jesus and mary magdelene

I have not read the DaVinci Code either, but from my understanding, the idea that Jesus married Mary M. presupposes He did not actually die when the Romans crucified Him. Historically, the Romans were very thorough and very good when it came to administering punishment. The idea that they erred and let Jesus survive the crucifixion is a theory killer to me in all respects. Think what you will about the resurrection, but Rome did not botch the crucifixion.

Some say that the children of Sion are the decendents of Christ. The Priory of Sion is a made up (or so it is said) organization from the DaVinci Code. Either way, Jesus was a man, so why wouldn't he marry? Why wouldn't he have children with a wife he loved? The idea that Jesus felt he was somehow better than everyone else is just plain silly. He was a man, a leader, a teacher. He didn't think he was any better than anyone else. He had fears and doubts and was sad. The bible clearly states that he had these human traits while he was hanging on the cross.

Matthew 27:46
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

He also had anger. Another human trait.

Mark 3:1-5
1 Then Jesus entered the synagogue again, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 They watched Jesus closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they could accuse him. 3 So he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Stand up among all these people." 4 Then he said to them, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath, or evil, to save a life or destroy it?" But they were silent. 5 After looking around at them in anger, grieved by the hardness of their hearts,he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

Just two examples of Jesus' human traits.

Not to mention, the creation of life is the most holy thing a human can do. Why wouldn't a man of God, the Son of God no less, participate in the closest thing to godliness, the thing which brings you as close to God as you can ever be while on this earth. Why wouldn't he be a part of the creation of new life?

When the di Vinci Code was raging I asked some Christian friends this same question. The only answer they could provide was that Jesus, because of his divine nature, was above bodily temptations. They had a hard time with "lusty Jesus".

CoastalRat, Jesus was 33 or something when he was crucified, right? The argument goes more like it was very unusual for a man to go that long without getting married at that time. Nothing about "The Romans botched the crucifixion."

But he wasn't above any other human emotion so why desire/passion? There is nothing wrong with sexuality. God made it.

My mom nearly had a heart attack when I brought this up. It seems that the Church has throughly embedded certain beliefs that will not change.

I'm with you Bella so I can't really argue the point.

I suppose it relates to chastity as a virtue. Being able to withstand temptation rather than giving in to physical desires.

I loved the Da Vinci Code.Tho i liked reading above that Jesus may not have died on the cross.
The book said, Jesus was Jewish and Jewish men by his age of crucifiction would have been married.

I was watching the Pope on the TV this morning and I was wondering why he/the Catholic church would surround themselves with things of luxury,paintings,fine robes,the Vatican itself.
He was representing God on earth but he was a carpenter.

As I said Sozobe, I have not read the DaVinci Code. My response was based on my understanding that this marriage and the children occurred after the crucifixion, in which case I stand by my response. If, per the DaVinci Code, the marriage was prior to the crucifixion, then of course my response is not relevant to the question.

Mary was pregnant at the crucifixion.

Ok, I think we can agree on one thing here. It would have been unusual for a Jewish man of that age to have not been married. Agreed. But because it would have been unusual does not negate the possibility that He was unmarried.

You state this as a fact. I guess you have some type of evidence to prove it? Or is this just your belief? And if it is only your belief, then upon what do you base that belief?

Just curious. Not trying to argue with you here really, because quite frankly it is a usless waste of time and energy to argue faith/religion. I am however curious as to where this belief of yours comes from. Or is this just what the DaVinci Code states and you were just informing me of that?

I don't think I got that from the book. But it was in response to your post. They didn't get pregnant after the crucifixion but the baby would have been born after it. So Jesus didn't have to live to have the baby. That was the point. I don't know what I believe.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Yeah, I'm saying something similar. I don't have any particular dogs in this fight, I read "The Da Vinci Code" and enjoyed "The Da Vinci Code", but as an entertaining potboiler.

I was just noting that the argument you were refuting, CoastalRat, is not an argument made by the book.

Thanks Sozobe. See, I learnt something new today. Maybe one day I'll stop clowning around and read the DaVinci Code just to check it out, then maybe I will know what it says instead of just thinking I know what it says. Hehe

;-)

We have a coupla threads about it, will look forward to your take.

I'm still overwhelmed by the fact that some people consider the DaVinci Code as some sort of serious thesis on the life of Jesus and the shortcomings of the Church. That is absurd. As Sozobe has said, it is an enjoyable romp of a book, nothing more. It is, essentially, the story of a scavenger hunt, told in stop-action, Perils-of-Pauline slapstick style. There is absolutely nothing more to it. And author Brown has his tongue firmly in cheek in writing it.

As for why so many Christians are outrafed by the notion that Jesus and Mary Mag were married, there's no mystery there, either. The traditional Christian church -- Be it Roman Catholic or one of the mainline Protestant offshoots, e.g. Lutheran or Episcopalian, etc. -- is firmly based on what has sometimes been referred to as the Pauline Heresy, i.e. the interpretation of Jesus' teaching by St. Paul in all the 'Epistles' of the New Testament. Paul placed great emphasis on chastity as one of the cardinal virtues. If we are to accept this dictum, then it's unthinkable that Jesus was subject to the same desires of the flesh as we lesser humans. Yet if you read the Gospels carefully, there is not one word which indicates that Jesus led a celibate life. There is ample evidence that he at least liked women and the compionship of women.

But it still aumses me that it should take a pot-boiler like The DaVinci code tobring these questions to public awareness. And it amazes me that readers don't realize that the book was written solely as entertainment with absolutely no claims to factuality and no indication that the author, for one moment, actually believes in what he is writing.

CoastalRat may have been thinking about a 1982 book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". That book contends that Jesus survived the crucifixion and established a bloodline with Mary Magdalene.

Yeah, other writers have also used that plot device. It's not original with Brown. The Last Temptation of Christ, both book and movie, took a slightly different slant on the same theme.