I think he was married and had a child as well

this should be in the Spirituality & Skepticism section youll get more replies and such

How about the idea that Jesus was actually a female...

You get this idea on a book that admitted to be fiction called the "Da Vinci" Code? If not...what gives you this idea?

Lets hear him out ramster..no harm in it..after all I see the bible as fiction to...

Oh i am dont worry- i wanna hear as to where he got this idea from and came to this conclusion? All this person did was make a statement with no actual opinion on it...So i too am interested. As for Da Vinci Code- it is known and said by the author to be "fiction" the Bible can only be "fiction" based on ones opinion but not knowledge...No one truely knows how fictional the Bible is.

^Maybe, but the same logic pertains to the ‘Da vinci code’ also. It is our opinion whether or not we choose to believe the author is telling the truth.

~ADHD~

the idea isn't fromt he davinci code. that author took the idea from the "holy blood and the holy grail" written long before the davinci code.
but why not, sure jesus could have been married.
with kids, but i think he went about it after he left jerusalem and the whole crucifiction thing.
is i coincidence, that the word fiction is part of the word crucifiction!!!!! huh????
think about that one

I think the best argument I have seen from those who state that he was married was the tradition of early marraige among the Nazarene sect of Hebrewism that some have claimed existed.
I do know I have read that it did exist among the Pharisee sect. I do not know about the Sadducees. I know the Essences are still in debate as to how varied they were with some saying their clergy did not marry, some they did, and some saying it was both.

If they find evidence that vitually all Nazarenes married young, then I would say the probability would be in favor of the stand that he was by age thirty.

He could have been. it was abnormal for a man his age to not be married in that culture and time. However there is really nothing concrete to go on except....

If you are looking at the dead sea scrolls you'll see a part where it saids that Jesus kissed Mary all the time but there is a hole in the text. Now it was customary for people to kiss back than and not in a se@ual way.

Another thing from the dead sea scrolls refers to the other apostles being jealous that Jesus loved Mary more than them. Now why would he love her more than them?

Many Christians would consider this blasphemy however marriage is not a sin in Christian terms.

DaVinci,

My husband use to date a Greek woman that was also Orthodox Christian, and she told him that they believe Jesus was married to the Magdalene and also had children with her. This is also thought to be the secret meaning behind the "Holy Grail" legend. Mary, with child, being the sacred grail or the vessel of sacred life. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip, (appx. 2nd century) makes the reference that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth quite frequently. Not an intimacy one finds in the traditional Jesus myth.

There is also a "Gospel of Mary", written in approximately the second century, in which it the apostles spoke to Mary in one particular account that leads researchers to believe there was a relationship between Jesus and Mary: “Sister, we know you were greatly loved by the Savior, as no other woman. Therefore tell us those words of the Savior which you know but which we haven’t heard."

Vehement,

There is also speculation that Jesus was gay because of textual references in the Gospel of John (sic)"the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7,20)

I look forward to what others have to share on this topic. Thank you for posting Da Vinci.

Wow...someone has attention to detail

~ADHD~

I think this is in gnostic gospels of Egypt rather than the Essene ones called the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It got me to thinking about something I had for some reason not thought of before though.

I was going to reply to you that as a Rabbi it would have been unusual for any adult woman who a Rabbi was not married to to even touch his arm.

That was when it hit me. In the Bible Jesus warns Mary not to touch him. In other words he knew that she would touch him without the warning, which could only mean that touching him was something she commonly did and would be a natural reaction.

If it is found that Rabbis of the Nazarene could not be touched except by any adult females other than wives or mothers, I would say this would be some of the strongest evidence of all that Jesus and Mary were married, the Bible itself.

You have a point Star

Bella are you refering to Jesus warning Mary not to touch him after the resurrection?

If that is the correct reference and I'm not misunderstanding you I always viewed that as jesus being in spirit and that was the significance of her not touching him. Not just her but anyone touching him in spirit. What say you?

Well I am a star...so I only have four points left...I just used one.

Huh! It's also interesting to think about the fact that you spelled the word wrong. It is "crucifixion." Whether it has fiction in it or not is still open to debate.

Brown is even being sued for plagarism by two of the authors of holy blood holy grail.

unusual, yes. unheard of, no. There is a quotation from someone about students of the law putting off marraige in order to better focus on their studies.
The dead sea scrolls say nothing of Jesus. You have them confused with the Nag Hammadi texts, which were found in Egypt.


1st century Mediterranian "love" did not have to have anything to do with affection of anykind. IMO, its quite a sad indicator of the state of some skeptical "thought" for someone to have thought of that.

Link

Actually it's in keeping with Scholarship, to consider and then investigate the particulars of any given subject. Further, it is no assault or sacrilege on the Christ to inquire of his sexuality, relative to the scriptures that profess his wisdom as a messiah. Rather, I believe people who object to the notion do so in the spirit of the same avarice they hold for gay mortal contemporaries. Therefore, to imagine the savior of mankind may have been a lover of men would in it's own right indict the bigotry of faithful men.

You might want to check out the "Secret Gospel of Mark", written around the same time a the Mark in the NT, but with definite "gay" leanings!!!

Jesus loved men as his brothers- nothing more or nothing less...If you read the actual original Hebrew writings you will see they translate to "brotherly love" not "in love"...Something along that line.

here is my thought on this...

I don't think Jesus was married, because that was not his mission on Earth. And even if he was married, that would not make him any different, because marriage is obeying God's law. Also if he had been married and he had one or more children, there would writtings about it, and there doesnt seem to be anything that indicates that.

There are some problems i see with this all "Da Vinci Code" thingie... first of all the book is fiction, and ppl are atcually taking it serious, and thats not too smart.

Second, this claim that Jesus had a child with Mary Magadalene and that she escaped to go live some place that is now known has France, is the basis of the Serpent seed teaching... the basis or white supramacy and anti-semetic teachings.

According to this claim, Mary Madgalene wnet to "france" and therefore the "white race" are the true descendents of Jesus... The Europeans are the "true Jews"... and the one in Israel are the "false evil Jews"...

If you don't see a problem with this kind of "teaching"... than maybe you rae one of the "true Jews" ... ?

Seriosuly... if Jesus was married and had Children, The Roman Catholic Church or some other cult would have come right up front and say it, so they could claim to be the TRUE descendents of Jesus

The bible is fiction too whts the difference???Many think the da vinci code is real and many think the bible is real, Baas there is so much deciet and ommission in the bible....

The Bible is not fiction, wheather you believe the Bible is from God or not, the point is it describes histroycal facts, so it is not fiction. Even Roman history confirms many facts written in the Bible.

As to the deciet and ommission in the Bile...well...thats what I hear all the time... but can anyone actually proove it ? What was changed and omited from the bible, and where is the proof ? where is the original Bible so i can go read it and see what was changed?

And that doesnt change the fact that the teaching prtaryed in this DAVinci book and Holy Grail are the basis to nazistic beliefs.

Can you prove that it is??/You can't, its blue sky Baas......Did you read the Da vinci code???

okkkkkkkkkkk.... you lost me there ... can i prove what ? and what does the sky have to do with it ..

didi i read it ?? heck no...i do like everyone else and wait for the movie.

I meant can you prove the bible is fact???I think its blue sky its an expression that its based on faith,

I did read the da vinci code i'll let you see the movie before you assume things...It was an interesting story Based on some facts maybe...His-story is often one sided often the victors side so it can't be said that the bible is historically accurate, other then IN your opinion

Sherri even though you might not see it theres is a BIG difference between the Bible and the Da Vinci code- ive said this before. The author of the "Da Vinci Code" claims it is infact fiction...The own author of the book claimed it isnt based on fact. This is based on knowledge. You say the Bible is fiction but that cant be based on your knowledge...but only your opinion for no one truely knows how fictional is.

Ok now BM is curious I want to see the Da Vinci Code

Davincis work has alot of meaning to it his Drawings are still highly rated and most of them were inspired by the Bible and Catholic church. In his work there were hidden secrets I believe if Jesus had a child with Mary then it must be Sarah she was brought up 5 years in Egypt then with Joseph ,Mary&Sarah pilgremed to France then Britain toglastonburyabbey Dan Browns book gave me a brighter aspect towards life I'm mixed race stuck inbetween races Irish Scottish Srilanken and Portugese I live in UK and my Great grandad Alexander Mcleod fourght for Coloureds rights in S.A. and our community was Arcadia.

I think the history in the book The DaVinci code is horrible history, purely made up tales from a few scattered bits.

However, the San Grael, or Holy Blood instead of Holy Grail is an accurate translation of the earliest mention of it.

If there had been a Holy bloodline, knowing how paranoid of someone trying to take his throne Constantine was, I do not see how they could have survived when Constatine made Christianity the state religion, unless they managed to escape his reach. He had a very long reach.

The Vatican knows how fictional it is. The Council of Nicea A.D.325 was convoked by Constantine. The Second Council in 787 A.D. changed the bible of the 325 Council, to include iconography which had before been suppressed by Leo the 3rd.

Then ultimately the Roman Catholic church published it's own Bible; "The New American Bible" in 1970. (This Bible in no wise is considered by Catholics to be the "same" as the King James Version used by many other denominational Christians. ) (Sic)"In 1970, the New American Bible (NAB) was first published. It is an English Bible translation that was produced by members of the Roman Catholic biblical scholars in cooperation with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The original languages were translated into English by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy."

Edit to add: There is an excellent book if one wishes to learn of Bible histories. Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages

And I also look forward to the DaVinci Code movie. The book, btw, is not intended as a historic text but rather is marketed as a Novel, which alludes to the true import of the Authors intention, despite those that cleave to the text as a guide through the secret history of the Christ.

An excellent book[s] on how the scriptures have been altered over the centuries (purposely and not), read the following works by Professor Bart D. Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill):

*Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073817...5Fencoding=UTF8

*The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019514183...5Fencoding=UTF8

*The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019510279...glance&n=283155

As for the Dv Code ... As Imaginary Friend stated--fiction! This is a terrific story, and nothing else. It is a literary work--as are the Gosples.

*Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019518140...glance&n=283155

Sean

Excellent links Sean...I am curious as to who changed the bible and why did they do it

I find it amazing that so many ppl calim the Bible was change yet no one ever provided the "original" Bible, so we all could confrim the changes ... ? all mabo jmabo... all attemots of deception and no prrof ever presented for nothing.

Someone please tell me right now, no ifs ... no Obscure internet links...just pure simple answers...

1) If the bible was changed... who changed it?

2) where is the "original". "unaltered" Bible? so i can read it as well...

3) if the biel was altered, and there is proof of it, why hasnt the TRUE bible be printed so that the world can read it ?

4) Proof ??? Proof ???.... and more Proof ???

I mean before i give up on my Old Testament belief, and becoem an Atheist, I would really like to see some good ole PROOF !....

spell check, spell check, spell check.

Click here - maybe

The bible IS NOT fiction, because at the most is historical fact. You may not believe it came from God, you may not believe the miracles... but you and no one can deny that the Bible has plenty of Historical facts, the crucifixon of Jesus is FACT, even Roman History has it recorded, the Earthquake after his crucifixion is FACT, once again Roman hystory recorded it, and not to talk about all the otehr facts that are part of Jewsih hirtory.

Now you may not accept it came from God, but you can't say its fiction... because you can't say that so many nations historical facts are "fiction"

"The DaVinci " code is none of the above, the author himslef admit it after he's book was debunked.

There are plenty of historical recods about Jesus, is life, the problems he cause to the Roman governor, etc... but ther are none about a wedding, or a child... or ven a breed of "white true decendents of Jesus " in France. sorry... but THATS fiction.

But like i said before, If Jesus was married... more power to him, because there is nothing wrong with marriage, and there is nothing to ashamed of for beeing married. If Jesus had been married, he would have simply have doinne something that was totall in agreemnet with God's law. Even if Jesus was married, that would make his descendents Jews, just like he was, NOT French white "supreme race" descendents.

But untill i see PROOF of Jesus marriage, i can't take it as truth...thast all.

Please cite a non-Biblical source for your statements in this passage.




The historical fact of crucifixion is evident: Link


Again, please cite the non-Biblical source for this affirmation.

yeah yeah ... you worry about Spell check, but than you give me a link to Wikipedia??? seriously... I can go there and post whatever I want as "fact", as long as I haev an account.

i meant SERIUOUS PROOF !

ok ...give me some time to find what i'm refering to... its not the kind of thing i bring on my wallet

REALLY wow ok can you be the 1st to explain how this is ACTUAL FACT?????? when others see it as a belief..do you even KNOW what the word FAITH means???

If you have proof that it's REALLY FACT...and you are the one and only person that doesnt see what you have is just FAITH/BELIEF like everyone else...im curious....how can it be FACT

Now other that use their head will say......I don't have proof that its fact...but I have faith that it is....<---that right there is called HONESTY

They don't call religion a FAITH for nothing ya kow...but since you are special...I want to be one of the 1st to see how you KNOW for SURE its fact....after all you didn't say..you BELIEVE..nuhuh you said it was fact

Just an aside; If there existed SERIUOUS PROOF, it would not be a faith!

The English Bible history table at that link is valid as proof of the history of the English Bible. If one wishes physical proof one need gain close ties to the Vatican and pack a lunch at the same time. Then they need unroll their sleeping bag, cancel every appointment they imagine they have for the next few years, and ensconce themselves in the Library and the secret archive of records and read till their heart's content. Oh, be sure to pack at least a few language skills; Aramaic, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Besides all this historic reality, one need not prove anything to support the initial pronouncements you made. It is you that need support your profession that the Bible is historic fact.

What I offered was the opportunity to realize the historic time line that attends that which you state is a factual tome of religious history.

Prove it!
Utilizing non-Biblical sources, as I requested of you initially.
(One can not claim something is factually accurate utilizing the document in question as proof to the claims of fact within the document. That would be like, wrong! )

Thank you I Friend Finally someone understand what FAITH means but I guess when you throw on a pair of rose tinted glasses you see it like this Faith = Fact

There are no Roman records concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. None! His death went completely unnoticed by them. As for the earthquake ... Again, absolutely untrue. This event is a complete fabrication.

That said, if it is as you say, why did the Romans not record the saints coming out of their tombs following the earthquake as well? This would certainly had grabbed headlines if true, yes?



What "facts"? Provide scholarly sources.



Whenever you start saying "God did it," you have stepped out of proper scholarship and into the realm of fiction.

You certainly don't believe in "Manifest Destiny" do you?



Absolutely false. There are no Roman records concerning Jesus, no eyewitness accounts of his life by a first century historian. Josephus mentions Jesus, but only in passing (Most of this passage is a known interpolation). He was writing from Rome and simply regurgitating information he had heard from believers. There are no others records of the Jesus as characterized in the Gospels--none of which are eyewitness accounts, by the way--and were written decades after Jesus was crucified. They are considered faith documents, midrash--not historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Sean

niether council had anything to do with the Biblical text.


be careful with Ehrman's books. A couple of reviewers have critisized him for writing like changes he points out are a dime a dozen in the NT, when in reality the examples are the only ones of that magnitude.

I may never look at a pair of Ray bans quite the same way again!


BM

If that were true I imagine you would have provided a source for the claim.

i could say the same thing for what you said. but it is not really needed, ive got a fairly good idea of the ultimate source for your claim, at least concerning first nicea.
wikipedia doesnt agree with you for either council. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html has almost every source for the first council, only a rather inaccurate and inventive 9th century document agrees with you. for the second council, i have no idea where you pulled the idea that the biblical text was changed there, so i cant really offer anything in rebuttal other than "prove it." good luck.

That is patently absurd and misrepresentative of the truth.
(sic)"...Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree."

Creed: A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
A system of belief, principles, or opinions

Canon:An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
A secular law, rule, or code of law.
An established principle: the canons of polite society.
A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.




You are incorrect in your claims regarding both Councils and Wikipedia's accord to my previous reply.

"The First Council of Nicaea, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in AD 325, was the first ecumenical conference of bishops of the Christian Church.

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father: in particular whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father." (link)

"The Second Council of Nicaea was the seventh ecumenical council of Christianity; it met in 787 AD in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea) to restore the honoring of icons (or, holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717 - 741). His son, Constantine V (741 - 775), had held a synod to make the suppression official." (Source)


The Catholic Encyclopedia is in accord with the Wikipedia entries on both of these Councils as well.

The Second Council of Nicea


See the above references , particullarly the Catholoc Encyclopedia.
And this.

Further, one would do well not to provide a link to a Christian Apologist such as Tertullian, while at the same time critiquing the ethicacy of Ehrman or any others.

Well said.

Ehrman is highly respected and that is why I recommend his work. I'm not interested in pseudo-scholarship and far-out theories, but what is consensus, taught on the collegiate level. That said, Ehrman's latest book, Misquoting Jesus, provides and in-depth history of textual criticism and its profound influence on our understanding of scripture. It is a must-read for those interested in understanding the origins and evolution of the NT. For those who wish to remain in the dark, ignore him and Biblical exegesis altogether.