MsLedd on 21/5/2006 at 22:50

---

I'm with Fett, I think that if Jesus had actually gotten married, we'd have heard about it (holy sacrament = good thing, and all that). However, what if he and Mary Magdalene were... you know, "friends with benefits"? :eek: That, I believe, is something that would have, could have, probably should have been kept secret. It'd have taken one hell of a spin-doctor/PR team to play that one out as being "okay" with ANY of the religions. That sort of thing would have killed his whole campaign, you know?

I still prefer Kevin Smith's theory from "Dogma", and find it much more plausable: That after the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph did in fact, "get down" (they WERE married after all), and had several other children. The idea that Jesus had half-siblings, and that their descendants are running around now is kinda cool (IMO).

Navyhacker006 on 21/5/2006 at 23:07

---

My instructor and a classmate were discussing the book, and the classmate mentioned that there's one thing that clearly marks the book as a work of fiction - What the Knights Templar were digging for.

I was only half-listening, and have no real interest in either the book or the movie, so take that as you will.

Also, Dogma is an excellent movie.

MsLedd on 21/5/2006 at 23:53

---

ooohhh I want some Johnnycakes!

Oh, and I still wanna see the Da Vinci movie. I was planning on reading the book, like a year ago, then thought I'd do things differently and watch the film first. Figured it might save me some of the "ooohhh why'd they change/cut THAT part!!" and "that's not supposed to be like THAT!!" stuff that always goes on inside my head (driving me crazy) when I see a book adaptation.

Molkehii on 22/5/2006 at 00:10

---

Stumbled across this thread an found it interesting. Allow me to preface by stating that I am a Christian and as such am always learning new things about my Faith - BTW I also tend to mis-spell and mis-type in my haste. Please feel free to correct me with scripture if need be as I am always willing to learn from a well founded source.

First of all the John that "might have been distant cousins to Jesus" <paraphrasing> was John the Baptist who was Jesus' cousin through Mary's sister Elizabeth however I believe Herod had him beheaded (rather a large impedement to any desire to do some Gospel writing). The disciple John that became an Apostle and wrote a Gospel and epistles was originally a fisherman I believe.

Remember that the Gospels are not just life stories they are teaching tools and thus they do not tend to cover aspects that are not relevent to prophecy or Jesus' ministry. Thus the story of his birth and then the only other mention of Jesus specific to an 'age' before he revealed himself through his first miracle - that I recall anyway, is when he went to the temple at 12 and when his parents came back to town to find him he semi-chastened them for not looking for him in his Father's house first (a foreshadowing for when the time would come to reveal his true nature and begin teaching in his Father's authority).

Although his disciples called him Rabbi (teacher) he was not sent to promote Judaism - conformance to the Jewish law was not his purpose (he was sent to introduce the New Law - the New Covenant - the one sacrifice rendering all other sacrifices (as performed in the old testament) worthless. If no one noticed he was constantly harranged <sp>by the Pharisees and Saducees <sp> for exactly that. Not conforming to the Jewish Law - healing on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to pick grain etc. He was a Rabbi by divine nature not by sectarian position/title. The bride of Jesus is the Church - therefore he wasn't married. As for the brothers and sisters they are mentioned in the gathering in the upper room and in one of the last sentences he spoke at cavalry he pronounced John the son of Mary(his mother) and Mary the mother of John(the Apostle) indicating our familial relationship formed through his sacrifice.

I however am human and will err so please do not allow any fault on my part to reflect negatively on Jesus or the Bible.

As far as the movie is concerned I read the book (a few years ago) thinking it was some sort of an adventure/conspiracy type read along the lines of National Treasure - didn't even know it had anything to do with religion in any aspect just heard the title and a blurb something like "Did Da Vinci hide a secret message in his one of his most famous paintings?" I'm thinking scrap of paper with a treasure map on it sandwiched in the wood or something (hey so I'm not the brightest bulb) anyway thought it was very disappointing then and can only assume the movie would be the same - and that's not even based on my Faith - it just didn't stirke me as a very plausible premise story wise.

Dan Brown actually lives not far from here and is constantly doing more and more construction with all the money folks are sending his way - he apparently is very material.

But I tell you what I would like to see is another Thief installment (I know it won't happen) but that's why I'm here actually is to try and learn how to use T3ed and maybe create some FMs for all to 'hopefully' enjoy someday.

Hastily chopped into pseudo-paragraphs as to hopefully avoid forum damnation. Refrained from converting to all caps and blinking scrolling marquee text ;) Will have myself scourged at sunrise...

fett on 22/5/2006 at 01:08

---

True true. Early church docs verify that both Jude and James who are included in NT cannon were half-brothers of Jesus, though they never boasted of this themselves.



John 'the baptizer' would have been a first cousin, but John 19 identifies John the disciple's mother as 'Salome, the sister of Mary', indicating some familial relationship between John the disciple and Jesus.




From a spiritual aspect, yes. But technically speaking, he was referred to as 'Rabbi' not only by his followers, but by his enemies (real and potential) and even by the Romans who encountered him. They were certianly not acknowledging his divine appointment as a teacher, but identified him as a Rabbi because it was in fact his sectarian position. Even his clothing described in the gospels is consistent with the common dress of a first century Pharasaic Rabbi - down to the tassles and fringes of his outer garment.