Da Vinci Code controversy

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 maani wrote:

Sean: 

Hmmm....no women?  Well, let's set aside that, historically - and not just vis-a-vis the capital C Church - women were far less often mentioned in historical recountings in any case.  This would have been true even if the capital C Church had not engaged in some "revisionism" re mentions and roles of women in Jesus' time.  However, even so, there is Mary Magdalene, of course, and Jesus' mother, Mary.  And there were Elizabeth, Anna, Martha, Sapphira, Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, Phebe, Drusilla and Bernice, and Eunice and Lois, just to name a few.  Simply because we know only bits of their stories does not mean that they did not play important roles.  (And, of course, the Old Testament includes numerous women in major roles: Eve, Sarah, Lot's wife, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Tamar, Zipporah, Miriam, Rahab, Ruth, Rizpah, Jezebel, and, of course, Esther, just to name a few.)

As for "no hard evidence that Jesus existed," that is simply silly: one could then claim that not only did no one in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) exist, but also that dozens of historical figures didn't exist either, from Genghis Khan to Marco Polo.

Beginning with Josephus in the late first century, there are dozens of actual, physical texts from the end of the first century forward that mention Jesus and His ministry, and some even mention His crucifixion and alleged resurrection.  And there is absolute agreement in scholarly circles (including Jews, Christians, Gnostics, atheists et al) that, at very least, the Gospel of Mark is an authentic document, written around 60 A.D.

Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Jesus existed, even if people of various faiths (as well as scholars of all stripes) continue to debate whether He was a teacher, a rabbi, a prophet, or the literal "son of God," who was crucified and resurrected.

Peace. 
I think you meant the second part of your answer (bold characters) to somebody else, because I do not doubt of Jesus's existence or even thathe was a prophet!

To come back at women, In primitive nomad times, the god was most of the times female, and once man started settling down and raising farmanimals, this started changing dramatically, why?

Heard this two weeks ago on Belgian state radio , but do not remember the name of the University doctor speaking:
Because the female was giving birth and therefore creating life and were considered deities in ways. Once the farmers raising their cattle observed that the cycle of life needed a male to fecond the female >> this was news to them before (according to him, this is the only plausible explanation was that the link of putting the seeds only became clear top mankind as it started cattle raising and the first agricultural fields). Than religion started becoming more of a male bastion/thing, but polytheism often had both types of god. But often the high priest was male and had its female servers >> which were often highlighted for the cult going wrong and the gods being angry at mankind. So gradually Women were phased out until Monotheism came in the fold of Judaism >> God was male, period!! 

Myself speaking , now:

Beit in any of three religions from the book, the woman has been portayed as the one keeping the "hero" from the right path (the faith mostly) etc... and decided that in some case as Christianity did that they finally had a soul somewhere in the low medieval times >> just like they had discussion to see in Amerindians and Africans also had souls. >> let you draw the conclusion on this one

I noticed you solidly avoid the other point in my post about the diffusion of the scriptures and changing them, must I think you are allowing me this?