the Bible vs the Davinci Code

I was just wondering what folks thought about the idea that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had kids... and that Mary wasn't really a prostitute... and how Leonardo DaVinci painted her at Jesus' right hand at the last supper but not the chalis, with the theory that maybe she was the chalis holding his children etc... I mean there's no real proof either way but it'd be a good debate...

 

i do like the ideas put forth in the book about how the chauvanistic romans of the day subverted the sacred role of the female in spiritual life. those romans DID have a history of of it. but i don't know of the veractiy of christ having children with mary. i must say that it would make more sense to me. after all, god's first requirement of us was to give him grandchildren. sex with a spouse is not sinful. therefore the idea of jesus having a wife and child is not in the least disturbing to me, i rather like it.

 

Yeah, I believe Christ did exist. (How can you not) But I don't believe he was the only son of God. But, I also believe that he did have children. Whether or not is was with Mary, I do not know. But, I do believe that Christ and Mary were closer than any of the other deciples.

Does anyone think that all of the information in The Da Vinci code is true?

 

Just so we are all clear on the basics..


The DaVinci Code is a ficticious novel.
Ron Howard is directing a movie based on this fiction.

Im not intending to insult anyones intelligence here - just want to make sure we are all clear on this first?

 

no worries, we all understand that very well. however, i have no doubt whatsoever the da vinci believed very much in the relationship of mary to christ. hell, i think he'd even do it just ot be contrary and controversial. that's not really the point. however, the book does raise some brilliant ideas in regards to the conflicts of the female power withing the church: subjugation and empowerment. they can't quite make up their minds. why is MM called a whore? why are women not more apparent in the final compilation of texts?

 

Yeah, I'm not really clear on why MM was called a prostitue in the first place. It doesn't mention that in the Bible at all, right?

 

no, i don't think so. besides, there were SO MANY marys.

 

Its not clear that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene and 'The Woman that annoited Jesus feet but was a sinner', are necessarily the one in the same Mary Magdelene.

Prostitution is the 'likely guess' but certainly she had commited adultery (which could umbrella adultery charges).

There is no reason to believe that Mary M married Jesus, however, if you assume that all three 'Mary's' are the same Mary - then put all the accounts 'together' into a 'mini-story' - then become romanticly minded and imagine that love and forgiveness refered to are 'relationship' orientated sentiments....

then...

You can certainly 'Imagine' something 'wink wink' might be going on between the lines?

As for the conspiracy theories involving 'pompous chauvanists' who have re-written a fraudulent account in order to 'keep women from haughty places'?

Can I please remind people that the Super-culture the Early Church arose in was Rome.
And their culture worshipped who?
The Female Goddess Diana.

In fact, many many historians DO have a concern over the 'vaulting' of feminine vs masculine figures found in the New Testament.. but its WOMAN being 'overly touted' that concerns them most.
In the 6th century, far too many Christians (perhaps many coming from their Goddess worshipping cultures) were a little too zealous to glorify both Mary M and Mary 'Mother of God'.

In any case.
Imagining Jesus had a wife (whom he knew he would make a widow) ..
or Davinci himself (who was an ARTIST NOT A PRIEST OR FRIEND OF The Apostles by the way)
Is simply that - speculation and imagination.

Good luck with that.

 

the fact that the pagan romans did in fact worship a goddess, under jupiter, of course, would be more cause to stamp out the sacred female. women played such a pivotal role in the founding of the early church, by opening their homes to the apostles and having home gatherings for believers. and yet, they're not mentioned much. there's also the bizarre concept that christ's mother would no longer be pure if she were to have sex with and bear more children for joseph. my god, you tell some RC's this and they fly off the handle! it was her JOB to bear more children for her husband. how does sexual relations with her man become so anathema that her virginity must be so virulently defended? why is a woman's sexuality so repugnant?

 

KC,


I think you will have to ask other women those questions about 'repugnant' sexuality and why or why not there is some shame held to child birth?

I do know that a lot of Christians got persecuted or even killed for reforming the popular belief that Mary stayed a Virgin until death.

Speaking of which.

Mary is one of THE most recognisable and written about figures in the New Testament.
Mary Magdalene certainly is too and in particular - Jesus makes his first appearance after his resurrection to women.

One of the most talked about figures in the New Testament.. (and a VERY important figure in terms of Christianity and Jesus ministry) was a Samaritan woman met at the well.

She is 'Major' because she is one of the first non-Jews who spread the Gospel. This makes her highly signifigant!

Lots of signifigant women found in the early Church and several epistles are written lauding and praising God for them.

Not to forget Ruth either hehe.. she has her own book in the Old Testament

 

a few scattered characters, when in fact they played such a pivotal role. not that i even would think christ was a misogynist, frankly i think he was one of the first feminists. i'm not hard-core, blaming men for everything, but there is clearly a striving to control women by subsequent followers of christ that would surely have him and his mom saying "what the heck?!""

 

KC, I've heard a theory somewhere that the way Mary had other children is from Joseph. They didn't have sex, he had children from another marriage.

Iive heard that there is a verse in the Bible to support this.

I don't know if this is true, but, it's raises questions, no?

 

yeah, i do know that joseph had children, since they're referred to as christ's brothers. the controversy is over WHO'S the mother. i would think that the same proof that people require for mary's lack of virginity should go the other way, too. a woman staying pure doesn't mean that she never had sex with her husband, since, after all, in that society, it was her JOB to keep his home and bear his children. even if joseph DID have children by another wife, there's no indication that they ALL were from a different wife.

 

Aye, but 'tis a possibility, no?

 

yeah, for sure, but one that i'm not going to stand firm on. i'm mean, the poor woman never being allowed to experience one of the most sacred and powerful gifts to mankind?

 

Yeah, I personally don't believe that.
I'm just pointing out the posibility.
I believe she had more children with her husband.
That's what married people do. (or did, back then)
It would have been awefully strange to not have children of your own back then, right?

 

yeah, it really would. just as it would have been very strange for a healthy jewish male not to have a wife.

 

"You knew Jesus?"
"Know him? shit! ****** owes me twenty bucks."

 

And a paraphrase from that movie (Dogma):

To believe in the virgin birth is an act of faith. To believe that a husband and his wife never got it on is just plain gullibility.

Sorry guys, but it is just seems that it would not be consistent with humanity for a husband and wife to never form a sexual union. Heck, is the marriage legitimate since (if Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ) the marriage was never consummated? In fact, a marriage that is not consummated is not considered complete.

Hmmm...

And no, Jesus couldn't have had chillins...

Why? Because the first thing that a parent gives to a child is the child's nature (it could be said that nature and life are given simultaneously). A human child has human offspring, cats have kittens, dogs have puppies, etc. What would a God have? Yep, God. Since Christ had a dual nature he would pass that nature on. He was as much divine as He was human. Any children he would have would share that same dual nature. In short, his "line" would be a lineage of God (not gods... they would ALL be God).

Note: this is why people were shocked when Jesus said He was the Son of God. They knew that "Son of" meant that they shared the same essence and nature. Since God is unique in Judaism, to claim to have the same essence and nature as God is to claim to BE God. It is also interesting to note that He called Himself the Son of God AND the Son of Man; a clear reference to His dual natures.

Jesus might have married, that is at least possible, but children? No way. Would it alter the Christian faith if He were married? I don't think so. It should be pointed out that a lot of the hogwash in the davinci code was pulled from "gospels" that were written at least 200 years after Christ died. In fact, none of the early christian church leaders really commented on them (because they didn't exist yet). There is a ton of information here:

http://www.ntcanon.org/

Also the author of the DaVinci Code hasn't really gotten his facts straight either. At one point, when discussing the "gospel" of Thomas (I think it was Thomas... maybe Phillip) one of the main characters comments that "in the original Aramaic, companion often meant spouse." What's funny is that the "gospel" of Thomas was written in GREEK. Even then, neither the Greek nor the Aramaic words for companion meant "spouse."

 

Gotta be quick here..

Thanks Alsharad.. sometimes I wish you would post a lot more.

KC. It seems this book has had an influence on you.
What worries me is that you will begin to unduly absorb the bitterness and strife and neglect the peace and charity you are already gifted with.

Nathan - you can certainly 'Suppose' Jesus had a wife. It would indeed be highly unusual for a Prophet to have a wife back in that culture.
It would also be contrary to just about anything we know about Jesus...

Here is someone who taught the 'shocking' philosophy that life itself was about living and loving one another.
He was very big on the whole 'do nothing to hurt another person' thing.

Then, we would have to believe that, contrary to everthing else he did - He was willing to make a commitment to loving a woman, marrying her -YET- know that he was going to leave her a widow in just a short time??

Put aside whether you think Jesus was God or a Savior for a minute.
I just cant see Jesus being that cruel, that selfish to subject any woman to that kind of ... well.. it would almost be a cruel joke of sorts.


One thing I have noticed with the whole Gnostic/Feminisism movement is that they LOVE to 'gloss over' whatever does not fuel their idealism.. but 'magnify' what does fuel their cause.
Example:
Mary is, was and always has been lauded, praised and, at times, almost 'worshipped' as one of THE central and most important figures in the life of Jesus and Christianity.

This is somehow 'glossed over' by the ones who want to believe women were 'oppressed' and 'therefore' a New Gospel should be trusted in.

Now take the 'Gospel' of Thomas. (The 'Premiere' Gnostic Gospel touted by the Davinci Code followers).
In one quote - Jesus is purportedly said to have taught that women are NOT able to make it into Heaven.. lol... and that He will 'Turn them into Men' so they can pass through!!!?!

Oh.. no one wants to mention THAT from the Gnostic Gospels they believe in.

OK gotta go.
Thanks!