Da Vinci Code

[Superman]

Mary Magdalene was of royal descent (through the Jewish House of Benjamin) and was the wife of Jesus, of the House of David. That she was a prostitute was a slander invented by the Catholic Church to obscure their true relationship. At the time of the Crucifixion, she was pregnant. After the Crucifixion, she fled to Gaul, where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseilles. She gave birth to a daughter, named Sarah. The bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene became the Merovingian dynasty of France.

Thats the pasrt you're talking about generaldave?

[JoeFPM]

exactly tazzy,thats the part...but the thing is more than this issue...thats why they talk about saint graal..the holly descendence of the christ which lead to the merovengiens who founded paris , then to godefroi de bouillon the founder of priory of sion and till our days, the Saint Clar and the Plantard 2 families in france why they are believed the direct descendane of jesus christ....plus it s about an equilibrum between man and the sacred feminin " le feminin sacre" ...an equilibrum that its believed that church took it away in order to rule...an example for ruining the feminin sacre is for example the fact of saying that MM is a prostitute while she s believe to be the wife of jesus....

[Chrysostomos]

Supelec and Tazzi before talking about the Saint Graal let us talk about what Dan Brown's assumption about the marriage between Marie Magdaleine and Jesus....
THIS is totaly wrong....for the following reason...(sorry for the long POST but everything about this topic is metionned in it):

This claim is the backbone of Brown's novel. The The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had children, and that their descendants included a line of kings in France, as well as some of the main characters in Brown's novel.

Despite Brown's claims, however, there are no historical documents that claim that Jesus was married - not even the "Gnostic gospels" that Brown mentions in his novel.

The only specific evidence that Brown cites to support this claim of a marriage is a passage from one of the Gnostic texts - the so-called "gospel of Phillip." And that lone piece of evidence actually undermines Brown's claim.

The main problem with the "Phillip" passage is that it clearly shows that even in the context of this Gnostic text, Mary Magdalene and Jesus could not have been married. If you read the passage, as shown on page 246 of The Da Vinci Code, you'll see for yourself:

"the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"

If, in the context of this Gnostic text, the Savior and Mary Magdalene were supposedly married, then why would the disciples bother to ask their leader why he loved his her more than them?

Can you imagine a scenario in which a group of men would ask a married man, "Why do you love her (your wife) more than us?" Such a question doesn't make any sense if the two are supposed to be married. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense if the two were merely engaged, or even if they were simply dating.

The only way that the question would make sense in the Gnostic text is if there was no reason for Mary Magdalene to be treated any differently. And the only way that this could be true is if Mary Magdalene was supposed to have the exact same relationship with the "Savior" as did the "other disciples." In other words, only if she was not married, or otherwise intimately involved.

There are other problems with Brown's marriage theory:
• Despite Brown's "translation" of that key passage from the Gnostic gospel of Phillip, the word "mouth" doesn't actually appear in the original text. According to page 49 of The Da Vinci Deception, by Erwin W. Lutzer: "You should know that because of the poor quality of the papyrus, a word or two is missing in the original. The text reads, 'Jesus kissed her often on the [blank].' So scholars fill in the blank with the word mouth, face, or forehead, etc. Actually, for all we know the text might have said 'the hand' or even 'the cheek' since the statement implies that he also kissed his other students – presumably on the cheek as is still done in the Middle East."
• Brown claims that the Aramaic word for "companion" literally meant "spouse." That is not true according to various Aramaic scholars. And, even more importantly, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip was not written in Aramaic. It was written in Coptic.
• None of the Gnostic gospels ever claimed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Even the so-called Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene fails to makes such a claim.
• Finally, consider this from page 41 of The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes, in regards to the Gnostic Phillip text: Ironically, if this text does anything, it cuts out the very heart of any assertion about Mary and Jesus being wed. It does so by adhering to one of the basic tenets of ancient Gnosticism, which declares that all physical matter was inherently evil. Consequently, sexual relations were intrinsically debasing! The Gospel of Phillip goes so far as to say that marital relations defile a woman.

[JoeFPM]

GeneralDave...ok..u re right but answer me please...what would bother u if jesus and MM were married? wouldnt that makes jesus more human and give more diviness to the secret of marriage..one of the 7 th church secrets?wouldnt make him more close to us and more human in his human nature?

[Chrysostomos]

we will go into a deep theological discussion ya Supelec...
First of all Jesus wasn't married with MM and i think you read what i posted and you said that i am right....
Second of all for Christians Jesus is the Messiah....the Son of God....so Jesus is Divine....he's the word of God and as St John saidin his Gospel (John 1)...."the Word is God.."
So as you see in the Christian belief Jesus is God himself....God who revieled him self and incarnated in flesh and he was 100% man (Son of Man) and 100 % God(Son of God)....you can check the Council of Chalcedon(held by the Church in 431) for further infos

[Chrysostomos]

By the way,Jesus took his human shape and flesh from a woman...Ste Mary....who is also called by St Ignatius as the second Eve....because she bought the Saviour to the world (3akes what Eve did in the Old Testament)
And the Catohlic Church in the world encourages a total equality between the man and the woman....and this equality is clear in both the old testament and the new testament

[JoeFPM]

Originally Posted by GeneralDave

we will go into a deep theological discussion ya Supelec...
First of all Jesus wasn't married with MM and i think you read what i posted and you said that i am right....

i didnt say u re right meaning i agree but meaning its a controversy..and i liked u re argumentation, plus who told u that jesus wasnt married to MM ?

Originally Posted by GeneralDave

Second of all for Christians Jesus is the Messiah....the Son of God....so Jesus is Divine....he's the word of God and as St John saidin his Gospel (John 1)...."the Word is God.."

i agree...but man u would agree that the fact that jesus is devine was decided in
the concile of nicee in 325 , 3 hundred years after the death of jesus, as well as the sacred trinity " salouss al akdass"

Originally Posted by GeneralDave

So as you see in the Christian belief Jesus is God himself....God who revieled him self and incarnated in flesh and he was 100% man (Son of Man) and 100 % God(Son of God)....you can check the Council of Chalcedon(held by the Church in 431) for further infos

and the fact that jesus was married to a royal blood, MM , is as human as he can be , staying divine, if u get me...it was unaccetable if guys of the age of jesus werent married in the jews community back that time..still u didnt answer me? what would the fact that jesus and MM were married bother u or bother our christian believes..? plus man , it s small point u re strenghting on , while other stuff are by far more refutable?

[Chrysostomos]

Originally Posted by Supelec

i didnt say u re right meaning i agree but meaning its a controversy..and i liked u re argumentation, plus who told u that jesus wasnt married to MM ??

who told me?...who told you that he was married to MM?....this fake story is mentionned no where!

Originally Posted by Supelec

i agree...but man u would agree that the fact that jesus is devine was decided in
the concile of nicee in 325 , 3 hundred years after the death of jesus, as well as the sacred trinity " salouss al akdass"

did you hear about Arius and St Athanasius?
Arius created a wide ternoid when he said that Jesus was created like Adam and he was the first of all creations and everything was made by him....which caused a huge division in the East Church so Emperor Caonstatine invited for a general council( you can check the first general council in the act of apostles where St Paul and St Peter andmany other aopstles and presbyters were present) for reason of the controversy created....
St Athanasius was a Bishop and he verified from the bible and the Gospels that Jesus is from the same essence and substance as the Father....Christ and Father are one...he verified the deviniyt of Jesus....Jesus is begotten not made and the creation was made through Him.
This is essential to the plot in The Da Vinci Code because it requires that the reader can believe that Constantine replaced the Gnostic writings with what we now call the New Testament. But, Constantine could not have had a hand in shaping the New Testament for two reasons: He wasn't born soon enough and he didn't live long enough. Based on writings from early church leaders, which date from A.D. 96 through 112, 24 of the 27 books that are part of today's New Testament were already regarded by early Christians as being authoritative, a full 213 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. And, the Council of Nicea did not canonize anything. The canonization process occurred a full 70 years later, on a different continent. In addition, there were several writings by early church leaders, who died long before Constantine was even born, that collectively quote thousands of New Testament passages. It would have been extremely difficult for Constantine to have altered, shaped or otherwise influenced the New Testament.
ALL I WANT TO SAY YA KHAYEH THAT THE DEVINITY OF JESUS WAS CLEAR IN ALL THE GOSPELS AND THE WRITINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS.....BEFORE AND LONG BEFORE THE NICEAN COUNCIL TOOK PLACE IN 325!

Originally Posted by Supelec

and the fact that jesus was married to a royal blood, MM , is as human as he can be , staying divine, if u get me...it was unaccetable if guys of the age of jesus werent married in the jews community back that time..

as i said before....Jesus said about himself Son of God and Son of Man to say that he's 100% divine and he was 100% man when he took our human flesh.....
Yes it was unacceptable for guys of the age of Jesus to stay not married....but as i said before....Jesus said about himself that he was before King David and before all creations....he said about himself that he's the Son of God....so how can God get married????

Originally Posted by Supelec

still u didnt answer me? what would the fact that jesus and MM were married bother u or bother our christian believes..? plus man , it s small point u re strenghting on , while other stuff are by far more refutable?

Yes because that's not a fact ya khayeh....wlooo did you really read my previous long post:S?
okay give me your opinion about the other points and i'll reply you:)
God bless

[JoeFPM]

hehe..man listen, it s not like i believe in it..i am posting in a objective way...i am putting my christians feeling..i am trying to criticise bsaed on historical facts;pls dont even think for 1 sec that i doubt the taughts of the bible;i am just try to think reasonnably;u just have to give some time...all my references are in french ...

[LebaneseARAB]

I read the da vinci code, it is a good book, i liked it very much. I can't wait to read his other book Angels and Demons. I think a lot of the thing the author says is possible, like Jesus being married and having kids, this is only a shock because people have been raised believing the story from a certain perspective, but historically looking at it, nothing should surprise us that a man from Palestine at that time and culture was married and had kids, that was normal back than but people do not want to believe it because it goes against what they were taught.

I also believe the book when it says that the original christians never believed Jesus was god's son, they used to believe Jesus was a prophet but not god's son, the church later on, 300 years later made him god's son for whatever reason.

You can see all of the pagan influence in christianity and really in all religions, but like christmas being on dec 25 when jesus wasn't born on that day, that is actually a pagan god holiday, constantine united the pagan and christian beliefs in his empire so everybody could be happy.

The book is very interesting and i think a lot of what he wrote about is true, he isn't the first one to write about it, he just put it in a nice story and simple way that anybody could read it.