Kindest Regards

kev :)

“You say there is no evidence of Jesus And Mary Magdala. I beg to differ. Simply because there is a section that exists in the Vatican called ‘The Holy See’- Never to be viewed by the public- ever wondered why?”

I am curious what’s in there for sure! But I don’t think this is evidence? It’s vague speculation that there may be something in there that could suggest Jesus and Mary were married? If the Catholic archives did contain such things, I wonder why they would bother to keep them around? Wouldn’t they have destroyed them long ago?

“What I find a disgrace is, that The council of Nicea was ‘picking and choosing which Gospels were ‘allowed’ to be edited in the bible, any ones Gospel that didn’t go with the councils doctrine was discredited.”

In the Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown says: “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike.” If that’s true, then what you described is a travesty indeed. Why arbitrarily choose some gospels and ignore others? But that’s not what actually happened. It wasn’t as though there was a buffet of gospels to choose from, and the council chose the ones they liked best. The council affirmed that the gospels that the churches had been using for centuries were the ones that should continue to be used. Bart Ehrman (clearly no friend of traditional Christianity) says in his book “Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code” that “The formation of the canon started centuries before Constantine, and the establishment of the four-fold Gospel canon of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was virtually in place 150 years before his day.”

Ehrman is referring to the fact that the earliest canonical lists that we have (lists of the Christian scriptures) list the books we find in the New Testament and not any of the ones like the “Gospel of Thomas” and the “Gospel of Mary”, both of which are dated to the second century at the earliest, probably mid-late second century. All of the New Testament documents meanwhile are all dated to 100AD at latest; why trust later documents instead of the NT ones written decades earlier? Based on all the evidence we have, the early Christians made the right decisions. You say you “will not though believe the Bible’s version of events … as that would make me a sheep.” Yet while ruling out the Bible’s accuracy from the start, you seem to accept what the Da Vinci Code says uncritically? I don’t mean to imply that everything the Da Vinci Code says is wrong; but contrary to what he has sometimes insinuated, Brown played fast and loose with the facts to make his story more interesting. No problem there; the problem was claiming that it was historically accurate.

“Imagine your wife coming home telling you that she was visited by an Angel that told her she is pregnant- but you’re not the father, it was an immaculate conception? would you believe it?”

Certainly not! And Joseph didn’t believe it either. Back then people knew that women didn’t spontaneously get pregnant: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” (Mt 1:19) He planned to divorce her, which would have been the natural reaction. However something changed his mind. I wouldn’t believe it at first either; but maybe I’d change my mind if I were thoroughly convinced otherwise.

It is fascinating how Christianity was able to spread so quickly … in fact an entire book has been written on the subject of how Christianity seemed destined to fail, but didn’t. It’s called The Impossible Faith, but a large portion of it is available to read online: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html The author hypothesizes that it was able to spread so far and wide despite crushing opposition because … it’s actually true!

I have my own opinion through years of Investigating. What I believe now, and what was drummed to my head at sunday school, school, etc. There is quite a difference between the both.

You say there is no evidence of Jesus And Mary Magdala. I beg to differ. Simply because there is a section that exists in the Vatican called ‘The Holy See’- Never to be viewed by the public- ever wondered why?

The second testament was written in Gospels from different sources at the time as we all know. What I find a disgrace is, that The council of Nicea was ‘picking and choosing which Gospels were ‘allowed’ to be edited in the bible, any ones Gospel that didn’t go with the councils doctrine was discredited. Who gave them the right to discredit Mary Magdala’s Gospel? The person that was closest to Jesus out of all the Disciples.

Who anointed his feet on the cross?
Who found him to have risen outside the tomb?
Who was with him through the passover at his feet till he died? the answer to these Questions, according to the Bible was Mary magdalene, ever wondered why?

She is the Holy Grail in my opinion. do not wish to cause any offence to anyone, as I’m a nice guy :). Juest my personal view of the Jesus story, and the bible ones are two totally different stories. One is made out of studying evidence forever and a day, and trying to make sense of things. The other is that of an Angel that came down to inform a woman, that she will bore the son of God, ‘the immaculate conception’. Imagine your wife coming home telling you that she was visited by an Angel that told her she is pregnant- but you’re not the father, it was an immaculate conception? would you believe it? Sorry Darren, dig a little a deeper, and there is a lot more evidence- concrete ones an all to believe such a make belief story.

I repeat I do believe in Jesus, my fascination is the fact that 11 disciples after he died, converted the majority to Christianity simply by using the word of mouth from a corner in Jerusalem, where they all had to flee after Jesus’s death and take the movement underground. No phones, postmen, Internet etc… fascinating. I will not though believe the Bible’s version of events… as that would make me a sheep. (sorry if any offence is caused)

Kev

When you say you “believe [Jesus] was Married to Mary Magdala, and even eloped and had children” what evidence is there for this belief? Just because it was “the norm” to do it back then doesn’t mean he did it. It’s the norm today to be married too, but many people (like me) are not. As far as I know, there is no ancient document that suggests Jesus was married or had children, or even hints at it.

I wonder too how “science has made a mockery of the bible in the last hundred years”? I agree with you that true science and true religion will never conflict. But I’ve sometimes heard arguments like “science has proved that miracles can’t happen,” which is misguided in my opinion. The definition of a miracle is something that supersedes the way things normally work, so how could science prove such a thing didn’t happen?

On a personal note, I know you’re trying to be objective by teaching your son your beliefs, and to think critically for himself. That’s a great thing to do (and my parents did the same) but don’t make the mistake of thinking that’s actually non-biased. Calling Christianity “garbage”, “brainwash[ing]“, and insinuating that it’s irrational, unscientific, and been made a mockery of … this sort of education is no less mind and attitude shaping than attending Sunday school.

“Jesus is who you believe he is.” So if someone were to believe Jesus was a Pagan sorcerer, or a 12-foot tall giant, or a rhinoceros, would these be valid options? I’d say no! If we really care about Jesus, we should want to know as much as possible about who He really is, not just make up some image of Him in our mind taylored to our own whims.

“He will love you no matter what you believe!” So if someone believed Jesus was ___ (fill in a description of a person you find particularly detestable) would Jesus still love them? Yes, but He would also love them enough to let them go. Sadly, many people believe detestable things about Jesus.

You don’t get to know someone by imagining how you’d like them to be. The best way to learn about a person in history is to examine the best historical sources available … and those are the Gospels and other texts contained in the New Testament.