Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 4/28/2006 11:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On another discussion board I'm on one of the participants said this:
 
I've been doing research for a few articles on how Christians are responding to The Da Vinci Code; but what I don't mention there, though it will probably be evident when at least one of those articles comes out soon, is that the evangelical apologists I spoke don't seem particularly fazed by the suggestion that Jesus might have been married and thus sexually active -- they said it wasn't an important issue and had no impact on the faith the way that Da Vinci's claims about Nicea and the formation of the New Testament do -- whereas the Catholics I spoke to, particularly Barbara Nicolosi, said the allegations regarding Jesus' marital status and sexual activity ARE theologically important.

So, is this an important question?  Or should we think of it like the question about the atonement:  If Christ's death pays a "ransom," who does he pay it to?

That question seems to be a little outside the purview of the metaphorical nature of the ransom analogy.  Is the martial and therefore sexuality of Jesus life unimportant?  Or is it "theologically important?  What say ye?



Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/29/2006 8:23 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I suspect the fact that Christ wasn't married means it was best, in some sense, for him to be a "eunuch." But I don't know why it was best. Whether his singleness freed him to be more dedicated to his ministry or whether there would have been something unseemly about being one flesh with a mere creature, I don't rightly know. Do the Catholic theologians have any ideas?


 

Back to Top
 

Sahid
Megistered Rember




Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
 
   Posted 4/29/2006 2:43 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
In general it's best not to be married. I don't see how it effects a ransom theory.


Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 4/29/2006 4:35 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Come to think of it, that's exactly what a Catholic would argue, given their theology of celibacy.


 

Back to Top
 

Torkuda
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
 
   Posted 5/13/2006 4:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Actually, I know of no scripture that would indicate why Jesus could not have had a spouse. First off, we all know there would be nothing morally wrong (unless he bedded a halot, which some have tried to suggest). Also, I know of no prophcies declaring the messiah a virgin.

The scriptures give no indication of a marraige, nor activily tries to deny it. In the end, no, I don't see a reason to care. I however would have expected at least a mention of her reaction to his death!

As far as the movie and book goes... I'll have to see it, but from my understanding, this is all much ado about nothing. Da-Vinchi Code is a work of fiction, and whilst it may paint Christianity in an unpleasent light, given that its fiction, people are about as likely to be turned away from the faith by it as they are to believe in fair god mothers because of the Cinderella story.


Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/13/2006 8:42 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hmmm....

Keeping central things central, we believe and proclaim that God took on flesh, suffered, died, rose and ascended "for us men and our salvation." That's you and me, folks!

Straying way aways, we can ponder that any actual progene of Jesus would have NO value in salvation for you and me.

Celsus complained that Jesus complained in the garden of his upcoming physical trama. Celsus missed that Jesus character also said "not my will, but thine." But the heretic Celsus DID get one thing right -- that it is all about the BODY and not merely mind. Salvation was wrote on the Tree and not in the garden.

But what is about the Body of our salvation is not in sexual procreation. Rather, our kinship is in ADOPTION and in our being born into Him who became man for us.

Pax, phos and zoe!


(o)

Back to Top
 

Torkuda
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
 
   Posted 5/13/2006 9:24 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't understand. Was anyone implicating Jesus procreates to this day? Was anyone implicating that he procreated at all?
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/14/2006 3:57 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
To answer your question, T, until the pill sex and procreation went together. We forget that.


(o)

Back to Top
 

Torkuda
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
 
   Posted 5/14/2006 9:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

True. To be honest, it still wouldn't make a difference to me so long as it was a committed loving relationship.

Course, on the same coin is the flip side. On this issue, aside from direct wording, we have every implication that Jesus had no mate. It doesn't say it directly so I can't get angry nor very passionate because I can't prove a direct affront to scripture, but I think adding to the text can be dangerous. I will just say this. Jesus did not have a mate.

Back to Top
 

Sahid
Megistered Rember




Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
 
   Posted 5/15/2006 4:26 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
As far as I know, human biology has not changed that drastically in the past few thousand years. Sometimes sex results in procreation. Usually it doesn't. The pill didn't change that.


Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/15/2006 4:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Ok, Sahid, now that we're completely off track. The point of my saying "until the pill sex and procreation went together" is to bring up the fact that the pill _divided_ the two in a way that didn't exist before.

Help, BBBCanada. What did you have in mind for this thread?


(o)

Back to Top
 

Sahid
Megistered Rember




Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
 
   Posted 5/15/2006 10:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I understand, I just didn't want any natural theology creeping onto out otherwise pure forum. ;-) (Actually, I don't know much about natural theology as it was originally conceived; I just know that I don't like what it has come to mean.)


Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads