attn: christians

[crankylex]

I have a question for you.

I'm reading all about a brouhaha about the movie based on The DaVinci Code (which, btw, I have not read) and I'm confused. Apparently part of the premise is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had children.

I know who Jesus is, and I kinda sorta know who Mary Magdalene is. What I don't understand is why it would be a big deal that they married and had kids. I mean, wouldn't people be excited to potentially be a descendant of Jesus?

Obviously, I do not mean to offend by asking these questions. I just don't understand why everyone is all up in arms about this.

Signed,

The Heathen

Comments

[theantijoss.livejournal.com]

Dear Sister Heathen:

I too have asked this question, and mostly gotten "*sputtersputter* because it's sacreligious!" as a response.

I don't think questioning the party line is encouraged, but I could be biased.

Pagan Wench Who Loved "The Last Temptation of Christ"

(I had to resist the urge to use my "Christ on a Cracker" icon. *G*)

[spikesleman.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for others but this is my take on the subject. I do believe that everything we need to know about Jesus we find in the New Testament. The New Testament doesn't mention that he married or had children. For me, that ends it.

I don't get hysterical over "The DaVinci Code" (though I must say that a very good friend of mine, whose taste in writers I admire thinks the book stank on ice because of lousy writing and I doubt that I'll read the book though I might; you never know) because, hello, FICTION! It's a novel. It's fiction. I've read and enjoyed books that had all sorts of weirdness in the plots (I mean weirdness about Jesus specifically) and didn't get all faith-shaken or whatever. Because, unlike some people, I can tell the difference betwen fiction and non-fiction.

[smithereen.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the book so I dunno jack. I don't really plan ot ever because the whole thing seems overhyped and annoying to me. But I found this on a website talknig about the scholarship and what the book claiims. It says teh book claims:

# early Christianity entailed "the cult of the Great Mother." Mary Magdalene represented the feminine cult and the Holy Grail of traditional lore
# she was also Jesus' wife and the mother of his children
# Magdalene's womb, carrying Jesus offspring, was the legendary Holy Grail (as seen in Da Vinci's encoded paining, The Last Supper)
# Jesus was not seen as divine (God) by His followers until Emperor Constantine declared him so for his own purposes

In which case, I mean if this is correct, then it seems to me they're objecting more to you know...the idea that Jesus wasn't divine "a". And b) a shirt toward a greater emphasis on/power for women within the church. But I really have no idea cause organized religion=creepy and this book=not going to read it.

[smithereen.livejournal.com]

um SHIFT not shirt.

[iheartnickcath.livejournal.com]

I honestly have no clue what to tell you there hun. But I do wanna see the movie, lol.

[tangofic.livejournal.com]

Christians seem to be ridiculously random about what they choose to care about. In the Bible, Mary Magdalene was referred to as a sinner, adulterer and some even go as far as to refer to her as a prostitute. Jesus cast 7 demons from her, if I remember the story right. Anyway, Jesus got a lot of flack for hangin' with her.

It's not only that they are insinuating that Jesus got married (which is a giant deal apparently), but who they are saying he married. Anyway, my parents are ministers, so I might have to ask my mom if she has her panties in a wad about it. Usually, she doesn't get as crazy as the rest, but she did have a huge problem with the Last Temptation of Christ - which, of course, is why I went to see it. lol.

[mercy.livejournal.com]

There are a several reasons why specifically the Vatican is upset about some of the topics covered in this book (not all of which are fictional).

The first thing is that fact that the New Testament was not the only gospel written about Jesus and his apostles. It was however the only gospel "sanctioned" by the church.

The point of contention for the church and the reasons that these other gospels were considered heretical revolved around their view of Jesus. Specifically, as a man, not a god. Many Christians at that time (I don't know the exact dates but I can recommend some books that would give you more details) believed that Jesus' original message and teachings were not based in faith but rather than knowledge. That the true path to god is through looking within yourself and finding the evidence of god through better understanding the world and our place it in.

Understandably, this gospel holds no place for the church and its role as a conduit between believers and god. One of the main platforms of the church's powers.

Also many Christians, including the Catholic Church, believe the Jesus was not a man, but rather a god/son of god. Beyond our reach and not subject to the same trappings as us mere mortals, clean of sins and the temptations of the flesh. In this way his is a model for believer, as something to strive for. This is where a lot of the belief that the priesthood's vows of chastity come from.

Now when you combined the fact with the "fiction" (or common suspicion, read Holy Blood Holy Grail) that Jesus was in fact a man that married Mary and fathered children. If it were true it would validate a lot of these other Christian gospels and completely invalidate the base of the church's doctrine and its role in the relationship as mediator between believers and god.

*takes a deep breath*

I hope this answers your question.

[deoradhainexile.livejournal.com]

10 years of Catholic school education and I didn't know half that information. And I still don't get the drama behind it. But since when has religion been logical eh?

[the-kitty-kat.livejournal.com]

Also, there is the fact that one of the sects (I think?) of the Catholic church, Opus Dei, is portrayed as evil and killing people and stuff. I think Catholics are a little upset about that.

[(Anonymous)]

I hope you don't mind me commenting...
Like Mercy said, they look at Jesus as a God or a phenomenon sent by God to mingle with lesser mortals. Humanizing him by implying he has descendants living on earth today strips him of that glory. Almost like saying he was just some guy who did good things. There's also a bit of pissiness over the issue that the church or gospel was supposed to pass into the hands of Mary and not Peter. Seems to challenge the legs the Catholic church stands on.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

I have no religious faith whatsoever, so religious drama is entertaining to a degree.

From my observations, no one likes having the party line questioned. :->

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

I actually read the book this past week because I was nosy. :->

It was okay, from a writing standpoint. It was engaging, but certainly not the best thing I've ever read. It did hold my attention, though.

What I did enjoy was the "conspiracy theory" angle. I am a bit of a paranoid alarmist myself, so I do love a good conspiracy theory.

IMO, it's certainly nothing for the Catholic Church to get its panties in a twist over.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

I read it this week; WAAAAY overhyped.

The book was okay, but I did enjoy the conspiracy theory angle, which is made up of what you pointed out in your comment.

It's slightly believable for me only from the current lack of power for women within the church structure. I could see the nebulous "They" of conspiracy systematically removing any reference to women in a position of power as it related to the church.

::stabs men::

Although, Tom Hanks totally does not match the image I had of the hero in my mind. AT ALL.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

I dunno, Tom Hanks looks even dorkier than usual. :->

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

my parents are ministers

Y'know, that explains a lot about you.

::ducks and runs::

And IMO, if I had a choice of a celibate leader or one that was getting some regularly, I'd go with the fun guy.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

It really does. After I read this comment, I finally read the book to see what was up.

Understandably, this gospel holds no place for the church and its role as a conduit between believers and god. One of the main platforms of the church's powers.

This to me is what makes everything that much more believable. I could see them eradicating everything not to their viewpoint as a defense mechanism. After all, if you can find God within yourself, what reason is there to donate to the Church?

Do you recommend Holy Blood, Holy Grail? It was mentioned a lot in my Googling.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

Nothing scarier than a True Believer.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

More people are killed in the name of God than any other reason.

Of course, they usually aren't killed by albino monks who whip themselves bloody. :->

Everytime I hear Opus Dei I think about Mel Gibson and his interview with Diane Sawyer when Passion of the Christ or whatever first came out.

OMG. He was such a freak, it scared me. And Diane too; she was practically climbing her chair to get away from him.

[crankylex.livejournal.com]

I've been asking this same question in different places all week, and I've gotten a ton of different answers. It's really to fascinating to me to see the very varied opinions on this topic, and the thoughts behind it.

And comment away! (But leave your name next time. :-)

[theantijoss.livejournal.com]

I suppose that's why it's "dogma". *G*

[iheartnickcath.livejournal.com]

lol, Really?

[spikesleman.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I pretty much don't think the Catholic Church should get its knickers in a twist, either. But then I'm not Catholic so what do I know?

*grin*

I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I figure sooner or later it'll turn up at the Goodwill store and I'll buy it then. There are a lot of books I've bought that way, especially if I'm not sure I'll like 'em.

[mercy.livejournal.com]

If you're used to dry academidic writing, it is worth it. It's not the kind of writing style that I like but the subject matter was so facinating that it keep my attention.

Also if you're interested in other, "fictional", takes on Jesus, there's another book that a friend of mine recommended (the name of which I am blanking on, so I will have to reply back with the name). It covers the time in Jesus' life that was not documented in the bible (from about ten to thrity). The book puts forth the idea that he traveled to the east and studied with Buddist monks, that being the corner stone of his teachings.

[mercy.livejournal.com]

The book that I recommended, it's either this one or this one. Sorry, it's been years since she told me about it. I suppose I should actually pick it up and read it myself. haha.