http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27jesus.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=f5dcb40974a9432f&ex=1330232400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

While it is speculative, it does continue to assert that there’s more evidence that ol Jesus was married, and even had a son. I knew my boy Jesus had to be gettin’ busy.

Hmm the Anti-Passion of the Christ?

In all seriousness, though, while I’m not sure that I’d buy into James Cameron’s “Game Over, we found Jesus’s body” claim, it’s become increasingly clear that Mary Magdalene had a relationship with Jesus ranging from being one of the disciples to being Jesus’s wife.

And no, I’ve never read The Da Vinci Code (or seen the movie). The Da Vinci Code is fiction. If anything, the Da Vinci Code has devalued genuine research into Mary Magdalene’s relationship with Jesus.

I don’t buy it. He probably just found a dead hippy.

Gafgarion - 28 February 2007 12:34 AM

The Da Vinci Code is fiction. If anything, the Da Vinci Code has devalued genuine research into Mary Magdalene’s relationship with Jesus.

It did cause a lot of folk to reexamine Jesus as person and to perhaps question the historical role of the catholic church in early Christianity. The most provocative information always has been the Dead sea scrolls, the text that suggests a relationship with Mary that predates all the gospels.

Folk however will argue against it because the Bible says otherwise, which is kinda sad because the Bible is rather revisionistic in nature having an old testament and new testament.

Even if a bullet proof theory were to emerge with the proper evidence, it’d still be disputed vigoriously. We’ll probably never have the exact truth unfortunantly and a good portion of the rather choose ignorance in the subject. I’d like to see this film, but it does seem to reach a little from description,

Greg G - 28 February 2007 04:38 AM

Gafgarion - 28 February 2007 12:34 AM

The Da Vinci Code is fiction. If anything, the Da Vinci Code has devalued genuine research into Mary Magdalene’s relationship with Jesus.

It did cause a lot of folk to reexamine Jesus as person and to perhaps question the historical role of the catholic church in early Christianity. The most provocative information always has been the Dead sea scrolls, the text that suggests a relationship with Mary that predates all the gospels.

The Dead Sea Scrolls don’t mention Jesus at all.  They were all written a couple hundred years before Christ and are all writings from the Hebrew texts (Old Testament stuff).  They aren’t provocative at all, instead they serve only to reinforce the reliability of modern copies of the Bible.

The only writings mentioning a relationship with Mary Magdalene are Gnostic (a heretical group) writings, such as the so-called “Gospel of Thomas”, and are completely unreliable as sources of information on Christ.  It’s impossible to make a claim that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had a romantic relationship based on any sort of sound evidence.

I thought it was impossible to make just about any sort of claim about jesus if sound evidence or empirical data were required. This was information about people and events that are over 2000 years old, if history is written by the victor, then Christians wrote this history. As I understand it, Christians also have a pretty strong pro-christ bias.

yellow#5 - 28 February 2007 08:31 PM

As I understand it, Christians also have a pretty strong pro-christ bias.

Nah, Mav dismissing the Gnostics as a heretical group is completely NPOV.