Vatican calling for Boycott of Da Vinci Code

[TisHerself]

Lots of questions, I'll disregard the first two seeing that is not what you asked me

I don't quite know exactly what you guys think of Jesus...have you checked out my siggy Tis lol
I think you think he was the Son of God and believe in the whole trinity thing...
I think you believe in the immaculate conception.
I think you believe in the resurrection.
I think you think he came to save humanity.
I could be wrong.

All I know is what I have read....alot of his teachings have been purposely left out, like who he studied with and just what he was doing when he wasn't getting mentioned in the Bible.
One book I do know to mention is "The Book of Urantia" but I doubt you will accept that as a source.

Well since you still did not answer my original question I will ask you again.

first your statement...... According to Catholics Jesus had no life.
I being a Catholic my entire life have never heard a catholic say that Jesus never had a life. So I am wondering how YOU would know that Catholics believe this.
So my question again. What do Catholics think Jesus life was like?

The Immaculate Conception, The Ressurection, have nothing to do with his life on earth and what he did while he was here.

I am not speaking about any so called "Books of Urantia" or others, you are the one making statements of what Us Catholics think, don't think. Back up your own statements stop referring to books.

 

[windovervocalcords]

You're right, Wind. I do recognize a mission of peace and brotherhood in that quote. What I do not accept is the validity of its claims to be a revelation from celestial beings and written as if directly presented by these celestial beings.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in different religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, while differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.

If I read your post correctly, you are saying that as a Catholic you reject the path of the followers of the Book of Urantia because of its claim to be divinely inspired. Yes?

But you do recognize a mission of peace and brotherhood in its statement.

"The Urantia Book teaches friendliness, non-violence, and a life of unselfish ministry toward others."

Others have similar feelings about organized, institutional, Christian sects. Embrace the "do unto others", "Love God, Love thy Neighbor" but reject the "trappings" or the "package of notions" that come along with the sect.

Similarly, remembering that real people, with different minds, are attracted to and hear the Truth in different paths of practice.

So, one could say I respect your faith as it brings forth qualities that are universally accepted as "good" without agreeing with all tenets you practice. (the you, not being personal to any particular poster but in general, "you, the believer of your faith".)

It sounds to me like Narlacat finds the Truth in the Book of Urantia, others find it in the Bible of their choice.

 

[TisHerself]

You quoted an editorial which is comprised almost entirely of falsehoods, so I responded.

Quoting editorials that are comprimised almost entirely of falsehoods is quite prevelant on here, under the guise of "Just interested in History". What is the point? I wonder

 

[Maral]

If I read your post correctly, you are saying that as a Catholic you reject the path of the followers of the Book of Urantia because of its claim to be divinely inspired. Yes?

Actually, as a Catholic, I do not reject the path of the followers of the Book of Urantia. All I reject is its claim to be divinely inspired. And that has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Catholic.

But you do recognize a mission of peace and brotherhood in its statement.

"The Urantia Book teaches friendliness, non-violence, and a life of unselfish ministry toward others."

Others have similar feelings about organized, institutional, Christian sects. Embrace the "do unto others", "Love God, Love thy Neighbor" but reject the "trappings" or the "package of notions" that come along with the sect.

Yes, I recognize a mission of peace and brotherhood in its statement.

Similarly, remembering that real people, with different minds, are attracted to and hear the Truth in different paths of practice.

So, one could say I respect your faith as it brings forth qualities that are universally accepted as "good" without agreeing with all tenets you practice. (the you, not being personal to any particular poster but in general, "you, the believer of your faith".)

It sounds to me like Narlacat finds the Truth in the Book of Urantia, others find it in the Bible of their choice.

I respect the right of anyone to follow his or her own path in their quest for the Truth. I just ask that they afford those who choose a differenent path the same consideration.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Quoting editorials that are comprimised almost entirely of falsehoods is quite prevelant on here, under the guise of "Just interested in History". What is the point? I wonder

What's the point of ignoring all the neutral to positive articles the poster links and says I wonder?

It's a rhetorical question. It's more than that too.

The question points to a deeper truth. IMO

We all tend to exaggerate the positive qualities of our friends, those who share our points of view. We ignore their negatives, when they behave badly, we make light of it.

We tend to exaggerate the negative qualities of those who disagree with us, who we label as enemies and and dismiss their neutral to positive qualities. We ignore their positive sides.

And then we freeze them into a solidity. As if the person "really was that".

Nothing is that intractable. Things change all the time.

To the posters who point out the flaws in the articles without labeling the writer of the article or the poster who provided the link as a friend or foe I commend your example and seek to emulate it.

 

[Maral]

You quoted an editorial which is comprised almost entirely of falsehoods, so I responded.

If someone quotes bigoted editorial as a source of information about my Faith, I will respond.

Bigotry is not acceptable.

Ecumenicalism promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations.

Rather than just pointing out that an editorial is comprised almost entirely of falsehoods, why not refute the falsehoods in the article?

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it almost sounds like the poster who quoted the editorial is being accused of bigotry.

 

[narlacat]

Well since you still did not answer my original question I will ask you again.

first your statement...... According to Catholics Jesus had no life.
I being a Catholic my entire life have never heard a catholic say that Jesus never had a life. So I am wondering how YOU would know that Catholics believe this.
So my question again. What do Catholics think Jesus life was like?

The Immaculate Conception, The Ressurection, have nothing to do with his life on earth and what he did while he was here.

I am not speaking about any so called "Books of Urantia" or others, you are the one making statements of what Us Catholics think, don't think. Back up your own statements stop referring to books.

Hi Tis
Here are your original questions

<<What exactly do we think his life was? Who exactly do we think he was? What exactly do we think he was doing here on earth?>>

And I'm sorry but I have already answered those questions for you.

One thing about you guys you don't have much of a sense of humour do you??
According to you guys Jesus did...um not alot lol...until 30 odd, thats when it all started happening for him didn't it?
I say it in jest....because I think it's funny you leave half his life out.....

I threw a book title in because you asked me

<<Really? And where did this common knowledge come from?>>
Soooo, I quoted a book for you........

 

[narlacat]

The only time the Bible was edited to suit was by Martin Luther during the "Reformation."

Sure
And my real name is Narlacat.

 

[narlacat]

Obviously it is too much to ask of you to follow what we see as God's laws, but it works for us just fine. (Especially using His name in vain.) He deserves our best effort, not the easy way out.

Obviously
That's because I don't believe in the same laws as you do.
I believe in Universal Laws..........

 

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Ecumenicalism promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations.

Rather than just pointing out that an editorial is comprised almost entirely of falsehoods, why not refute the falsehoods in the article?

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it almost sounds like the poster who quoted the editorial is being accused of bigotry.

I do not believe that poster to be bigoted, just misinformed.

It would take much more time than I have available to refute all of the false statements in that editorial.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Obviously
That's because I don't believe in the same laws as you do.
I believe in Universal Laws..........

"No matter what you think about the book or the movie -- love it, hate it or totally sick of hearing about it -- "The Da Vinci Code" has sparked a debate about the nature of faith and the foundations of Christianity. It's also turned a spotlight on some lesser-known religious traditions that have been operating quietly for centuries.

Gnostics believe Jesus' mission was to teach people that the divine lives within each of us, and that salvation can be achieved through spiritual knowledge rather than faith and good works. Only through truly knowing God can humans transcend the sins and flaws of this world. Gnosticism was declared a heresy in the early days of Christianity.

Gnostic View of DVC:
In Sophian Gnosticism, Mary Magdalene is viewed as a spiritual master, a close disciple to whom Jesus pours out the fullness of the light, or the Christos, and she becomes a Christ-bearer (messiah) also. She is the apostle to the first apostles, igniting what we call the Gnostic apostolic succession. And in this end she is mother to the royal blood on a spiritual level. So the issue for us wouldn't be whether she literally had children or not. Either way, it wouldn't make a difference.

Generally speaking, mainstream Christianity believes that we all inherit original sin. So the purpose of the incarnation [of Jesus] is atonement for that sin. This isn't the Gnostic view, however. Gnostics believe that the real problem isn't sin -- it's ignorance, because we don't know our origins, who we really are.

Gnostics don't tend to a literal interpretation of scripture. Be it the Bible or Gnostic scripture, it's seen as much more a source of inspiration and insight than instructions about who to be or what to do. We also don't take it as historical. It's metaphorical for us. "
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/interviews/int_20060530.shtml

Parts of article, and not entire article, are provided in order to not violate copy right laws.
Posted segments illustrate an alternative view in DVC discussion, relevant because some of Brown's assertions come from this point of view.

For those of you who have seen the movie and want a good laugh read the critique in the New Yorker, it brought me to tears laughing that hard:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060529crci_cinema

 

[TisHerself]

Hi Tis
Here are your original questions

<<What exactly do we think his life was? Who exactly do we think he was? What exactly do we think he was doing here on earth?>>

And I'm sorry but I have already answered those questions for you.

One thing about you guys you don't have much of a sense of humour do you??
According to you guys Jesus did...um not alot lol...until 30 odd, thats when it all started happening for him didn't it?
I say it in jest....because I think it's funny you leave half his life out.....

I threw a book title in because you asked me

<<Really? And where did this common knowledge come from?>>
Soooo, I quoted a book for you........

No you are skirting the answer:::::::::::::::: If you cannot answer just say so.
According to you guys Jesus did ... um not alot lol?????????????
I see nothing in jest or funny about it.

I did not ask you about any book title.

 

[narlacat]

Hi again Tis
I am answering to the best of my ability...
I can't answer because I don't know what you thought Jesus was doing for a third of his life time...I don't think even you guys know lol

You didn't ask me for a book title but you did ask me this:

<<Really? And where did this common knowledge come from?>>

So I told you.

There are countless other works that contain such information, I only named one.

 

[TisHerself]

Hi again Tis
I am answering to the best of my ability...
I can't answer because I don't know what you thought Jesus was doing for a third of his life time...I don't think even you guys know lol

You didn't ask me for a book title but you did ask me this:

<<Really? And where did this common knowledge come from?>>

So I told you.

There are countless other works that contain such information, I only named one.

Thank you, and that is differnt from... According to catholics Jesus had no life....
Inferring that because Catholics and mostly all Christians (meaning mostly all Protestant denominations) who believe the Bible and Scipture that Jesus was not married and had a family therefor he had no life.
That their beliefs are therefor flawed, something to be made fun of and ridiculed not to be defended when attacked and ridiculed.
But ones who believe that Jesus was probably married so that means he therefor had a life, and their beliefs are less flawed, not to be questioned.

The reason I asked you what Catholics think Jesus life was is because I know you have no idea. By your continuing to go back to the yrs between 12 and 30 it is so plainly obvious. That is why your statement according to Catholics was so offensive, I do not know anything about the Muslim Faith so therefor I would not venture to post what I think a Muslim thought although I have heard some things about their faith.
You are profoundly wrong in your statement that Catholics think Jesus had no life in fact considering he is Center of Our Faith it is most probably THEE most absurd statement I have ever heard. It was not the years between 12 and 30 that were the most important it was the years from 30 to 33.
Those were the years that Jesus himself chose to tell us about in The Bible, in Scripture..... NOW YOU do not have to believe this that is fine, BUT that is what we as Catholics believe. So it is not according to you or anyone else, all you have to do is ask we can speak for ourselves and tell you what we think and believe.

 

[narlacat]

<<It was not the years between 12 and 30 that were the most important it was the years from 30 to 33.>>

So because they were not considered important, let's just not mention them....
Geez, I would have thought, seeing as he is the 'centre of your faith', that you would be interested in knowing what his whole life was about, not just a few years of it.
Silly me

 

[TisHerself]

<<It was not the years between 12 and 30 that were the most important it was the years from 30 to 33.>>

So because they were not considered important, let's just not mention them....
Geez, I would have thought, seeing as he is the 'centre of your faith', that you would be interested in knowing what his whole life was about, not just a few years of it.
Silly me

I don't believe that is what I said, but it is only too clear that you just want to argue about Catholicism for some reason. I tried to explain to you what we as Catholics believed. Since I have no more interest in continuing this with you good luck.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Most modern Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion. The earliest extant texts which refer to Jesus are Paul's letters, which are usually dated from the mid-1st century. Paul wrote that he only saw Jesus in visions, but that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative (Gal 1:11–12.

My point in including this reference is that the Book of Urantia for instance is thought by some to not be valid because it is claimed to be divinely inspired. My point is that the earliest text of the Bible--Paul's letters also claim authority through divine revelation.

As a result of the several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe, the accuracy of all early texts claiming the existence of Jesus or details of Jesus' life have been disputed by various parties. However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives.[27] The authors of the Gospels are traditionally thought to have been witnesses to the events included. After the original oral stories were written down, they were transcribed, and later translated into other languages. Several Biblical historians have responded to claims of the unreliability of the gospel accounts by pointing out that historical documentation is often biased and second-hand, and frequently dates from several decades after the events described.

I include this paragraph because it points out a time gap between the events of Jesus' life and the written history and thus "allows some room" IMO to consider that there may have been a number of versions of Jesus' life before it was "accepted and acceptable history".

As a side note it is the historian Teabing in the DVC who is the villain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

 

[narlacat]

I don't believe that is what I said, but it is only too clear that you just want to argue about Catholicism for some reason. I tried to explain to you what we as Catholics believed. Since I have no more interest in continuing this with you good luck.

Like this thread isn't all about arguing
I just don't use as many fancy words and baffle people with bs that's all

 

[Maral]

<<Really? And where did this common knowledge come from?>>

So I told you.

There are countless other works that contain such information, I only named one.

I don't doubt that there are countless works that contain information that Jesus was married. I could write a book about Jesus being married, but that wouldn't make it so.

The only ancient text that comes half way close to alluding that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married is the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip. But even that work never actually says they were married.

Of course, you can believe whatever you choose to, but I do wonder why you can so easily accept the claims of these "countless works", yet totally disregard the Bible.

 

[narlacat]

Because the other works make more sense, I'd say that's why.
I have had the pleasure of studying certain parts of the Bible....it just never made any sense to me, so I chose to move onward and upward....to find answers to my questions.
Christianity doesn't like people asking too many questions...and doesn't have the answers anyway lol