that makes life interesting. While I am here, and I only have a moment, please pray for Isreael. I as well as many of my friends have family and friends who live in Israel. Information from them is trickling out due to blackouts. One of my daughters best friends comes from India. We are waiting to hear from there as well. The stress around my home is high waiting to hear from those we love. Have a great weekend and a good Sabbath.
PS: Gary in England…Here is some reading material that may help you with the search for answers:
THE MYTH OF INNOCENCE- Burton L. Mack
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS- John Riches
THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS- Elaine Pagels
THE RISE OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM- Peter Brown
THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY- John Dominic Crossan
These can be found at the library. Or if you wish to purchase for your home library check out Abebooks.com
It is not yet sunset where I am. Tova — so I wish you also a Good Sabbath, inspite of the bad news from the Near East. I sympathize with you and your daughter over the uncertainty of the situation there. Our overwhelming desire for personal vengeance easily converts into national hubris and we concentrate upon the justice of our own situation, to the detriment of international peace. We can offer prayers for all involved, but especially for those, like you and your daughter, who are hurt from afar by the conflict, through no fault of their own.
Chris — Some questions cannot be answered, not because they are unanswerable but because the usual answers don’t satisfy the questioner’s curiosity in asking a particular question. In spite of that, do not give up on getting an answer that opens a whole new world for you. Eventually,
In the meantime, try to reconcile within yourself the similarities and the differences between ‘faith’ and ‘fact.’ and ‘truth’ and ‘evidence,’ and ‘reality’ and ‘appearance.’
Phew we are back on! I think I may be the cause of this blog going off on a tangent, so please accept my apologies for that but with each and every answer I recieve ( and I thank you all ) another question pops up in my mind. Gary you said ” God sent his one and only son to die for us” My question is, what was the point of that? In my eyes it didn’t achieve anything if it did really happen!
Des Emery…thank you so much for your kind words…Since I do not have your e mail address this is the only forum available for an update on Israel…First there are over 200 teenagers from the Detroit area that are still in Israel. They are unable to come home immediately due to the lack of securing a plane that can bring all the children home as a group. Safed was hit again today knocking all the windows out at the local hospital. My friend Sandy, who resides there, is safe for the moment but fears for her son who is in the service. Please all who read this pray for Israel and all those innocents in harms way. Thank you
Hi Chris,
I hope I can explain this clearly although it will certainly be brief regardless of how long I drone on for. It goes back to the beginnings of human history. When God created mankind He placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and gave them one command: Don’t eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (It wasn’t an apple.) The command was there for one reason, to test Adam and Eve to see if they would choose to follow their Creator’s wishes or not.
Well, we know how that turned out. Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and ate the fruit. This caused a flaw in their nature which theologians call concupiscence which means that we have a tendency to sin. It is part of human nature now. It doesn’t mean that we will always do the wrong thing; it’s just that we are drawn to doing the wrong thing. Sometime we succumb, sometimes we resist. In addition, we all have what is known as original sin. There are only four people (three, if you’re a Protestant) who were not born in this condition: Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary, the Mother of Jesus (the one with whom my Protestant brethren would disagree).
When Adam and Eve sinned, they became separated from God. Their act broke fellowship with God. This situation was not what God had wanted so He promised that He would remedy the situation. This remedy came at quite a cost to Him. Forgiveness of sin requires a sacrifice. However, a sin against an infinite God would require an infinite sacrifice, something we, as mortals, could not do.
Illustration time. You’re driving down the street in your car doing, let’s say 0-15 mph over the limit. You get a ticket and appear before the judge who happens to be your father who happens to know that you have $5.83 to your name. The judge gives you a $100 fine but steps down from the bench and pays the fine for you.
Justice says that there has to be a penalty and that the penalty must be paid. Love and mercy recognize that it is beyond your ability to pay it so your loving Father (God) pays it for you. You didn’t earn it, you don’t deserve it – you’re guilty, after all – but He does it anyway.
Because He loves us and wants to reconcile ourselves to Him, God payed the penalty for our sins by sacrificing the Perfect Lamb of God, His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. When Jesus dies on the cross, He made it possible for us to be reconciled to God. We still have free will so He doesn’t force us to be reconciled but He gives us the option. The blood of Christ pays the penalty for our sins, it does not prevent us from sinning. Our love of God is what prevents us from sinning. Unfortunately, our love of God is not perfect and we sometimes fall (sin). However, there is more good news, if we confess our sin, God, who is still faithful and righteous, will forgive those sins and cleanse us from unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
We’re not finished yet. God’s grace gives us the power to become holier and holier. Since nothing that is imperfect can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27), we need to avail ourselves of this sanctifying grace. Like forgiveness for sin, this is not forced on us. The choice is ours.
If God had not done all of this, we would all burn in Hell for eternity because we have all sinned and that is the fate we deserve. God never intended to force us to stop sinning because He wants us to stop because we love Him. God created us with a free will and He is not going to interfere with that.
I hope this makes things at least a little clearer.
Thanks for the answer Gary. How you put it about the fine, the father and the Judge made things a bit clearer to me. The only problem now is that you have gone in to the Old Testament with the mention of Adam& Eve. Now from what I have seen and heard in some places the New Testament condradicts The Old and that now opens another barrel of worms so to speak lol. For instance, how do we know that the Old Testament is correct?
Hi Chris,
I’m glad I was able to make it a bit clearer for you.
I don’t see any contradictions between the Old and New Testaments so, if you could let us know what you are referring to, we can try to clear things up. Christians see the New Testament as fulfilling and explaining the Old Testament. The Old Testament tells us how we got into the mess we are in and foretells how God is going to help us but we don’t see a lot of things very clearly until they are more fully explained in the New Testament.
For example, the Old Testament emphasizes that there is one God. The ancient Jews lived amid a plethora of polytheistic cultures so this was very important. Yet the word translated as God in the OT is ‘elohim’ which is a plural noun. In addition, in Gen 1 God refers to Himself in the plural (”Let us… our image.” Gen 1:26). There are allusions to the Trinity but not a complete picture.
To be fair, sometimes it is also the other way around. For example, studying Daniel hels us to understand the symbolism of Revelation.
Archaeologists who have studied the area have found that the Bible is a very excellent guide to the history of the area. As we learn more, things that were thought to be contradictions are being reconciled and the Bible wins every time. About two months ago I was watching a documentary on the city of Jericho. In the biblical account Rahab helps the Jewish spies by letting them out of the city through one of her windows. This must mean that her dwelling place was part of the city wall. That just wasn’t done at the time. However, recent excavations at Jericho have shown that this was the case there.
Well the things that confuse me are things like ” an eye for an eye” then it says ” Thou shalt not kill”! Also men with “concubines” ” thou shalt not commit adultery”. Also the age some of these people were supposed to have lived to, I think that is stretching it a bit!
OT and NT all the alleged miracles happened in a short space of time and then suddenly nothing. I guess going back on what sort of proof I need is the old cliche ( show me a sign ). I have said it once and will say again,I can’t put all my trust in to a book.
Also if ,and I say if, there is a God, then he is a very cruel God because I know a lot of the pain and suffering is brought on by man himself but why does he make those who are innoccent suffer as well. A lot of people don’t want salvation when they die, they want it now in the real world. You may say we die to live but if that is the case, what is the point of this life now. Why not just cut out the middle man so to speak?
To the two Garys…here is an answer to the name of Hashem.
The most powerful and important Name of God, which appears in the Torah, is YHVH, also referred to as the Tetragrammaton and the Ineffable Name. Its pronunciation has been lost; it was formerly uttered only by the High Priest on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). Many scholars have speculated on its pronunciation, producing names like “Jehova” and “Yaweh”.
Jews do not even attempt to pronounce this name; rather, a lesser Name is substituted, most commonly “Adonai” in prayer, though some Jews may use “casual” and respectful substitutes such as “Adoshem” or “Ha-Shem” (”The Name”) outside of prayer.
Just thought I would bring this to your attention. In fact there is a belief in Kabbalah that G-d has 72 names. Kabbalah by the way is Jewish mystisim.
And I would like to add that no child is born into the world with venial sin. Children are a blessing pure of thought and deed. We need to only save them when as teens they ask for the keys to the car…haha
Has any one ever noticed that jews have never tried to translate the new testament but christens translate the old testament? Isn’t that curious? Why? Perhaps it could be said that there is a search for the connection between the two books. However, there is no connection to be shared.
It would be fun to write for you the Hebrew equivalent of the YHVH but it takes a special keyboard or software both of which I do not have.
>
Hello, Chris from England — Oh,how right you are! About people wanting salvation now, not after they die! The old story about a bird in the hand vs. two in the bush, right? No, not always. Your ’simple’ questions raise more inquiries than can be answered ’simply.’ This is why Christianity usuallly is taught in some kind of school — questions like, “Who made me?” and “Why did He make me?” These kind of questions ultimately lead to questions like the one asked by Jesus of his followers, “Who do men say that I am?” And you have to read the Bible to understand both the Old and the New Testaments. If you pick and choose which words to suit yourself you will probably find what you’re looking for, but that ain’t necessarily so! Gary did a good job running over the background, which you have to understand before you can make much progress within the whole story. Just so you know, before Moses laid down the law (the Ten Commandments, which were really several hundred, later to be condensed into just Two by Christ himself) about ‘an eye for an eye,’ it was ‘anything goes for an eye.’ In other words, Moses brought a sense of even/Steven to the people, making the penalty for any transgression appropriate and measured to the occasion, a huge advance in judicial thinking at the time. Christ abrogated that law, making forgiveness more important than punishment, bringing in the turning of the other cheek, and the going of the extra mile. I can similarly explain ‘adultery’ and ‘concubinage’ when you require more reading material, ok?
new Testame
A few comments re the Old Testament:
Tova: “Has any one ever noticed that jews have never tried to translate the new testament but christens translate the old testament? Isn?t that curious? Why?”
This is because Christians believe the Old Testament is true, but Jews do not believe the New Testament is true. (Excluding Jews for Jesus for the moment; and the fact that many/most early Christians were Jewish.) Thus Jewish people would see no reason to translate the New Testament since they would see it as an untrue heretical document.
Tova: “Perhaps it could be said that there is a search for the connection between the two books. However, there is no connection to be shared.”
Woah! You must not mean what it sounds like … the Old Testament and the New are intimately connected. Gary rightly noted above that the New fulfills and explains the Old. Jesus and most of the New Testament authors were Jewish. The Old Testament is quoted frequently in the New Testament; in fact nearly all of the books of the Old Testament (34 out of 39) are quoted in the New Testament, including prophecies about Jesus. Additionally, the “Scriptures” are referred to many times in the New Testament. These references always refer to the Old Testament since the New was still being written at the time. The NT can’t really be understood fully without knowing about the OT.
About the trustworthiness of the Old Testament … I think we have to acknowledge that if some parts of the New Testament are hard to understand because it was written 2,000 years ago, how much MORE difficult will some parts of the Old be when many of its books were written so much farther back? (Job is one of the oldest of the Old Testament books, about 2000BC) But here’s something to think about: Jesus clearly believed in and quoted the Old Testament. If the information we have demonstrates that the NT and Jesus Himself are reliable, then by extension the OT must also be.
Note also that removing God does nothing to help those who are suffering and dying in the world. In fact, it removes any possible hope for many people. If there is a God, why do people suffer and die? But by the same token if there is a God, at least there is still hope for those who suffer and die. If no God exists, there ultimately is none.
Hi Chris,
I apologize for taking so long in getting back to you. Between work and taking care of my mother’s estate, I’ve been very busy lately.
Regarding the issues with the Old Testament you mention, part of the problem is a bad translation. (I’m not expert in the biblical languages. I have to rely on what I’ve read from those who are.)The passage that is translated “Thou shall not kill” should read “Thou shall not murder.” In other words, there are times when it is possible to end someone’s life and not violate this command. It would include things like self-defense, war or capital punishment.
Read the passage about “an eye for an eye” in context. You will notice that it is not a command to seek revenge but a limitation on how much revenge could be taken. Let’s say you got in a fight with someone and they blinded you in one eye. You’d probably be mad enough to kill the guy but this passage says you can’t do that. You are limited to doing to him what he did to you. You don’t have to do anything but you cannot legally do more than that.
The next question is obvious: Why have revenge at all? At the time this law was given, the Jews were wandering in the desert on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land. They didn’t have any formal legal system. There were no police to arrest the wrong-doer. It was up to the injured party, or his immediate family, to deal out justice. Even after they settled in the Promised Land, there was a need to continue this system.
Polygamy was allowed under the OT although it is unlikely that it was practiced by most people. It only gets mentioned in the cases of kings. Concubines were not wives but there was a sort of marriage agreement although it was different from the agreement used for wives. At any rate, relations with a concubine would not have been considered adulterous.
God does not cause suffering; He allows it but He doesn’t cause it. Suffering happens because of what we do. Even natural disasters are, in the end, caused by humans because one of the effects of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden is that the Earth is under a curse. The Bible says that Satan is the ruler of the Earth. The good news is that God can take our suffering and make something redemptive out of it.
Life is a test. We are presented with choices along the way. We can chose God’s will or we can reject it. The choice is up to us. If we choose God’s will, then we will go to Heaven. Otherwise, we’re toast, to be blunt. I personally think that God is being merciful in allowing these choices. If we didn’t want to serve and worship Him, Heaven would be a real Hell.
Yes but it is said that God made man. My question is why, just to put us through a test. What is the point of that. Is it not true what a great man from my country once said. “Life is just a play and we are all actors” ( Shakespeare)
Tova,
Your comments about the name of God were fortuitous. I was thinking about this point over the weekend. There’s a show on EWTN in which Fr. John Corapi goes through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and talks about it. This week’s show dealt with the Lord’s Prayer. In care you’re not familiar with it, the Lord’s Prayer, AKA the Our Father, was a prayer Jesus taught His disciples (Matt 6) when one of them asked Him to teach them how to pray. It starts off “Our Father, who are in Heaven….” The point was that Jesus was telling His disciples that they should think about God as their Father in Heaven. Elsewhere in the Bible Jesus uses ‘Abba,’ the Aramaic equivalent of ‘Daddy.’
It made me wonder why Jewish people believe they shouldn’t speak God’s name. (I understand the missing vowels and that we’re not positive how YHVH was actually pronounced, but I’ve even seen people from Jews for Jesus use G-d instead of God.) I know of nothing in the Bible that says this must be done. Why do you think that Jewish people won’t use God’s name? It seems to me that the concept of God as a loving Father is foreign to Judaism. Is that the case?
re: children born with venial sin
In Ps 51 David writes that he was brought into the world in sin. Children are born with what Christian theologians call original sin which they inherited from Adam and Eve. (Theologians are those people who make a living by obscuring the simple by creative use of terminology.) It is not that they have committed a sin. One, they haven’t had the chance and two, they’re way to young to be morally culpable. However, very young children can and will do stuff that they know they shouldn’t. Having raised twin daughters I know this by experience.
————-
Chris,
I didn’t mean to imply that God created us just to test us. He created us so that He could love us and we could love Him and that we could live forever in fellowship with Him. (When I was in grade school – late 50s/early 60s – we used to memorize the Baltimore Catechism. It had a great way of putting this: We were created to enjoy God.) Unfortunately we broke that fellowship with God when Adam and Eve sinned. Putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was a test to see if they would obey Him but the test was not the reason for our existence. Love can’t be real love unless the possibility of rejection exists. When they ate of the fruit Adam and Eve were essentially saying “We’re going our own way. We don’t want you” to God.
re: “Life is just a play and we are all actors” ( Shakespeare)
I guess you could think of it that way but the play is being written as we go along. What happens next depends on what we do now.
So ws this God a lonely God then? ( He created us to love him and to love us )
Hey, Chris — Years ago I read a story by Ray Bradbury, ‘All Summer In A Day.’ It makes me think of you — you seem eager to understand the singularity of the Bible, but you want it all right now! Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to achieve that state, and I am still learning after many years how many layers of meaning reside within the pages of the various books that compose the Bible. but rest assured that ‘meaning’ and ‘relevance’ will make themselves known to you, bit by bit, if you persist in your search.
I guess the existence of G-d (out of respect for Tova, I type that word, Gary) is the first confessioin you have to make, Chris, acknowledging Him as the prime mover, the eternal one, the creator, the only one, and, yes, the lonely one by our standards. But how else are we mortals to conceive of Him? I can tell you what he is not. He is not really a “He” since He has no gender; He is not an old white man with a full beard, a white robe, and a halo (that’s only Him as drawn by cartoonists). He does not live in the blue sky, behind golden gates, sitting complacently on a jewelled throne,either. I do not know what He really is like,other than that he exists as a pure spirit (to be, He must have eternal life, be always present, be everywhere, have all power,etc., etc.) and I believe in Him. Believing, I therefore place all my hope for the future in Him. And hoping in Him, I give Him all my love, such as it is. Loving Him, I become sorrowful for my transgressions against His laws by which He lifts me out of my animal origins (Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return) and gives me spiritual life.
By the way, Shakespeare always said it best, whatever he said. Your quote — All the world’s a stage… was said by one of his characters who was mired in a deep funk at the time.
Whether God is “lonely” … often we have a tendancy to attribute human emotions TO God … ex, when we say that God is loving, what does that mean? That God’s love is like OUR love, what we experience as love? No, it means that our love is like God’s, in a finite and incomplete way. So it’s always dicey to attribute our own states of being to God as if God is “like us”, when at best we could be “like Him”. Coming from a slightly different angle, the Christian concept of the Trinity (one God in three persons) would mean that God cannot be lonely in the human sense.
Chris, eventually when it comes to God, we will find some questions that we can’t answer entirely. Des Emery said it well above. Does the fact that we have some questions that aren’t yet answered mean belief in God is unjustified? I wouldn’t say so. When we are discussing a being that is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, etc, we (as finite, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, etc beings) necessarily cannot know everything about God. I’m not suggesting that asking the questions is in any way not a very good thing. I’m suggesting only that we have to recognize that not all questions can be answered, at least not in this life.
No hang on you are assuming emmzee. We are not discusing A BEING that is infinite etc. We are discussing an ALLEGED BEING that you( and a lot of others ) believe in. There is a difference!
Yes, you’re correct. When it comes to God’s existence, I was giving my own opinion, not saying that we all agree. But insert “If God exists” in my post above and the logic still stands; ie, that -If God exists- we can never know absolutely everything about Him.
Of course, I think there are good reasons to believe God exists. :) Not perfect, absolute, 100% proof, but enough to warrant belief, given the alternatives available. And I have to keep myself open to the possibility that I’m wrong; we all need to struggle to try to remain ‘teachable’ so that we’re able to evaluate other’s opinions to decide whether they are valid or not.
“We are discussing an ALLEGED BEING that you( and a lot of others ) believe in. There is a difference!”
Let’s kick back and relax a spell–and let’s consider something.
Chris, let’s say that you were born and raised in an old Indian tribe that no one has heard about. You live there, get married there, and live your life there.
Now, let’s say a missionary from England (what a coincidence) visits you.
You are, by this time, about fifty or sixty years old. You’ve raised your kids and they’ve gotten married and lived happily ever after.
You’re also very smart too…
Now, what would your reaction be if the British missionary told you that during winter, you could walk across the lake because the water would have become hard?
What would you say?
“Logical fact #1: You just CAN’T walk across water because water NEVER GETS HARD!” (In India’s hot climate, there is no chance for the water to become frozen).
“Logical fact #2: It is totally ILLOGICAL for someone to walk across water and you are a stupid idiot if you think that someone can walk on water–even the IDEA of water “getting hard” is absurd! Things just don’t work that way!”
“Logical fact #3: No one from our tribe has EVER been able to walk across water their entire lifetime–and yet you, a very young missionary man, tell US that you can walk on water? You are just young and stupid; one day, when you get older, you will come to understand what we do about water and how it works.”
I ask you; who is the idiot? The missionary man–or the tribal leader?
The British missionary man has experienced the FACT that water can freeze–however, the tribal leader has not. If he were to be truly humble, he should ask the missionary man to take him to the place where water is hard and also, once taken there, he should also have the fun and the joy of “walking on water.”
(And it IS fun walking on frozen water, isn’t it?) :)
In the same way, this is the difference between the unbeliever and a Christian; the Christian has experienced and knows the truth that Jesus is Lord and as a result, has lived a victorious life.
The unbeliever however, not only doesn’t understand what the Christian is talking about, but he also makes fun of and sometimes goes as far as calling the Christian an idiot.
Cordially,
–JJ
Well.. this facts are fascinating. Im a budhdhist my self, but I have no intension in insulting Christianity. No offence but there is some points in the bible where u find the facts not linking with each other.
What I feel is, In Buddhism, Lord Buddha stood 7 days continuously looking at the “BO” Tree which has provided him shelter through out the journey of seeking the truth. This was a tribute done for the Tree, which has helped him to succeed.
In the Bible, It tells that All the Animals in the Barn of Bethlehem were the Christ was born, has helped him. So what we have to believe is all the Animals were respectable due to the help given for this Holy Moment. But It turns out that all the Christian’s kill the same animals to celebrate the Christ’s Birth. No Offence, but is this the tribute that you can convey to them?
Buddhism is not a religion, but its a Vision. Many Doctors, Professors and Scientists now have faith in Buddhism due to the facts which are exactly matching with the latest discoveries in Now a day science, which were toled centauries ago.
I’m not intending to public Buddhism, but in this FILM, It is certain that there is no sign of any Grail at all. The Event is Breaking Bread; can u imagine a supper with out wine or any other liquid substance? Clearly there must be a reason for Learnado to paint such a picture. I believe Brown’s fact just links to each other (some of them). But what I believe is, Jesus Christ was a man ( not a God’s son) who had a clear vision and a love, caring hart for people. Obviously, If there were some person like that there’s no dough that people treat them as GOD. :::: PEACE ::::
In the painting there are several questions. First: why are there 36 squares in the ceiling? Why are there 8 big and 3 small squares on either side of the table? What is the man on Jesus’s left pointing at? If you were to draw lines in the directions of everyone pointing at the table, what would be the outcome? Is there mathematics within the painting? Where is the landscape in the windows behind the table? Why is there a church with with Jesus painted on it under the onion dome? Why are there 5 hills in the scenery outside the windows? Theory! Under the old calender the first of the year started in March, if you were to count from right to left excluding Jesus the person on the right would be in the month of September witch represents the virgin Virgo! Now if Jesus was a representation of the Sun and the 12 other persons representations of the months of the year would this make any more sense of the painting in question? Look a little closer at the painting! go to this site and see for yourseves http://www.haltadefinizione.com
Thanx
J.H.