DaVinci Code on 20/20

[ricatholic]

Sea Knight:

ricatholic,

The canonical gospels contain a lot that Jesus taught, including His own revelation as to His true identity. The very premise of DVC in fact challenges the identity and authority of Jesus.

The Anglican writer CS Lewis has perhaps said it best: either Jesus is who He says He is (as recorded in the canonical gospels, written by those who knew Him best), or He was a lunatic or a liar. Ultimately, there are only three choices:

1. He is in fact who He says He is, the only-begotten Son of the Father;
2. He only thought He was God’s Son because He was delusional; or
3. He knew he wasn’t divine, but only wanted to convince other that He was (making Him a liar).

If He was either a lunatic or a liar, then nothing that He taught has any real merit. Only if He is in fact the God-Man does His words carry any real authority or truth.

First, we don’t know exactly what Jesus was thinking about how we should form about our acceptence of Him.

Second, to restrict the form of Jesus to a human perspective, is bound to have flaws of one nature or another. By doing so, we have the situation like you presented above. If Jesus is not exactly as how we picture Him in #1, then either He is a liar or He was delusional.

What if Jesus was not a liar or nuts and we are wrong about His exact status? For instance, if He did marry Mary Mag.,would that make Him not the son of God? Would it have been wrong of Him to marry her? Would that prove He was a liar or delusional?

Peace

 

[Apologia100]

JCPhoenix:

Not even 15 minutes into it and I"m already completely ticked off.

They had a Catholic priest stating that demons were not exorcised from Mary Magdalene, that it was illness. And they kept talking to him!!! This is in direct contrast to Catholic teaching!

It is dangerous to suggest that demons aren’t real, and to have this heresy come from within the Church all over a show like 20/20 is persecution from within!!!

I’m sorry, I’m so upset.

They’re also compring Jesus to normal men! Jesus was NOT a normal man…He is DIVINE!!! The rules which bind the rest of us have never bound him!!!

The PRIEST is saying he was married–likely. This is RIDICULOUS!!!

And you don’t think that 20/20 looked long and hard for a “Catholic” priest who who say the exact things they wanted conveyed? C’mon! Wake up! The media industry is not interested in promoting the Truth, but rather what sells advertising minutes. If they can find a “priest” who will dissent from the Church on national TV, that is their man.

 

[Sea_Knight]

ricatholic:

First, we don’t know exactly what Jesus was thinking about how we should form about our acceptence of Him.

Second, to restrict the form of Jesus to a human perspective, is bound to have flaws of one nature or another. By doing so, we have the situation like you presented above. If Jesus is not exactly as how we picture Him in #1, then either He is a liar or He was delusional.

What if Jesus was not a liar or nuts and we are wrong about His exact status? For instance, if He did marry Mary Mag.,would that make Him not the son of God? Would it have been wrong of Him to marry her? Would that prove He was a liar or delusional?

As to your first point, the Gospels are pretty clear as to what “acceptance” of Jesus and His message entails. We are not only to believe the message He taught, but to accept His authority to teach that message. The Pharisees were constantly attacking Jesus on the basis of His authority: “By what authority do you teach these things?” And the people responded to His message precisely because He taught as one with authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 7:29).

As to your second point, it’s not a question of “how we picture Jesus.” It’s a question of how He is portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Either the picture presented to us by the Gospels is essentially accurate and therefore true, or it isn’t. If the Gospel portrayals are misleading, it’s either because the writers basically misunderstood Jesus, or intentionally tried to depict Him as someone that He wasn’t. If the picture of Brown and the DVC is accurate, then the Gospels are all wrong; if the Gospels are accurate, then Brown is wrong. They can’t both be right, because the picture of Jesus portrayed by each is incompatible.

As to your third point, again it goes back to what the Gospels reveal about Jesus. True, the Gospel writers are presenting us with their perspective, each of which has a slightly different “take” on Jesus. But the main elements of His life, teaching, death, resurrection, and significance are all the same. It’s often said that the synoptics portray a more human Jesus, while John emphasizes His divinity. But the synoptics don’t ignore His divinity, while John takes great effort to point out the humanness of Jesus as well.

As to your questions regarding St. Mary Magdalen, if Jesus were to have married her, it wouldn’t necessarily prove that He wasn’t the Son of God. However, it would prove that the canonical Gospels had fundamentally misinterpreted His life. The image of Jesus presented to us in these Gospels would be radically different from reality, had Jesus married St. Mary Magdalen.

Either Brown is right, or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are. Since I wasn’t there and don’t have firsthand knowledge of Our Lord’s life, I have to trust the “eyewitnesses” who were and did. I will stand by the evanglelists rather than the fictionalist.

 

[ricatholic]

Sea Knight:

As to your first point, the Gospels are pretty clear as to what “acceptance” of Jesus and His message entails. We are not only to believe the message He taught, but to accept His authority to teach that message. The Pharisees were constantly attacking Jesus on the basis of His authority: “By what authority do you teach these things?” And the people responded to His message precisely because He taught as one with authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 7:29).

As to your second point, it’s not a question of “how we picture Jesus.” It’s a question of how He is portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Either the picture presented to us by the Gospels is essentially accurate and therefore true, or it isn’t. If the Gospel portrayals are misleading, it’s either because the writers basically misunderstood Jesus, or intentionally tried to depict Him as someone that He wasn’t. If the picture of Brown and the DVC is accurate, then the Gospels are all wrong; if the Gospels are accurate, then Brown is wrong. They can’t both be right, because the picture of Jesus portrayed by each is incompatible.

As to your third point, again it goes back to what the Gospels reveal about Jesus. True, the Gospel writers are presenting us with their perspective, each of which has a slightly different “take” on Jesus. But the main elements of His life, teaching, death, resurrection, and significance are all the same. It’s often said that the synoptics portray a more human Jesus, while John emphasizes His divinity. But the synoptics don’t ignore His divinity, while John takes great effort to point out the humanness of Jesus as well.

As to your questions regarding St. Mary Magdalen, if Jesus were to have married her, it wouldn’t necessarily prove that He wasn’t the Son of God. However, it would prove that the canonical Gospels had fundamentally misinterpreted His life. The image of Jesus presented to us in these Gospels would be radically different from reality, had Jesus married St. Mary Magdalen.

Either Brown is right, or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are. Since I wasn’t there and don’t have firsthand knowledge of Our Lord’s life, I have to trust the “eyewitnesses” who were and did. I will stand by the evanglelists rather than the fictionalist.

There is enough difference among the “eye witnesses” to know that there is a difference. as far as the DVC goes, I just finished reading it and it didn’t really say much about Jesus other than he was married and Mary Mag. moved to France.

We know from the Gospels that Jesus was a man. So there is nothing in the Gospels that preclude Jesus from being capable of being married. So is absense of evidence , evidence of absense?It didn’t seem to indicate that regarding the Marian dogmas. So why couldn’t Jesus have married Mary M.? The arguements that could be used to dispute Jesus’ marriage ,could be used to dispute Mary’s Ascension.

But whether Jesus was married or not, it doesn’t change what He taught or comment on whether we should believe in what he taught.

So was Jesus married? Only God really knows for sure.

Peace

 

[KennySe]

ricatholic:

So was Jesus married? Only God really knows for sure.

Holy Tradition has not ever taught that Jesus was married.

The One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church has never called any woman the wife of Jesus

Therefore, The Church [The Bride of Christ], guided by the Holy Spirit, has spoken.

 

[Thomas2]

Hey JCPhoenix

Yeah the priest on that show reminded me of someone who is still hearing Confessions at a local parish who rarely sticks to the Roman Rite. What did you expect from the general media? Someone who’s holy? Of course they used hand-picked people to feed their propaganda machine. Some of them are so oppressed that they think they have keep working like that to keep their families fed and others, well, let’s just not go there now…The real kicker for me was the ending with the “solutions” offer by folks who lack the blessings of our Catholicity. What do you want from folks who are their own popes? Pray some of us don’t get that sickened by their liberalisms, moderisms, minimalisms, whateverisms, etc… God bless them and all those like them. Keep in mind that Jesus is the gentle healer and we need to pray for patience, leastways, I do because I can lose my temper and use foul language!

 

[Sea_Knight]

KennySe:

Holy Tradition has not ever taught that Jesus was married.

The One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church has never called any woman the wife of Jesus

Therefore, The Church [The Bride of Christ], guided by the Holy Spirit, has spoken.

Well said, Kenny. Jesus IS married, not to the Magdalen but to the Bride of Christ - His Church!