Jesus, a Father?

i was watching a program bout that i haven't read the book but i just bout it and intend to start it soon but acording to the program Da Vincy had a history of drawing that saint as a women (basically they say he was a bit gay)

I haven't read it, but isn't the DaVinci Code categorized as fiction? Why do so many people seem to regard it as a historically accurate account?
I know there are multiple publications out from the Christian world that counter some of the controversial points raised by the DaVinci Code; e.g. "The Real History Behind the DaVinci Code" by Sharan Newman, "The DaVinci Deception" by Erwin Lutzer, . . .

Of course the book is fiction but that doesn't detract from the fact that the book has raised a lot of eyebrows. The church was outraged. The reason I referenced the book was because it made me think about things. And when I looked at the painting, it made me think. And when I thought about the lost scrolls...it made me think. And when I reasoned that Jesus was in fact a man, it made me think....see where I am going with this? I haven't done any research on this but I was wondering if there is, in fact any truth to any of this. I do know that Opus Dei exists.
Opus Dei

There is speculation that the Priory of Sion exists. Who knows?

So my question is how plausible is it that such things exist for real?

The National Geographic Channel had a program on awhile back (it actually showed up again a couple of days ago) on this issue, interviewing the author of the DaVinci Code as well as other biblical and historical scholars. Cross-referenced with hard evidence and the scholars (not all of which opposed the idea that Jesus was married), most of the author's basis was made up.

But not all of it. Basically they came to the conclusion that there was a slight chance that Jesus could have been married (and if he was, it was definitely to Mary), and that if he was it wouldn't take away from his divine nature or anything. However, they also came to the conclusion that, married or not, there was little to no chance he had children.

As far as The Last Supper goes, if the depiction of John is supposed to be Mary, then where is John?



The evidence and the list (containing DaVinci's name, no less) propose that the Priory did indeed exist, but there's only speculation and supposition after that, since the Priory may not have been what people are beginning to assume it is.

There's a lot history about this and the "Holy Grail" that can be traced back to the Crusades with the Merovingian kings and such.

Creepy coincidence-- Monica Bellucci stars as Mary Magdalene in The Passion of the Christ, and the wife of the Merovingian in the Matrix trilogy.

I dunno....but man John looks an awful lot like a woman.

And that is an eerie coincidence....hmmm.....

Why is there little or no chance Jesus and Mary had kids? If they were married, then why wouldn't they have sex? Jesus was a man. A mortal man. I am sure he had desires. And being married, it was ok to have sex.

About the only things not made up in that book are the names "Opus Dei" and "Priory of Sion". In reality they are of course nothing like they are described in the book, the latter being a hoax altogether, originating in the 20th century. How people can even begin to contemplate that there is any truth in that book is beyond me. The conspiracy theories involving Newton etc are just plain laughable. Even if Leonardo painted John as feminine looking it means absolutely nothing.

I take it you are a firm believer in Christianity? Perhaps that the Church is all true?

Just curious....is it ever stated anywhere that Jesus was celibate?

I'm Christian, yes, and every time I even hear about that book it totally shocks me and makes me shudder (literally) for hours, as if supernaturally, and I'm filled with extreme disgust. Especially when Christians take the concept of Jesus marrying and having children seriously without even seeing any problem with it. Somehow, it interiorly feels to me as if these people stab Jesus with a dagger right in the heart, and they don't even realise it. It's an attack on all that is Holy! If people could only understand what an affront this book is to Jesus they wouldn't even touch it with pliers!

I realise that I'm behaving irrationally now and that I don't have concrete support for my claims, but I can't help it. It is as if my entire soul is turned inside out in abhorrence by this abomination. It's pure evil!

I've read the book and I take his perspective as a theory. There are many other historians who have their own theorys about the past that have yet to be proven. Of course it's fiction because he makes up the storyline, but his theory is one of many about the life of Jesus.

Although I do wonder if the propoganda against pagan symbols and gods has any truth?

You guys know it's going to be made into a movie (sorry Deveron). Tom Hanks is going to play the role of Robert Langdon.

Yeah, with Ron Howard directing. Should be an awesome film.

awesome topic.

here's a theory: we all know that early christian leaders mutilated the texts of the scriptures. we have assumed various reasons for this. what if those early leaders weren't up-to-no-good, and were instead trying to protect something that was priceless?? bloodline of christ, perhaps. maybe some of the early editing was done with the good intentions. what would other religions/nations/cultures have done if the merovingian connection was relayed biblically?? killed everyone in that region of france?? at the very least.

another theory: assuming again that the merovingian tales could be true -- just what are the super-duper-alleyooper secrets of freemasonry/templarism?? anyone who's done research should know that they point to 1) grail and 2) ark. now add in the templar/french connection and factor in that it was when a pope not tied to the french throne ascended power that the templars were disbanded and jaques demourney was slaughtered. now also add in that many notables (TO INCLUDE DAVINCI) are reputed to have been templar/mason grandmasters.

circumstantial evidence+motivation+likely suspects+questions being answered in a way that makes the other answers to those questions seem ridiculous=good chance of convincing a jury.

i'm not saying that i believe 100% that this theory is true, but it answers many questions more convincingly than the opposing other answers do.