On the Seventh Day Adventists, Stop! Could people please restrain themselves from NAZI like persecution, knowing that some people of these religious people have a history of persecution, and holocaust. It is a shame, however, that they cannot consider an older, more credible group of scrolls, than the corrupted Roman ones they assume as the words of God.

As for Jesus, well, the theory of Mary Magdeline was well and truely in discussion a decade before the Da Vinci Code was ever released. There are various versions of one story. It sounds better reading this version of the last supper announcing his pregnant wife as the bloodline of Christ, to the desciples, over dinner. The church wants something that looks like a perverse cult of canibalism, where people drink blood from a cup, flesh like bread, canibalising a great man.

Trust the Roman Constinine to make up such a corker, the bloodline male to male by ingeniously consuming the blood via canibalism. They accepted this rather than the more logical explanation that the Royal bloodline by birth, via the pregnant Mary. They didn't want a Royal aire, nor did they want to give women any significance.

Well it is no suprise to me that history finally caught up with a really offensive and sick lie from Constantine and Rome. The real Jesus momement has hope yet, and is yet to return. The qestion is, what scroll has credibility now? The one the Pope accepts is utterly offensive rubbish from Constantine. How the Romans walked away smelling like roses must surely raise suspicions.

The real Bible was only published in part, translated badly, and fake sections were inserted by Rome. The original text no doubt has wisdom for us all. The Da Vinci Code gave us the point that it was all just faith. But when people oppress others using false texts, this is not faith, this is the blasphemy.

Jesus was married. So what?

Exactly! So what?

Whether he was married or not is totally irrelevant. Whether he even existed or not is totally irrelevant. Objectivally it does not alter a thing. Subjectivally it matters to many people because of their dependence on religious behaviour in order to avoid the realities of human existence. Drug abuse, binge drinking and compulsive gambling all matter to many people too. That does not make them mature behaviour.

Theology is nothing more than a very convoluted rationalisation of a very neurotic set of behaviours. Scholarship should be ashamed to have anything to do with it.

“So what?” -?

Under which law and ceremonies, at least to say?

The practises on marriage and children of the Essene community should be recognised in this debate. Jesus though himself not Essene their practises seem to have a marked impression on him and his disciples, as he uses language familiar to the community with lusting after a woman etc and taught them a prayer well known to John's followers. We today recognise it as the 'Lord's Prayer'.

It would appear from their writings that sex and marriage did not feature as imperative [see Geza Vermes "The complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English"]. Josephus speaks of celibate and married Essenes. The only updated ruling on marriage made by the Qumran community was between an uncle and a neice; it had the same forbidden status as Leviticus 18: 13 between a nephew and his aunt - otherwise they state the Levitical law.

Though we recognise several of the disciples were married; Peter for instance had a wife, as his wife's mother was sick [Not a mother in law joke] Matthew 8: 14 - 15. Jesus seemed to teach a celibate life because the tribulation impending upon Israel would cause deep distress to mothers with children Matthew 24: 19.

Food for thought: It's interesting how faith blinds intelligence.

Thanks
Konneh.

Philo,
Priscillian here. Funny you should mention the Lord's prayer and I have to agree that this was a very important feature of Jesus' teaching.
Why is it that Paul seemed to have never heard of it?
I think that Jesus' marital state remains ambiguous because (as I have often stated) the gospels were influenced heavily by Paul. It is obvious that Paul was not a fan of women or marriage so the gospel writers may have reflected this attitude in the things they wrote about Jesus.
I think Matthew 24:19 is just simply saying that during "those Days" it will be hard on pregnant and nursing women. Does he relate this to marriage? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I left this message for you on the wrong article.

1. I am a male. Priscillian is a Roman male name.
I have named myself after him because his would surely have been my fate if I had lived in the 4th century:-
From Wikipedia:-
Priscillian of Ávila (died 385) was a Spanish theologian and the founder of a party which advocated strong asceticism. He is still a mysterious figure, this first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic). His party, in spite of severe persecution for heresy, continued to subsist in Spain and in Gaul until after the middle of the 6th century. The first writings attributed to him, which had seemed securely lost, were recovered in 1885.

2. You are quite right. I do not write enough about what I believe and I do write a lot about what I don't believe. This is one of my sins (I prefer the word faults) and I do ask your forgiveness. I will try harder.

Also if you go back to this article page and look at the ugly guy in the photo then I loook exactly like that.