Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

I have a question...

Expand Messages
  • enkki1212
    Hello all... After all gnostic related books that I ve read I am left with many questions. I ve been able to find a few answers whether they are correct or
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all...

      After all gnostic related books that I've read I am left with many
      questions. I've been able to find a few answers whether they are
      correct or not, I'll probably never know but I'm satisfied with some
      of what I've come to think I know anyway. One particular question
      that I keep coming back to over and over relates to Jesus having
      been married to Mary Magdalene (M.M.) and assuming he sired children
      with her...

      I'm not saying I necessarily believe all of what I'm going to say
      but hopefully some of you can see my direction and give me your
      thoughts in line with my question... Lets say for the sake of
      conversation that Jesus was by all practical understanding, just a
      man. Not of the spirit as the bible says. Not born from a virgin.
      Didn't walk on water. Didn't heal the sick or resurrect the dead.
      Not saying he wasn't a man of God or even a prophet but still just a
      man as any man is today. If he was just a regular man and if he did
      have children with M.M. then what's the big deal of who his lineage
      is? If he was just a normal man then what makes him any more
      important to have a "Secret" lineage than say Moses or Ezekiel or
      even Noah? Why the big "HUSH" on it. I've read he was said to have
      been the heir to the house of David either through Mary (his mom) or
      Joseph so perhaps he was of some type of "royalty" and his heirs
      would have been as well. But if that were the case and if no one
      ever stood up to claim the throne then again why would that matter?

      I think one hurdle for many people seems to be just accepting that
      Jesus actually had "Sex" in order to even have children. Not that if
      he was married to M.M. that sex between them would have
      been 'against God'. Maybe if they weren't married that would have
      been a different story. but God did say for us to "Go forth and
      Multiply". Christians have always thrown negativity in sex though.
      Even in general, sex has always been looked down upon. Most TV shows
      will even show people getting shot in the head at point blank range
      but won't show a woman breast feeding her baby. Not that breast
      feeding is 'sexual'.. but that's how stupid our society is regarding
      issues of a sexual origin or nature. I think its always been within
      the christian dogma for people to just accept that if Jesus was the
      Man-God then he was above the flesh and didn't have sexual relations
      with anyone. Cause he was only here for approx 26 years and he had a
      very important message to give to his people. He didn't have time
      for such matters, or so we were lead to believe.. M.M. was also said
      to be a 'lady of the night', and therefore maybe it was looked at
      that Jesus (being "Perfect") couldn't have possibly defiled himself
      to have had relations with a harlot, but I personally don't believe
      M.M. was of that profession. I don't believe any of that was true. I
      have read much on M.M. and I think the church wanted people to think
      these bad things of her only to discredit for their own benefit. It
      was a "Mans" world back in the day and I think the church felt
      threatened by M.M. so it was easier for them to put a bad label on
      her.

      Anyway, I've stated my main question and got off the subject a
      little too. If anyone wants to comment then I'll look forward to any
      replies, but if anyone wants to argue with what I've said then
      please don't flame me. Much of what I've come to 'believe' are from
      books I've read on the subject. If you think my beliefs are wrong
      then tell me w/out attacks and I'll be happy to look at what you
      think.

      Thanks,
      Enkki
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Enkki, welcome to the group. Well, you just happened to stumble in here as we were discussing the very topics that you have expressed interest in, so I
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Enkki, welcome to the group. Well, you just happened to stumble
        in here as we were discussing the very topics that you have expressed
        interest in, so I assume you have cought up a little on the
        conversation going on right now. Feel free to also answer any of the
        posts in the threads dealing with the subject if you have any
        observations or questions.

        Anyway, to some of your points....

        >>>If you think my beliefs are wrong then tell me w/out attacks and
        I'll be happy to look at what you think.<<<

        We don't flame here, but we do sometimes respectfully disagree.

        >>>I'm not saying I necessarily believe all of what I'm going to say
        but hopefully some of you can see my direction and give me your
        thoughts in line with my question... Lets say for the sake of
        conversation that Jesus was by all practical understanding, just a
        man. Not of the spirit as the bible says. Not born from a virgin.
        Didn't walk on water. Didn't heal the sick or resurrect the dead.
        Not saying he wasn't a man of God or even a prophet but still just a
        man as any man is today.<<<

        Well, as you probably already noticed it is a subject being explored
        already in conversation. However, in keeping with the focus of
        Gnosticism we should also point out that while this view is very
        possible, it doesn't seem to have been the beliefs of the historical
        Gnostics. We should also leave open for discussion the possibility
        that Jesus simply never existed, or any of a number of possibilities
        between these two extremes. In the end, though, most important to
        explore for this group would be the historical Gnostic view of Jesus.

        >>>I think one hurdle for many people seems to be just accepting that
        Jesus actually had "Sex" in order to even have children. Not that if
        he was married to M.M. that sex between them would have
        been 'against God'. Maybe if they weren't married that would have
        been a different story. but God did say for us to "Go forth and
        Multiply".<<<

        Well, in keeping with the Gnostic ideal, it may be important to
        remember that Gnostics did not generally consider this "God" who
        commanded people to "go forth and multiply" to be the real god, but
        just an ignorant (or even evil) Demiurge. This means the command
        itself was generally rejected by the Gnostics.

        >>>>Christians have always thrown negativity in sex though.<<<

        The Christians, in turn, got it from the "pagan" Romans.

        >>>I think its always been within the christian dogma for people to
        just accept that if Jesus was the Man-God then he was above the flesh
        and didn't have sexual relations with anyone.<<<

        Most modern Christians would agree with you on this, but most
        critical historians would not.

        >>>M.M. was also said to be a 'lady of the night', and therefore
        maybe it was looked at that Jesus (being "Perfect") couldn't have
        possibly defiled himself to have had relations with a harlot, but I
        personally don't believe M.M. was of that profession. I don't believe
        any of that was true. I have read much on M.M. and I think the church
        wanted people to think these bad things of her only to discredit for
        their own benefit. It was a "Mans" world back in the day and I think
        the church felt threatened by M.M. so it was easier for them to put a
        bad label on her.<<<<

        There is also another possibility here, one that comes from a
        considerably deeper source. The equation could have an allegorical
        origin. Have you read "Exegesis on the Soul" from the Nag Hammadi
        library? Or maybe you are familiar with the Gnostic idea of the fall
        of Sophia? You may notice that Lady Cari (and Gerry in a subtle way)
        just brought up the idea of the MEANING of Mary to the Valentinian
        Gnostics, and what the passage in Philip could imply in this context.

        What do you think of these other possibilities?

        PMCV
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.