National Geographic Special

  • Thread starter Thread starter Path
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Path

Guest
I watched a National Geographic Special on Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and possibly having a child. Being interviewed was the author of the Davinci code. It was the stupidiest 1 hour tv show I have ever seen, even the woman who was doing this (in depth study seemed embarrassed). I really expected better from the National Geographic. The 2 PHD women being interviewed seemed to have an agenda about no women in the church and that Mary Magdalene was really more of an Apostle than the 12. The kicker was the DaVinci code hack stated that the in the Last Supper painting the apostle seated next to Jesus was really Mary Magdalene not the Apostle John as he looks more feminine and the distance apart forms a vee which shows that Leonardo was aware of Mary’s role and that vee represents a womans loins. They stated there was no evidence but that didnt stop them from going on about this idiocy. They even had a priest from Notre Dame ( I think his name was Fr. McBrien) saying it was possible but wouldn’t change anything about Christ if he was married because the Church always was backward about sex! This really cranked me up, what a bunch of idiots, I’m still foaming at the mouth. Thanks for listening!!!
 
This doesn’t sound new I swear I saw the same documentary on ABC done by Elizabeth Vargas a conspiracy journalist whose hero must be Dan Rather.
And the same liberal women scholars and MacBrien were interviewed along with that idiot Crossan.
Maybe it was just recycled and they slapped the National Geographic logo on.
I am dissapointed that National Geographic would give its prestigious name and reputation to such drivvel.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
This doesn’t sound new I swear I saw the same documentary on ABC done by Elizabeth Vargas a conspiracy journalist whose hero must be Dan Rather.
Click to expand...
If it was the same program, one can only hope they included the rebuttal from Umberto Eco (filmed in his “library of wrong conspiracys” 😛 ) – It was by far the best part of the ABC “news” “special”.

tee
 
40.png
Maccabees:
And the same liberal women scholars and MacBrien were interviewed along with that idiot Crossan.
.
Click to expand...
i am converting to the catholic church…

but one problem i still have is how can men like mcbrien and crossan still be priests?? how have they not been stripped of their orders by the bishop or even the pope if the bishop is unwilling? they espouse heresy within the church and their position causes confusion. i understand that the church is full of sinners but paul talks about there coming a point when you have to cut some one off from fellowship. with as much as these guys write and speak against the church, it seems that time has come. there is already enough confusion about the catholic church stemming from the sex scandals and the “outdated” or “weird” (not my words but ones i have heard used to describe the church) beliefs and doctrines, why do we let priests feed into more confusion? why isn’t something done? if the church is too weak to do it, i must question whether it is the church Christ founded (because it would seem it has let the gates of hell overcome it). i know this sounds harsh, and i assure you i have very good intentions and am in the process of my joining the church but this is one thing that really gets to me.
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
If it was the same program, one can only hope they included the rebuttal from Umberto Eco (filmed in his “library of wrong conspiracys” 😛 ) – It was by far the best part of the ABC “news” “special”.

tee
Click to expand...
Yep, Eco was on at the end. Same program then, now National Geographic slips even lower in my view. Thanks for the reply.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
how can men like mcbrien and crossan still be priests?? how have they not been stripped of their orders by the bishop or even the pope if the bishop is unwilling? they espouse heresy within the church and their position causes confusion.
Click to expand...
I watched that last night and I do not recall them saying it was a fact, what they said was that it would make no theological difference. Mc B did make an idiotic statement about sexuality, but, he’s allowed to speak his own opinion just as you and I are. I certainly did not appreciate Mc B showing up for the interview with his “roman” collar on. That was theatrics and should not have been allowed.
40.png
bengal_fan:
with as much as these guys write and speak against the church, it seems that time has come.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure exactly what they’ve said or written, can you enlighten me? I didn’t see anything punishable by excommunication on the show last night.
40.png
bengal_fan:
why do we let priests feed into more confusion? why isn’t something done? if the church is too weak to do it, i must question whether it is the church Christ founded (because it would seem it has let the gates of hell overcome it). i know this sounds harsh, and i assure you i have very good intentions and am in the process of my joining the church but this is one thing that really gets to me.
Click to expand...
Well, it only sounds harsh because you haven’t shown what they did or refer us to any of their writings or speeches. The T.V. show was certainly not something to make every Catholic proud, but, it also wasn’t something to call for their execution was it? Now, if you’ve got specific things they said or written, share with us, maybe we can do something. As for questioning if this is the Church that Jesus founded, do you forget that when He was killed all 12 of His Apostles abandoned Him? Or that Peter, the leader, even denied Him, or that Thomas denied He had risen? Or that one of His own Apostles betrayed Him into His death? Yet He never abandoned His Church, despite the Apostles failures. Did this priest do worse than the Apostles? Should we excommunicate them from the Church? First let’s look at the exact charges then we should figure just what action should the Church take.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you,
Tom
 
40.png
Tom:
Mc B did make an idiotic statement about sexuality, but, he’s allowed to speak his own opinion just as you and I are…

The T.V. show was certainly not something to make every Catholic proud, but, it also wasn’t something to call for their execution was it?
Click to expand...
they can have their opinions yes, just like i can, but when they espouse those opinions in the name of the church, they become heretical (and that is what they are doing).

i didn’t call for their execution , but excommunication. these men have published numerous things (anywhere from denying the validity of Jesus’ miracles to women being ordained to homosexuality being accepted by the church) that contradict church teaching and they do it under their authority as priests. crossan was instrumental in establishing the Jesus seminar which has done everything it can to discredit church teachings and to secularize Christianity. mcbrien repeatedly says things and is willing to lend his name (and, therefore, his “credibility” as a priest) to things which tear away at the faith. i understand if your first experience with them was the national geographic special my words sound harsh, but it is not the first and certainly not the last that these men have used their ordination in an unworthy manner. and, only 11 of his apostles abandoned Jesus (john was at the cross) and, yes, one of His own betrayed Him, but everyone who repented was reinstated (judas hung himself instead of repenting). if these men repented, then i would have no problems welcoming them back with open arms, but until then they must be disciplined.
 
40.png
Path:
I watched a National Geographic Special on Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and possibly having a child. Being interviewed was the author of the Davinci code. It was the stupidiest 1 hour tv show I have ever seen, even the woman who was doing this (in depth study seemed embarrassed). I really expected better from the National Geographic. The 2 PHD women being interviewed seemed to have an agenda about no women in the church and that Mary Magdalene was really more of an Apostle than the 12. The kicker was the DaVinci code hack stated that the in the Last Supper painting the apostle seated next to Jesus was really Mary Magdalene not the Apostle John as he looks more feminine and the distance apart forms a vee which shows that Leonardo was aware of Mary’s role and that vee represents a womans loins. They stated there was no evidence but that didnt stop them from going on about this idiocy. They even had a priest from Notre Dame ( I think his name was Fr. McBrien) saying it was possible but wouldn’t change anything about Christ if he was married because the Church always was backward about sex! This really cranked me up, what a bunch of idiots, I’m still foaming at the mouth. Thanks for listening!!!
Click to expand...
We never will truly know will we? When we get to heaven someday there will be many questions to ask!! I have noticed among many paintings, the woman next to Jesus is clearly a woman. It’s a mystery I think.
 
40.png
sparkle:
We never will truly know will we? When we get to heaven someday there will be many questions to ask!! I have noticed among many paintings, the woman next to Jesus is clearly a woman. It’s a mystery I think.
Click to expand...
If you look at the portrait of St. John done by Michelangelo, you’ll notice he paints John with very fair features, you’ll also notice it’s the same person as the Last Supper. It is not Mary. Second of all, in the first few years of the Church, after His resurrection, it would have been impossible to hide the fact that He had a wife and a child. If they believed He was God, as they did, they would have also spoken much about His family “if” He had one. Also in the Scripture where His “family” is named Mk 6: 2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him”
Notice they name the whole family (Joseph the carpenter was already dead) but no wife or child? Very strange to name your whole family and exclude the wife and child. Wouldn’t you consider this evidence He was not married? If not 1 cor 9,5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? He names all of Jesus’ Apostles as having wives but excludes Jesus? Or Ephesians 5:31 - For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. You think Jesus left His Father to cling to His wife? How about Rev 21,9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. No, Jesus was not married, but it does make some good conspiracy theory doesn’t it?
 
The painting of “The Last Supper” by Michelangelo was painted about 1500 years after the Last Supper occured.

How would Michelangelo have known what any of them looked like?

That painting was not the “Dead Sea Scrolls”, it was just a painting.
 
What I found most amusing is that Brown parodied a method of establishing historical fact that is largely anagogical, in the sense that he has his characters assert that this or that event “must” have occurred because it would be consistent with their current theological convictions, i.e. syllogistically deducible from the concept system founded on those convictions. I see the book as a satire on Christian historical method in general.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
but one problem i still have is how can men like mcbrien and crossan still be priests?? how have they not been stripped of their orders by the bishop or even the pope if the bishop is unwilling? they espouse heresy within the church and their position causes confusion. i understand that the church is full of sinners but paul talks about there coming a point when you have to cut some one off from fellowship. with as much as these guys write and speak against the church, it seems that time has come. there is already enough confusion about the catholic church stemming from the sex scandals and the “outdated” or “weird” (not my words but ones i have heard used to describe the church) beliefs and doctrines, why do we let priests feed into more confusion? why isn’t something done? if the church is too weak to do it, i must question whether it is the church Christ founded (because it would seem it has let the gates of hell overcome it). i know this sounds harsh, and i assure you i have very good intentions and am in the process of my joining the church but this is one thing that really gets to me.
Click to expand...
Crossan got married and left the priesthood so thank God he’s not spreading his heresey claiming to be a priest although he does claim he is an ex-priest. MacBrien’s books oftne don’t have an Imprampteur but he is a priest and still teaches at Notre Dame so unfortunately that tell you a little about the State of Notre Dames theology department. Mac Brien is careful to tippy toe around his heresies when he’s on tv h esuggest heresey without ever endorsing it. Corssan endorses heresey as the norm he’s really out there. The state of the Semanires supposedly have improved under John Paul the 2 and the priest scandal had the Vatican having a closer eye on dissention in the seminaries so our younger priest seem to be more Orthodox. The old baby boom guard priests have led many astray.
 
I guess it is up to some of us to make our apostolate the “outing” of so-called Father Richard McBrien, still, unfortunately, at Notre Dame.

Please type in “McBrien” (minus quotes) in the search box, and you will be clued in quickly.

(Unfortunately, somehow my bookmark to the forums always brings up a McBrien forum first, and I am faced with that subject each time I log on! This I must change, before I get to thinking that it’s Divine Retribution for my very-much-less-than-charitable attitude toward him! ) :mad:

God bless,

Anna
 
Boy, I’m really disappointed with National Geographic. I’ve been a subscriber for years and thought their stuff was first rate for that genre. The “pig slop” that they’re preaching is just a re-hashed version of Dan Brown’s idiotic novel *The Di Vinci Code. *Crossan and McBrien are well-known dissenters. Crossan has been made famous (or infamous) with his association with the liberal deconstructionalist group The Jesus Seminar and McBrien was made famous (or infamous) during his appearences on every major news show during the priest scandal in 2002 (he probably advertised for those interviews). Oh, man - secular society at its best.
 
Thanks for all the replies! I am really impressed with the knowledge out there. It is nice to know there are others who feel like I do. I have just started teaching Catechism to new to the faith 7+8 graders (RCIA) and am scared to death but with this forum maybe I will find the resources I need!
 
The Di Vinci code places a lot of credence on the picture painted of the last supper. Some things to remember about that picture are 1. It was painted almost 1300 years after the last supper by someone who could have not really known what it “looked like”. So don’t put too much faith on the depiction as accurate, it’s a piece of art. 2. If you look at the portrait of St. John done by Michelangelo, you’ll notice he paints John with very fair features, you’ll also notice it’s the same person as the Last Supper. It is not Mary.
In the first few years of the Church, after His resurrection, it would have been totally impossible to hide the fact that He had a wife and a child. If they believed He was God, as they did, they would have also spoken much about His family “if” He had one. Keep in mind that the Church spread and stories about His family would have been well known and impossible to “cover up”. Scripturally: where His “family” is named Mk 6: 2 “And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him”
Notice they name the whole family (Joseph the carpenter was already dead) but no wife or child? Very strange to name your whole family and exclude the wife and child. Wouldn’t you consider this evidence He was not married? If not 1 cor 9,5 “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Paul names all of Jesus’ Apostles as having wives but excludes Jesus? Or Ephesians 5:31 – “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” You think Jesus left His Father to cling to His wife? How about Rev 21,9 “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.” No, Jesus was not married, but it does make some good conspiracy theory doesn’t it?
 
Tom,

I just posted a message on The Da Vinci Code in this forum, Please read it and react to it.

Antonio 😃
 
Somebody help me! My Uncle has been pulled into the trap that the Divinci code is historical fact. He said that I’m closed minded to think other wise. I told him that like wise, he was being closed minded to me. How can a fictional story be fact? Is Les Miserables fact? Or does it strech the truth to fit a theme? It kind of reminds me of that special the Discovery Channel presented about St. James’ osuary. What a big joke that is.
 
People,

How could you be so close minded, I used to be like you, a very devout Catholic, almost joined the priesthood actually, but during these past 10 years I have earenstly had my eyes opened.
From what I can gather most of you on this board are all up in arms with what this author wrote in the Da Vinci code, well im afraid that most of what he wrote was in fact true, backed up by written proof, proof that was saved from destruction by the Catholic church. You see wether you like it or not the bible you read now was invented and produced by a man who wished everyone to follow what he believed and this was not Jesus Christ. Please read below and think for yourselves, not as you have been taught to from birth, sometimes the hardest thing you have to do is the unlearn what you have learned.

"In 325, Emperor Constantine after being converted to the Faith called the first ecumenical council at Nicaea to settle questions of doctrine. This resulted in the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which later became the basis of all church doctrine from that day forward.

"It was here that certain books were selected for inclusion in the ‘Authorized’ Bible while others were banned and discredited. It was here, also, that the teachings on Reincarnation and Karma were disauthorized. All references to such principles were then expunged from the sacred books and these teachings were henceforth suppressed and regarded as heretic.

"However, in the Bible itself even now, there are still veiled allusions to the Doctrine of Reincarnation which have survived the rewriting of the Scriptures. These can be seen in the references to Elijah returning in the flesh as John the Baptist and to Jesus, himself, before he became Jesus. In addition, there are the comments of Jesus’ disciples regarding the reasons why a man came to be born blind. And Karma is only the sowing and reaping mentioned by St. Paul. There are other passages which are just as elucidating to the earnest seeker.

"What Jesus himself taught, his so-called followers just a few hundred years after his death denied. Deciding that they know better than their Lord, the church leaders voted to drop reincarnation and karma from the catechetical teachings. However, the Truth will not be denied for long. “More recently, these teachings have been reinstituted into Scripture through their inclusion in the Aquarian Gospel by Levi. Moreover, the Edgar Cayce files are replete with illustrative life readings. Arthur Ford contributes some interesting insights relating to prominent personalities who have only recently departed. Lobsang Rampa, the Lama, ably provides the rationale behind these principles. For the scientific-minded, Dr. Ian Stevenson through his 2,000 researched cases, Dr. Helen Wambach through her experiments in hypnotic regressions and many others have presented their own evidences in support of reincarnation. The books are in our stores.”

I am hoping that this brief explanation will at least encourage you to conduct a more serious search for additional information and deeper truths. There is a promise in the Holy Bible: "Those who seek will find."

Good luck and god bless and if any of you have any questions then drop me a line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top