Mary Magdelene

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B]

lol that's funny! there is no way to [b]prove[/b] this unless [b]you[/b] were there

[/B][/QUOTE]

I like it that you say that. That statement holds true to yourself as well. For the most part.

[noodleboy]

[i]I don't see what noodleboy means so accomplish by asking for opinions then bashing them with his/her version of the bible.
I say his/her version because the bible can be interpreted many ways.[/i]

I haven't bashed anyone. I've just tolded them their version may be wrong, as may mines. This is all a thing of belief. And if i was to bash someone on their belief and then they brake and give into mines, and only then would i feel bad and see this as pointless.


Vegitto4
i already knew that. funny though isn't it?

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arch [/i]
[B]
[color=royalblue][size=1]

More to the point, I do not believe Mary Magdelene was a whore, slut, or any of the other colorful synonyms. God did choose her to give birth to Jesus, didn't he?[/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

Uh, no... these are totally different Marys. But like I said before, there's no proof other than assumptions that Magdalene was any form of prostitute in the first place

As for that painting, half the guys in it look like women as it is.

[Justin]

My point exactly, Sem.

I know who the artist is, I'll be going into my third year of art next semester. I don't need any education on art, I assure you of that. Neither do I need any educatin on biblical scripture or the nature of Jesus--after all, I know the guy. He's my best friend.

Noodleboy, you're acting like everyone but you is stupid, and you can't even type correctly. I don't see any reason to continue here further. I wash my hands of this topic.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by noodleboy [/i]
[B]
You know Jesus? Believe me now there are so many questions running through my head that I would like to ask. But this isn't about that. [/B][/QUOTE]

My PM inbox is wide open.

-Justin

[noodleboy]

Justin,
I can type just fine. I choose not to for I don't feel like it. I haven't treated anyone as if they were an idiot, but if you think I have I'm sorry. I'm just saying that there are symbols in the painting. And not everyone knows what the symbols are. Do you know the symbols behind the painting? What the artist was trying to say?
You know Jesus? Believe me now there are so many questions running through my head that I would like to ask. But this isn't about that.

[vegeta rocker]

Symbols? Could you elaborate further on those? Unless you mentioned them earlier and i just missed them, that tends to happen.

Symbols can often be taken and interpreted the wrong way. Not saying that they are but it's a possibility. I really want to know more about what you are talking about.

As for your typing, i assume you are a quick typer and see no relevance as to bringing that up Justin. I don't think noodleboy means to come off as arrogant as he seems. I still think he is being unfair in a few areas, but that's all.

Back to the topic, ELABORATE! Let's get back to Mary. Actually, forget Mary. I want some info on these symbols, since i have never noticed any.

[noodleboy]

[url]http://artchive.floridaimaging.com/l/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg[/url]
notice there isn't a chalice, on the painting, that jesus would have passed to all of his Apostles.
the major symbol for this is how jesus and the person to his right are sitting, in the form of a V. Now the V are the original symbols for the female. now the chalice resembles a cup or vessel, and more important, it resembles the shape of a woman's womb. this symbol communicates femininity, womanhood, and fertility.

But hell if you want to ask me who is the missing Apostle, i honestly couldn't tell you. it's not my theory.

[Artemis]

I'm ignoring the next 2 pages of posts to quickly say that the person next to Jesus who looks like a woman (somewhat) is John the Apostle.
Mary Magdalene is not pictured.
There are 2 stories on her. Some say she was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lasurus. (I'll have to check up on that one...) I do know that she was an adultrous woman at an earlier point in her life. Jesus converted her, and she changed her ways. The idea of her being his wife (or whore) is a load of crap. :rolleyes: That completely destroys the person of Jesus as we know him. His followers (the apostles at least) were celibate and were following his lead. I could expand on this, but I'm getting tired.
~art~

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i]
[B]By your last statement, you just proved me right. Yes, Jesus' bride was the church, therefore, he did not marry Mary. Since He is married to His church, He would not marry another. Thus commiting(sp?) Adultery, thus causing the proclamation to be God a Lie. [/B][/QUOTE]

My point in argument was the fact that sexual purity is not simply from abstainance. That is primarily a greek philosophy, not a Jewish one, which was taken up by some of the church in it's early days (ie. 2nd-3rd Century-ish). Sexual Purity in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, ie. the Old Testament, is not to do with abstainance but commitment. Sex is not prohibited, but designed for use within the context of marriage.

However-

God's will for some is not to marry, and thus sexual purity for these people is only in the form of complete celebacy because otherwise they are going against God's will.

God's will for Jesus was not to marry while he was here 2000 years ago, because as we read in the NT, his bride is the church. While this means that for Jesus, he had to be celebate to be sexually pure, this doesn't mean that sexual purity comes uniquely from celebacy.

Paul in his letters commends those who do not marry and remain single, but he says that those of us who are not called to such a life, and in particular also because there is so much lust in the world, should marry.

He wouldn't have suggested that if it wasn't a pure thing to do. He never said "because there is so much anger in the world pick one man and only release your anger on him"- because that is sinful regardless of who you do it to.

The fact that God commends marriage, and permits sex within it's context, clearly indicates that sex is not an impure act which will defile anyone, as long as it is within the right context.

Thus, what I'm basically getting at is this:

My argument wasn't against Jesus being pure by never having sex, but it was against the implication that Jesus remained sexually pure by not marrying. Jesus didn't marry because he would have a bride in heaven- not to remain pure.

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arch [/i]
[B][b][i](The New Testament, Revalation, Chapter 22, verses 18-19)[/b][/i]
[font=times]
[i][b]18[/b] I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book;
[size=1][b]19[/b][/size] if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life, and in the holy city, which are described in this book.[/font][/i]
-----------------------
[color=royalblue][size=1]Therefore, I do not believe that anyone who was Christian, or well-versed in the Bible anyway, would change the contents of the Good Book. This, however, does not disprove lost articles.

More to the point, I do not believe Mary Magdelene was a whore, slut, or any of the other colorful synonyms. God did choose her to give birth to Jesus, didn't he?[/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]


In my personal, usually accepted, opinion, I have to say the Revelations is probably the worst book to quote when trying to prove a point. It was written for documenting a guy's dream. It is one whol abstract thought. It even says that in the footnotes in most Bibles.

We talked about it in Bible class (not Sunday school, but an actual class I took at an Episcopalian school I went to) and even went over the imagery depicted in it.

Getting to the point of this, I have to say that we cannot wholey trust EVERY single statement made in the Bible to be ABSOLUTELY true. It has been translated through centuries of times and changes in linguistics. I think we should worry less on whether or not Jesus was married, but more on eximplifying the main lessons taught in the Bible, like the Ten Commandments, and just plain believing in God and the word Jesus spread.

[Justin]

Ok, I now unwash my hands of this topic. Like Jeremiah, what I have to say is like a fire in me, and it has to be released.

Actually, Revelation is just as good as any book of the Bible. You have to look past the symbols(which means you have to shed fleshly eyes, which will only flip to Revelation for a glipse into the future) and see what is being said. In reality, no one really knows what the symbols in Revelation means. We aren't meant to. We're meant to see the message, which is simple: God is in control, do not be afraid, His justice will not wait long, the Church will survive and only the Church, and now is the time to be saved.

I just broke down all that anyone really needs to know about Revelation. Congratulations, you've all just heard the Gospel.

In response to the Bible being faulty: So you think that men are greater than God? The Bible is God's Word and Jesus is the Word and the Lord(John 1). Therefore, by saying that men could've altered the Word is like saying that men can alter God--who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

For Jesus to have married on this earth would be infidelity to His true wife--the Church. And Jesus is God, therefore, He is not guilty of adultry.

-Justin

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]

Getting to the point of this, I have to say that we cannot wholey trust EVERY single statement made in the Bible to be ABSOLUTELY true. It has been translated through centuries of times and changes in linguistics. I think we should worry less on whether or not Jesus was married, but more on eximplifying the main lessons taught in the Bible, like the Ten Commandments, and just plain believing in God and the word Jesus spread. [/B][/QUOTE]



What you are mistaking is the fact that if you do believe in the Power of Christ, and His saving grace, then the Bible, and EVERY word it says, is in fact true, and you are to take that as such.

If you do not, then it's up to you.

If we are to just follow the Ten Commandments, and just plain believe in God and the word Jesus spread, then all that is is taking the Bible to be completely true. For Jesus spoke only the Truth, as only God can do, and everything that was said that he had meant us to know is in the Bible.

[Queen Asuka]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]You have to look past the symbols(which means you have to shed fleshly eyes, which will only flip to Revelation for a glipse into the future) and see what is being said. In reality, no one really knows what the symbols in Revelation means. We aren't meant to. We're meant to see the message, which is simple: God is in control, do not be afraid, His justice will not wait long, the Church will survive and only the Church, and now is the time to be saved.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=hotpink][size=1]So, revelations is given to us, and yet we are not supposed to know what exactly it means just disregard it? I don't believe that I can really agree with that.[/color][/size]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Mitch[/i]
[b][size=1]So many things can be disputed in the bible. So many things can be disputed about religion in general. [/size][/b][/quote]

[color=hotpink][size=1]Well then, please, enlighten me.[/color][/size]

[quote][i]Originally posted by noodleboy[/i]
[b]the reasone the painting is so important is that it justifies that Jesus had to have a relationship.[/b][/quote]

[color=hotpink][size=1]Just because someone painted a picture doesn't mean that it "justifies" a relationship. I could paint a picture of me and James and so does that automatically make us lovers? Geez.

This topic is really annoying to me. Like someone else said, all the people in the picture look like females anyway and it's always debatable about the gender of the people in Da Vinci's artwork.[/color][/size]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]In response to the Bible being faulty: So you think that men are greater than God? The Bible is God's Word and Jesus is the Word and the Lord(John 1). Therefore, by saying that men could've altered the Word is like saying that men can alter God--who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

-Justin [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Yes I think that men are greater than God, at least the God depicted in the bible. Obviously I think this because I believe a man or group of men wrote the bible. Just like a man painted that picture that has created such a pointless argument.

I can't believe that anyone is basing their faith on a painting. At least the bible, a book, explains itself with its contents. People form religions around how to interpret the bibles text. Could you imagine basing your beliefs around a painting that can be open to an even wider array of speculation.

I don't understand why this argument...and it is an argument not a debate...is still occuring. I think it is wonderful when people want to get involved in a religion and become informed about it, but this thread has turned into a soapbox where everybody feels the need to throw a piece of themselves on someone else's shirt. And here I am doing about the same.

If you want to argue for or against whether you think the "Da'Vinci Code" novel has any relevancy and are informed about the issue at hand then be my guest, it just seems like a good topic has been distorted because certian people have decided to air their religious belifes, or lack thereof, all over each other...[/color]

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Queen Asuka [/i]
[B][color=hotpink][size=1]So, revelations is given to us, and yet we are not supposed to know what exactly it means just disregard it? I don't believe that I can really agree with that.[/color][/size][/quote]

It's good that you can't agree with that. Neither can I, lol. That's not what I was trying to say. What I said was that no one in this world has any definate answer for what the symbols in Revelation actually represent. And so, we are not meant to at this point in time.

But the Revelation itself is very understandable. It's exactly what I said above.

On a related note, Tori, I know that the Mormon version of the Bible is different from mine. Therefore, I don't know all the scripture of yours, and therefore what's applicable to me may not be applicable to you. Keep that in mind.

In response to Heaven's Cloud: If you believe that then my question doesn't apply to you. My question applies to those who believe that God gave men the Word, but seem to think that He cannot shield it from them.

And I, too, think that this thread has disgressed about as far as it should be allowed to go.

-Justin

[Semjaza]

The thing I think should be mentioned [i]again[/i] is that the paintings shown so far were by people [i]not at the Last Supper[/i] and were generally painted who knows how long later. Tori and Shinji both referred to this.

How does a painting done after the fact based simply on accounts and a person's own ideas prove anything more than someone's thoughts and ideas now? It doesn't. It's a piece of art. It's not a factual recreation of events at hand that is somehow unexplainably infallible.

How it can be referred back to constantly as something that can totally back up any idea, I have no clue. A painting versus actual historic writings and documents from that era... Which should I side with?

In any case, I think many people agree this thread has run its course, so I'm closing it. Anyone that disagrees with me can take it up with me personally.