Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?

[Plane]

How does Robert Kennedy segue into Jesus?


Jesus spoke on the subject of family concers several times , I am thinking particularly of the occasion of the crusifixion when he asked one of the deciples to look after his mother .

Seems like a wife might have been mentioned on an occasion like that.


Proof? I have no proof but I have a feel for the whole story as a gestalt and I opine that a wife would make it diffrent than it is.

[_JS]

All this happened between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the NT, but very curiously there is not a peep about these utterly monumental events in any part of the Bible.

There isn't? Are you certain?

The Book of Revelations might discuss that very topic in depth.

[Brassmask]

How does Robert Kennedy segue into Jesus?


Jesus spoke on the subject of family concers several times , I am thinking particularly of the occasion of the crusifixion when he asked one of the deciples to look after his mother .

Seems like a wife might have been mentioned on an occasion like that.


Proof? I have no proof but I have a feel for the whole story as a gestalt and I opine that a wife would make it diffrent than it is.

If you go with the idea that MM was the Holy Grail then that would mean that Jesus took care of talking about her at the Last Supper.

[_JS]

Out of curiosity Brass, why is it important to you whether Jesus was married or celibate?

Mary Magdalene was a great woman because she represents a truly penitent individual. That is the primary reason for her veneration as a Saint. I really don't understand this modern fascination with trying to force Mary M and Jesus together. In fact, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a harlot arose mostly from folk tales and the theory that she was the adulteress saved by Christ (though that link is not made clear in the scripture).

To Christians she is a symbol of true penitence for whatever sins she committed.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There isn't? Are you certain?

The Book of Revelations might discuss that very topic in depth.

=====================================================
Supposedly Revelations deals with the End of Time as well as the Return of Jesus. It predicts the destruction of Israel, but not by the Romans.

It might discuss this, but from the point of view of a raving lunatic.

Then again, it might just be only the ravings of a loon about a fictional destruction of Jerusalem that never happened, written before the Romans actually did tear it down.

Jerusalem was destroyed, but was rebuilt later by the Romans as Aelia Capitalina and then rebuilt once more and renamed renamed Al Quds by the Arabs. The name Al Quds seems to be derived from the Roman name.

The Book of Revelation is not anything I am willing to take seriously.

[_JS]

It depends on whom you ask.

Some scholars consider it a discussion of the politics and history of the eastern Mediteranean region during the very time period you are claiming is never mentioned in the Bible. The book would be written in veiled language due to the possibility of retribution. In fact, apocylyptical (sp?) literature was often written concerning current or recent events for that very reason.

[Brassmask]

Out of curiosity Brass, why is it important to you whether Jesus was married or celibate?

Mary Magdalene was a great woman because she represents a truly penitent individual. That is the primary reason for her veneration as a Saint. I really don't understand this modern fascination with trying to force Mary M and Jesus together. In fact, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a harlot arose mostly from folk tales and the theory that she was the adulteress saved by Christ (though that link is not made clear in the scripture).

To Christians she is a symbol of true penitence for whatever sins she committed.

Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more.  

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

Here's one reason point about her being a fallen woman or an adulteress.

WILLIAMS: Nothing in the New Testament says she was a prostitute. Luke writes that Jesus casts seven demons from her, after which she joins his disciples and provides for them. She witnesses the crucifixion from the foot of the cross, the male disciples having fled. And she was the first witness to the resurrection and was sent by Jesus to tell his other disciples of his return.

How did Mary Magdalene, the pivotal player in Christianity's defining moment, come to be so maligned? At the end of the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great gave a sermon in which he characterized Mary Magdalene as a harlot.

Dr. KING: He tells us exactly how he did it -- by aligning her with the "sinful woman" in Luke, with Mary of Bethany in John, and with the Mary in -- from whom seven devils were ejected to produce this Mary, the prostitute.

WILLIAMS: Mary Magdalene became the patron saint of fallen women. Historians don't agree on why Pope Gregory did it. To simplify things? To create a figure that would show the redemptive and transforming nature of Christian faith? Or, as King believes, to stifle the legend of a strong female leader?

Dr. KING: If one wanted to discredit Mary Magdalene, simply saying that she was a woman and her witness was unreliable was not sufficient. Saying that she hadn't been an important disciple, or hadn't been with Jesus -- that was not possible, because that was in the tradition. But to see her as a prostitute -- this was a way of maligning her in a way that would stick, if you will.

WILLIAMS: Mary Magdalene's reputation as a bad girl who became the hope of all bad girls did indeed stick. It persists today even though in 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning, officially separated Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html

Furthermore, a Human Jesus can apply to all Humans.  I like the idea of a Human Jesus, a man who is kind to all people, who rights wrong, who heals the sick.  That's something everyone should aspire to.  A metaphysical Jesus is not tied to reality.  At least, no more than say Superman who more and more is being related to Jesus and rightly so.

It is my opinion that a Jesus who is Human, married and having a family, is a Jesus who could join other great luminaries throughout History as examples of the best of Humanity.  I can envision (this may be profane to some) a pantheon on Humanist Saints that children are taught to emulate and whose words they repeat with the same fervency of a fundamentalist whackjob.  Not forced to emulate but given indepth instruction on and shown the inate goodness of their words.  Imagine a history class or course that focuses on the historical words of great Humans throughout History.  And they would come from all walks of life.  A Human Jesus could be studied right beside Ghandi, MLK, JFK, Washington, Jefferson, Mr. (Fred) Rogers, Carter.  It's true that Jesus' words could be used in such a way but inevitably someone would want to talk about his being the son of a god.  And that's no good.

My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human, he could have a more positive effect on Humanity that he has under the use of a church who made him more magical because when his legend was being formed, people weren't smart enough to know that his magical powers just weren't so.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Some scholars consider it a discussion of the politics and history of the eastern Mediteranean region during the very time period you are claiming is never mentioned in the Bible. The book would be written in veiled language due to the possibility of retribution. In fact, apocylyptical (sp?) literature was often written concerning current or recent events for that very reason.

=-==================================================================
First off, if you read some Biblical "scholars", you soon realize that you are dealing with largely irrational beings and occasionally serious nutcases.

 Biblical "scholarship" is quite different from true scholarship. In the latter, one surveys the evidence and drwas a conclusion. Biblical "scholarship" dopes it all bass-ackwards: it begins with the conclusion and tries to assemble the proof from a potpourri of evidence: what does not fit is pitched out and possibly declared satanic. What can be made to fit is pounded into theories (like the one about how the Romans had some sort of KGB that arrested those who said naughty things about Rome). Biblical scholarship is less scientific by several orders than modern conspiracy theories, and is not to be taken seriously. Certainly not by me.


Retribution against whom? Scholars do not even agree who wrote the Book of Revelation. Presumably, Babylon (which had fallen long, long LONG) before the period in which it was prophesied to fall, was Rome itself. One observes that Jerusalem was in deed obliterated, and Rome has been looted from time to time, but never obliterated. So as prophesy, so far the Book of Revelation is a steaming load of crap.

Books were not published as they are today. They were copied out in longhand. They were not sold, either, but simply passed around as a letter might be passed around. In most cases, scrolls and books were mislabeled with the names of ancients who did not actually write them, so the Roman authorities would be quite unlikely to be able to nab the actual author of the Book of Revelations.

To say that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene indicates that (a) demons really do exist and are the cause of aberrent behavior (2) can actually be counted. That is, if we assume the Bible to be the Word of God, then we must accept that demons are at least a cause of wickedness as well as insanity (as in the schtick regarding the Gaderine swine).

To which I can only say, 'Oh, please' and 'Gimme a break'.


I have always found it interesting that the Jews insist on one single God, who is all powerful, but who strangely needs help from angels. Why?

And then one Satan is just not enough. There must also be a Beelzebub, an Azuriel and a legion of demons.

Even the Moslems believe in a plurality of jinns and evil spirits.

Weird!

[Plane]

"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.

[Brassmask]

"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.

Jesus is what we say he is.

[Plane]

"My point is that if we could eventually take Jesus from being magical to be Human,..."

Why are you bothering Jesus?

Make yourself your ideal , Jesus is what he is.

Jesus is what we say he is.

No more than you are what I call you.

Genius.

[sirs]

Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid

...The point is that while it may be true that the bible does not emphatically say that Jesus and MM were married, it in no way spells out that they definitely WEREN'T married. .... 

So then what's your beef?  I'm not trying to convince you that they weren't.  Yet you're tripping all over yourself in trying to convince me, and everyone else otherwise.  If you want to believe that they were, minus any proof of such, by all means.  It wouldn't be the 1st time you've jumped into it, without any boots. 

[_JS]

Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more. 

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

First of all, I find it peculiar that Jesus has to be married to be human. Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant, the latter probably the most gifted thinker of modern times, were not married. In fact, both - it has been alleged, were possibly celibate (though such things are not so easily proven). Does that make them less human? Does that make their work less meaningful?

Secondly, I find it a strange argument from someone who professes to fight against the discrimination that homosexuals receive. Basically you are saying that someone who is married, be they gay or straight, is "more human" than someone who is celibate. Despite the fact that a great number of priests, monks, and nuns have chosen to take a vow of celibacy (and not only in the Catholic faith, but in other faiths as well) they are somehow less human? That argument is really no different than arguments to vote "yes" on amendment one this past November in Tennessee.

On to your second point, the Catholic Church has never taught that it has a "direct pipeline" to God. That is absolutely untrue. They are also not a "small group of people." In fact, they have been one of the largest, if not the largest organized religious group throughout the last two millennia. It would be rather difficult to keep such contemptible secrets in such a massive organisation for so long, wouldn't you think? The Church is based on Apostolic Succession, which we can discuss for sure, but that is not in any way a "direct pipeline" to God.



 

[_JS]

First off, if you read some Biblical "scholars", you soon realize that you are dealing with largely irrational beings and occasionally serious nutcases.

I'm talking about historical scholars as well XO. Apocalyptical literature was not new with Revelations, nor was it a genre completely confined to Christians. 

To say that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene indicates that (a) demons really do exist and are the cause of aberrent behavior (2) can actually be counted. That is, if we assume the Bible to be the Word of God, then we must accept that demons are at least a cause of wickedness as well as insanity (as in the schtick regarding the Gaderine swine).

To which I can only say, 'Oh, please' and 'Gimme a break'.

Or it could be that Jesus was able to heal the mentally ill, but the ability of the disciples and those to whom they preached to comprehend psychology and neuroscience was not quite up to par, so Luke simply refers to it as driving out demons. I believe in the Word of God, but God gave us the ability to comprehend literary devices and context XO.

[Brassmask]

Jesus' alleged celibacy and bachelorhood is part of his myth.  A married Jesus is a Human Jesus.  It doesn't mean that he wasn't the son of a god but it does Humanize him just a little more. 

Also, I don't like the idea of an ultra-powerful, small group of people having as much power as the catholic church has especially when their power is the result of convincing billions of people throughout history that the leaders of that church have a direct pipeline to a mythical being who communicates his will through them.

First of all, I find it peculiar that Jesus has to be married to be human. Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant, the latter probably the most gifted thinker of modern times, were not married. In fact, both - it has been alleged, were possibly celibate (though such things are not so easily proven). Does that make them less human? Does that make their work less meaningful?

Secondly, I find it a strange argument from someone who professes to fight against the discrimination that homosexuals receive. Basically you are saying that someone who is married, be they gay or straight, is "more human" than someone who is celibate. Despite the fact that a great number of priests, monks, and nuns have chosen to take a vow of celibacy (and not only in the Catholic faith, but in other faiths as well) they are somehow less human? That argument is really no different than arguments to vote "yes" on amendment one this past November in Tennessee.

On to your second point, the Catholic Church has never taught that it has a "direct pipeline" to God. That is absolutely untrue. They are also not a "small group of people." In fact, they have been one of the largest, if not the largest organized religious group throughout the last two millennia. It would be rather difficult to keep such contemptible secrets in such a massive organisation for so long, wouldn't you think? The Church is based on Apostolic Succession, which we can discuss for sure, but that is not in any way a "direct pipeline" to God.

First of all, the "married Jesus" would be directly in opposition to the mythical, celibate, pure Jesus thus it would decrease his mythical/mystical status that most christians hold him in.   This is not about marriage.  This is about Jesus.  I think you are taking my past posts in opposition to religion to the nth degree and applying it as being disdainful of everything religious in nature including Jesus.  The reality that I may have been remiss in my expressions of disdain is that I am more angry at the lies religion tells than the actual practice of it.  It is the way that Jesus walking on water is presented as reality that angers me.  How is Jesus walking on water any more believable than Peter Pan capturing his shadow?  Or Superman flying?  Or Hercules cleaning the Aegean stables in a day?  It's not.  Believers in Jesus' magic feats are cultists.

My point regarding Jesus' marriage is that it would be something that was tangible.  If it could be proven somehow that Jesus was married and his children and descendents live today, that would make him a man and not a demi-god.  (I'm aware that it could also lead christians to state that since we found out he lived, that must mean he was the son of a god as well.  That would be a fallacy.)  It is harder to accept that a man who lived and had children (say like MLK) could also have rose from the dead and ascended into the heavens before his wife's eyes. 

I've never stated that Jesus had to married to be human.  Jesus' work would be even more tangible if he were stripped of his magical nature.  A married Jesus with descendents would be a step in that direction.

Secondly, I've never said that being married makes everyone more human.  I've said that it makes JESUS more human and more accessible to the world.  MLK, Mandela, Ghandi, Mr. Rogers all real people.  More accessible.

And lastly, I'm sorry to tell you but the papacy thinks it is the be all, end all in relation to its god.  It may not say that it "has a pipeline" but it does say that the papacy is conferred on him by Jesus.  And if he doesn't have a pipeline, then why are people always trying to get him to pray for them? 

Check it out...

Status and authority
Main articles: Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal infallibility
The status and authority of the Pope in the Catholic Church was dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ (July 18, 1870). The first chapter of this document is entitled "On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter", and states that (s.1) "according to the Gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord" and that (s.6) "if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: let him be anathema..."

 
To maintain contacts with local clergymen and Catholic communities, the Popes grant private audiences too. Here seen are the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross from Uden (Netherlands) received by Pope Pius XII.The Dogmatic Constitution's second chapter, "On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs", states that (s.1) "that which our Lord Jesus Christ [...] established in the blessed apostle Peter [...] must of necessity remain forever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time," that (s.3) "whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ Himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church", and that (s.5) "if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

The Dogmatic Constitution's third chapter, "On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff," states that (s.1) "the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a worldwide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people," that (s.2) "by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that the jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate" and that "clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

The powers of the Pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s. such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the Pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power"). It also dogmatically defined (ch.4, s.9) the doctrine of Papal infallibility, sc. such that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
The Catholic Church teaches that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature to be united to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII). This teaching is often summarized by the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church exists no salvation), which has been reaffirmed by many Popes throughout the centuries. Blessed John XXIII said: "Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved." Pope Paul VI also said: "Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit."

However, this dogma has been interpreted in many different ways by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Many Popes stressed that those who are "invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion" can still obtain salvation. Pope Pius IX stated in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moeror (1868): "We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace." Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio: "But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church.... For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally a part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians are "mysteriously" united through Baptism and the "invisible Church" (body of believers). However, Christians are not fully / "formally" united due to divisions in beliefs etc.

As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church- for which often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (UR 3 1). The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy and schism-do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers (Cf. CIC, can.751.).
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (UR 3 1).

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" (LG 8 2) are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as the visible elements" (UR 3 2; cf. LG 15.). Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to Him, (Cf. UR 3.) and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity" (Cf. LG 8.).

The Pope has many powers which he exercises. He can appoint bishops to dioceses, erect and suppress dioceses, appoint prefects to the Roman dicasteries, approve or veto their acts, modify the Liturgy and issue liturgical laws, revise the Code of Canon Law, canonize and beatify individuals, approve and suppress religious orders, impose canonical sanctions, act as a judge and hear cases, issue encyclicals, and issue infallible statements on matters pertaining to faith and morals which, according to the Church, must be believed by all Catholics. Most of these functions are performed by and through the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia, with the Pope simply approving their actions prior to becoming official. While approval is generally granted, it is at the Pope's discretion.

And another thing.  Here is the only thing I could get on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Even if you multiply this by the number of countries that the CC is in all over the world the number would still be miniscule compared to the number 7,000,000,000.  Let's say there were half a million (500,000), that is a small number of people controlling a lot of other people.

Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy
The Catholic clergy is organized in a strict, sometimes overlapping hierarchy:

Pope: Head of the church, he is based at the Vatican. The pope is infallible in defining matters of faith and morals.

Cardinal: Appointed by the pope, 178 cardinals worldwide, including 13 in the U.S., make up the College of Cardinals. As a body, it advises the pope and, on his death, elects a new pope.

Archbishop: An archbishop is a bishop of a main or metropolitan diocese, also called an archdiocese. A cardinal can concurrently hold the title. The U.S. has 45 archbishops.

Bishop: A bishop, like a priest, is ordained to this station. He is a teacher of church doctrine, a priest of sacred worship, and a minister of church government. The U.S. has 290 active bishops, 194 head dioceses.

Priest: An ordained minister who can administer most of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, baptism, and marriage. He can be with a particular religious order or committed to serving a congregation.

Deacon: A transitional deacon is a seminarian studying for the priesthood. A permanent deacon can be married and assists a priest by performing some of the sacraments.