.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I don't know how to love him
What to do, how to move him

I've been changed, yes really changed
In these past few days when I've seen myself
I seem like someone else
I don't know how to take this
I don't see why he moves me
He's a man, he's just a man
And I've had so many men before
In very many ways
He's just one more

Should I bring him down
Should I scream and shout
Should I speak of love
Let my feelings out?

I never thought I'd come to this
What's it all about?

Don't you think it's rather funny
I should be in this position?

I'm the one who's always been
So calm, so cool, no lover's fool
Running every show

He scares me so
Yet if he said he loved me
I'd be lost, I'd be frightened
I couldn't cope, just couldn't cope
I'd turn my head, I'd back away
I wouldn't want to know

He scares me so

I want him so
I love him so

was Jesus married?

Was Jesus married?

This question has been made popular from the book and movie The Da Vinci Code.

Author Brown proclaims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Is this true?
Was Jesus married - Dan Brown's Claim

The main passage that Brown uses as support is a little known paragraph from the Gnostic writings (Gospel of Philip 63:32-64:10).

This text describes Mary Magdalene as a “companion” of Jesus. History tells us that this text from the Gospel of Philip was composed in the second half of the third century.

This is a full two hundred years after the life of Jesus. (The four Christian gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- were written and being circulated within the first 90 years of the time of Christ.)

The passage that Brown uses as his premise has many missing elements. The key part of the text is broken at 63:33-36 and reads (Ellipses represent the broken locations in the manuscript and may signify missing words or phrases),

“And the companion of the…Mary Magdalene…her more than…the disciples…kiss her…on her…”. Brown adds his own words to this manuscript to support point.

Brown uses this manuscript and his imagination to say that Jesus was married to and had sex with Mary Magdalene.

No serious scholar or serious historian who understands the complexities of Bible and extra-biblical exegesis would call this skillful academic interpretation.

Was Jesus married - Early Literature

As we study early literature -- biblical and extra-biblical -- we do not find any evidence that Jesus was married. There are thousands of ancient texts that speak of Jesus, and not one speaks of Jesus being married. They do speak of Jesus’ mother, father, and siblings, yet no wife.

There is no mention of Jesus’ wife during His ministry.
When Jesus was tried and crucified, there is no mention of a wife.
After Jesus death and resurrection, there is no mention of a wife.
Jesus’ family members -- mother, brothers, sisters -- are mentioned, yet no wife.

There is no indication that Jesus was widowed.“When Paul was defending his right to have a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5), he mentioned that Peter and Barnabas had wives.

Had Jesus been married, Paul would have certainly mentioned such an important detail; it would have clinched his argument,” says Darrell Bock, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.1 Da Vinci Code Truth – Learn More!

1 Bock’s complete article can be viewed at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/001/23.62.html.

more

more answers here

Did Jesus have sex?

How to be a Hippie today

Back in the days when ideas of ‘peace and love’ defied the social norm and challenged the conventional ways of thinking;

back when bellbottom jeans were in and tie-dye was outrageous;

when John Lennon rivaled Jesus in popularity;

a new term was twisted into existence. Sprung from the ashes of the beatnik 50s, fed by rock and roll, nurtured by the sexual revolution, and destined to signify counterculture at its finest, the term ‘hippie’ was born.

In the 60s and 70s, a hippie was someone who opposed the war in Vietnam, who dressed expressively, experimented with hallucinogens, lived for music, died for peace, who maintained that sort of fixation with everything radical.

Some say that the Hippie died with the onslaught of Big-Hair Bands and the premiere of Flashdance (essentially, the 80s). But others believe that the hippie was just cocooning itself, undergoing a butterfly-esque metamorphous so that, come the new millennium, the term hippie would rise again. And rise it has. Even today, in a world of iPhones and bad Reality TV, ‘hippies’ can be found roaming the streets or changing the world.

A contemporary hippie will sustain the initial hippie beliefs, largely ideas of peace, love, freedom, and personal expression, but with a modern-day, 21st century twist. Neo-hippies are no longer defined as “defying the social norm”, like in the dictionaries, because a lot of what makes a 2007 is not rejected but embraced by today’s culture.

A belief in peace, as stereotypical of a hippie mannerism as it may be, is an imperative feature of hippie life that survived the metamorphic change from the 60s to the present.

The only difference is that today, fighting for peace is not so much a rejection of the social standard. Many people, hippies and otherwise, believe strongly that peace is the answer.

A modern day hippie, however, will most likely vote Barrack Obama for President, based on his beliefs that fighting terrorism with intelligence and not bombs is the way to go.

Hippies of today would also participate in events such as Live 8, a string of concerts timed with the G8 Summit in 2005, to help end poverty and raise money for Africa. The hippies in 2007 will be seen with “Make Love Not War” bumper stickers or Anti-Bush screen savers. Always opposing the man, always working for the greater good of humankind. That is the true hippie way, no matter which decade.

The majority of non-hippies in the 60s and 70s were horrible prudes. The sexual revolution was a huge part of hippie culture, illustrating the openness toward sex and all things lewd that was the natural manner of any hippie. Hippies were not at all obscene or vulgar; they simply took a different angle on love and convergence. It was thought to be beautiful and profound, not something to be ignored or disgusted with. The revolution did eventually catch on, and by 2000 one could not even turn on their television without being exposed to some form of bawdy inappropriate material.

The hippie of today is no longer the revolutionist in this category, but the old-fashioned conservative. The ideas of the hippie about sex and love are the same, but the perception by the rest of the world on these thoughts has changed drastically. A contemporary hippie would never pull a Britney and get married and divorced before the tabloids could even be printed. Nor would a modern-day hippie expose his or herself on a reality TV show. The hippies of today reject anything that contaminates the purity in love and the beauty in union, especially the exploitation and misuse seen today.

Freedom also remains a huge part of hippie life, though it has gone through a modernization as well. The difference from the 60s and 70s to today is in the controversial issues at hand, not the ideas of liberty behind them. It is 2007. Every civil fight has been fought and every civil right has been wrought by now. Hippies of today do tend to veer left-wing when it comes to political issues of freedom and justice. The contemporary hippie will be pro-choice, and all for gay and lesbian rights. Religion was replaced by rock ‘n’ roll a long time ago, in the mind of a 2007 hippie. Free speech and all of those issues will always be hippie-esque, but even more so in today’s media-ridden world, a hippie will fight for freedom from media corruption. It is all about not letting the corporations, the suits, the Man himself, get to you. It’s about not selling out, not owning up, not giving in to what the “rest of the world” defines as normal. Freedom from conventionalism takes the stand nowadays; freedom from mediocrity, tradition, and most of all, boredom.

Personal expression is a vital piece of every hippie’s mind-set. In the 60s and 70s it was done through newfangled ideas of art and music and color and fashion. Regrettably for our millennium, the Cultural Revolution is over. Counterculture fought the good fight and came out on top. What was counterculture then is now just plain old culture. Hippies of today express themselves personally the same ways, through art or music or the written word, but none of these methods of personal expression are judged or shunned upon as they once were. In fact, they are encouraged and enhanced by large portions of our country. Once again, hippies are no longer defying the social norm, but living by it. That does mean, in any way, shape, or form, that they are ordinary.

Personal expression, to a modern-day hippie, is all about reaching out to a new level of depth. Listening to the Beatles and feeling emotions instead of hearing melodies; using the words of Paul Simon to convey thoughts and ideas rather than lyrics; touching everyone and everything possible with simply a sound.

Music to a 2007 hippie is not just having a love for the tunes of the 60s and 70s, but loving and appreciating all music for what it truly is: a reflection of feelings.

The age of the neo-hippie has arrived. They are not simply cutouts of the 60s pasted into a new millennium, but different people with different lives. The impact of the 60s and 70s still holds strong in many branches of hippie life, especially through the principles of peace, love, freedom, and personal expression. The term ‘hippie’ did not die with the end of 70s. It has always been around, just waiting to be applied to a new era.

more

Back to top

do you know the real Jesus ?

When you think of Jesus Christ, do you think of the weak and effeminate Jesus often portrayed in the media? The Bible reveals the real Jesus—and He is quite different from what many imagine!

Where did you get your ideas about Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
Within the last year, Jesus Christ has been the subject of both a best-selling novel and a blockbuster movie. For more than a year, The DaVinci Code, a suspenseful work of fiction, has rested near the top of the New York Times’ best-seller list. Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, has broken box office records in the United States and around the world. The recently completed 12-book Left Behind series, a fictional (and quite inaccurate) account of events leading up to Christ’s return, has been second only to the Harry Potter books as a publisher’s gold mine. Clearly, Jesus Christ fascinates millions of people. They are curious about the origins of Christianity, as well as whether or not Jesus Christ will return to this earth. The problem is that there are so many different ideas floating around. People are getting their ideas from the most unlikely—and inaccurate—of places. From where have you received your information about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and the message that He taught? What Jesus do you know? Is your Jesus the "traditional Sunday School" Jesus, the DaVinci Code Jesus, the "social gospel" revolutionary Jesus, the "hippie" Jesus—or perhaps the "anything goes" Jesus so popular with "modern Christians" today? Do any of these images represent the real Jesus? Depending on who is presenting Him, you can nowadays hear Jesus depicted as a right-wing Republican, a feminist, a gender-bending modernist, a poverty-stricken weakling or a fierce advocate of revolution against the wealthy. It is common for "Christians" to reinvent a Jesus suitable to their own likes and dislikes. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson did so nearly 200 years ago, when he sat down in the White House with two identical New Testaments and a razor. He proceeded to cut out those sections that he thought represented the "real" teachings of Jesus—leaving out miracles and claims of divinity—and pasted them into a large folio book to create his own version of the New Testament. This is not unlike what some contemporary scholars—notably the so-called "Jesus Seminar"—have done in our time. In the midst of such utter confusion, is there any way to know the truth? Can you know the real Jesus and what He taught? The truth is actually far more astounding than all of the ideas and inventions of men! If you want the real facts, then read on.
Another Gospel
The story line of The DaVinci Code involves the discovery of other "gospels" that were left out of the New Testament, and an alleged centuries-old plot by the Roman Catholic Church to suppress those books. This makes for a good novel, but is far from the facts! The Roman Catholic Church had absolutely nothing to do with creating the New Testament! This may seem like a shocking statement, but it is a fact. The Roman Catholic Church, as it emerged from the Council of Nicaea in 325ad, was very different in its teachings and practices from the church of which you read in the book of Acts. In fact, surviving historical records from the second and third centuries illustrate a clear transition away from the teachings and practices of the Apostles to a very different brand of "Christianity." More information on this interesting subject can be found in our free booklet Restoring Apostolic Christianity. Who, then, did put together our New Testament? The answer is found in 2 Peter 1:12–21. The Apostle Peter explained to his readers that his death was imminent, and that he wished to ensure that after he was gone there would be an authoritative record of Jesus’ real teachings. There were already, in the late 60s ad, "cunningly devised fables" (v. 16) circulating. Peter explained that the young Christian community should look to him, and to his fellow Apostle, John, for the "sure word of prophecy." This becomes clear when we read Peter’s words carefully. Beginning in verse 12, Peter writes in the first person singular about his approaching death, and his desire to leave a permanent record. In verse 16, he abruptly switches from "I" to "we." Who is the "we?" The answer becomes plain in verses 16 through 18. The "we" are those who accompanied Jesus to the mountain where they saw His transfiguration, and heard the voice from heaven (Matthew 17:1–6). These were Peter, John, and James the brother of John. By the time Peter was writing 1 Peter, James had died—the first of the Apostles to be martyred (Acts 12:1–2)—so Peter’s "we" had to refer to him and to John. Before his death in the late winter of 68ad, Peter put together the very first "canon" of the New Testament, consisting of 22 books. Near the end of the first century, John added the five books that he wrote, bringing to 27 the number of books in the New Testament that we have today. Already in the second century, in the earliest writings of the "Church Fathers," we see that the New Testament canon existed, and was quoted from and referenced frequently. Certainly there were attempts to change the canon, but its books were already written and too well known to be abandoned. How should we understand the various "lost gospels" referred to by the author of The DaVinci Code and other writers? We should not be surprised by such discoveries, because the New Testament itself warns of spurious gospels already circulating in the days of the original Apostles. How much more would we expect such accounts to multiply in subsequent years, after the Apostles had died? Remember that the Apostle Paul, writing in the mid-50s, warns of those who sought to bring "another gospel" and "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). He labeled these preachers as "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (v. 13). Peter assured his readers that he and John had not followed the "cunningly devised fables" that were already extant in the first century. Some of these false gospels have survived, however, and have found a new audience in recent years with the discovery of the "Nag Hammadi" library. In December 1945, a young Egyptian farmer unearthed a pottery jar containing several ancient books written in Coptic. Translation began in earnest in the 1950s, and the content of these books has since fed into radically new interpretations of Jesus, His mission and His message. Eventually, these books—with such titles as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary—became available in English. Though the physical copies of these books were new discoveries, knowledge of their contents and of their teachings was not. They represent the Gnostic heresies that originated in the first century and flowered in the second and third, which were well known to, and quoted in the writings of, the early "Church Fathers." As for the real New Testament, it was preserved exactly where we would expect it to be. Historians are unanimous in noting that John, the last original Apostle, died in Asia Minor at Ephesus. The writings of Eusebius and others make plain that during the second and third centuries ad, the churches in Asia Minor, which had had John’s direct guidance, preserved the practices of the original Jerusalem Church (such as observing Passover on Abib 14 rather than keeping the Roman Easter). It is from Asia Minor that the Byzantine family of New Testament texts originated—the text officially preserved in the Greek world.
A Look at the Real Jesus
It is not enough to possess the Bible, God’s authoritative

more

Towards A Real Hindu-Christian Dialogue

By Koenraad Elst
In the West we don't hear much about it, and even in India it doesn't make many headlines, but Hindu society is faced with a Christian problem besides the better-known Muslim problem. One focus of this conflict is the history of Christian iconoclasm, which is not entirely finished, and which past history has crystallized into some hundreds of churches standing on the ruins of purposely demolished Hindu temples. This history of iconoclasm is not an accident: it is the logical outcome of Christian theology, particularly of its deep hostility towards non-Christian forms of worship.
Christian sacred places in Palestine
A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.
The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis. Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.
The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman, and fortified with a faked excavation.4
Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.

more