Funny story, my father came across the book The Davinci Code one day driving home one rainy day. He was driving home and saw the book in the middle of the road being rag dolled, tossed about, and driven over the street and decided to pick it up and long story short, gave the book for me to read.

So I gave the book a chance and literally stopped reading somewhere near the part where it alleges Mary Magdalene and Jesus had a husband wife or were lovers or some rubbish. I literally had to put the book down then would come back and give it a try and keep reading some more, then I quit reading once and for all when they got to the part about analyzing the Last supper when they were trying to prove Jesus and Mary Magdalene's relationship by the fact that they were wearing alternating colors at the last supper.


Jesus being God in his essence is both male and female combined. Why exactly would Jesus need Mary Magdalene at all as far as a companion is concerned.

Rolls eyes and flies away.

I don't see a need for Jesus to encompass the masculine and feminine together. Christ is a lot of complicated things. It seems to me the feminine aspects of reality or truth are described in the characters of Jesus' mother, Jesus grandmother, or the fact that Jesus is twice born through the baptism. Other elements of the feminine can be found in the Old Testament.

americathegreat1492 said:

---

I don't see a need for Jesus to encompass the masculine and feminine together. Christ is a lot of complicated things. It seems to me the feminine aspects of reality or truth are described in the characters of Jesus' mother, Jesus grandmother, or the fact that Jesus is twice born through the baptism. Other elements of the feminine can be found in the Old Testament.

---

God is neither male nor female from what I have heard and been told. He has both qualities.

They call Him the Father, yet he is not a male. He made man in His image and likeness. That goes for men and women.

If we take the entirety of the Bible as relevant to Christianity, I still see no need for Christ to encompass all the elements of the feminine. Is Christ an important person to emulate? Absolutely. Does Christ by himself, as an archetypal figure describe everything about the nature of what is real and true? Not at all. A simple example is the doctrine of the trinity. Son, Father, and Holy Ghost. The Son alone is not enough. As best as I can tell, the thing about Christ that people should seek to emulate is something like the logos. I.e., the ability to use language to speak the truth, discover reality, and even shape. The logos is way more complicated than that, but those are definitely elements of it. I don't see a reason for Christ to encompass every aspect of the feminine in this.

dds08 said:

---

Funny story, my father came across the book The Davinci Code one day driving home one rainy day. He was driving home and saw the book in the middle of the road being rag dolled, tossed about, and driven over the street and decided to pick it up and long story short, gave the book for me to read.

So I gave the book a chance and literally stopped reading somewhere near the part where it alleges Mary Magdalene and Jesus had a husband wife or were lovers or some rubbish. I literally had to put the book down then would come back and give it a try and keep reading some more, then I quit reading once and for all when they got to the part about analyzing the Last supper when they were trying to prove Jesus and Mary Magdalene's relationship by the fact that they were wearing alternating colors at the last supper.


Jesus being God in his essence is both male and female combined. Why exactly would Jesus need Mary Magdalene at all as far as a companion is concerned.

Rolls eyes and flies away.

---

You don't subscribe to the belief that Jesus was fully human, and a human male?

dds08 said:

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

I don't see a need for Jesus to encompass the masculine and feminine together. Christ is a lot of complicated things. It seems to me the feminine aspects of reality or truth are described in the characters of Jesus' mother, Jesus grandmother, or the fact that Jesus is twice born through the baptism. Other elements of the feminine can be found in the Old Testament.

---

God is neither male nor female from what I have heard and been told. He has both qualities.

They call Him the Father, yet he is not a male. He made man in His image and likeness. That goes for men and women.

---

God isn't male or female, but I'd like to hear your justification that he isn't entirely masculine.

Good golly miss molly. I don't see why this is even a topic of discussion. There are a number of archetypes of the masculine and the feminine. It just doesn't make sense to me that all of them should be encompassed by one entity. No religion that I know of went this route in history. Why should Christianity?

schmendeler started down the right path.

This thread (no offense OP) is a great example of why it's important to study church history. The Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds get into this. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Also, Jesus already has a companion, and it's not Mary. Jesus will be a member of an arranged marriage, arranged by God the Father, and Jesus' wife is the Church.

For that reason, the fact that he be a man is essential.

Nice summary

If Jesus was indeed the embodiment of God come to earth to live as a man, why wouldn't he want to experience life fully as a man? Makes sense.

It always annoyed me that people would let offence ruin any chance of them actually letting their mind analyze concepts fully.

God is Spirit, timeless, immaterial, and eternal and exists in 3 persons. He created man and woman in His image so somehow both male and female bear the image of God vs just one gender alone. Jesus is eternal however when he entered earh as a human He did so as a male (circumsized).

Much of what has been stated in the responding posts are why I stopped reading the book.

This thread seems quite a few years late... The Da Vinci Code?

dds08 said:

---

Much of what has been stated in the responding posts are why I stopped reading the book.

---

You should have stopped reading the book because its a poorly written mystery / thriller.