Some where in the new testament he was founded with naked young boys (I can understand why the pedos in the catholic church), and there are a lot reference on the web about a missing part in the gospel of MARC, known as SECRET MARC, any clues? I think he was, if he ever exist due to the lack of historic evidence about him.
121160
I don't know about Jesus, but you are. Certainly.\nLet me guess, pissed about recent controversial drawings too, honey?
161128
Well... the church has a history of hiding the facts that question their stance. This question of the church coverups has come up most recently because of the release of some new gospels, and their messages went in the face of much of the churches opinions and beliefs. The difficult thing is that these new gospels were kept from being in the bible by church officials over a thousand years after Christs death. The gospels in question were discarded during the cutting process. This could be looked at ascovering up the truth of Christ. As for the validity of Jesus having a wife and children, well, time may tell.
281766
Bible doesn't specify what the carpenter built, was it furniture or boats? Why mention it? Same thing, Jesus was human and it was normal to be married, so why write about something that is obvious? Even the gnostics, who wrote that he loved her, didn't mention any details at all. If the writer's intention was to only make Mary look like Jesus' wife, then she (gnostic writers were mainly females) would have added details. They didn't because it is irrlevent, it's the "love" that is important and that's all. However note that the gnostics married spiritually, the marriage ceremony was sexual intercourse. Note also the wedding mentioned in the Christian bible... it was "on the third day" (significance?), the groom always provided the wine (Jesus turned water into wine there [this is symbolical, not a miracle]). Then, who is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? Why does the writer not simply say who it is? If bible is "word of God" then the reader has a right to know. Why the mystery? The reason is because the gnostics were all about "hidden knowledge", that is how they wrote. Gospel of John is the most "gnostic" of the synoptics. No time left, but yes there is more than enough evidence to support that the Magdalene was Jesus' consort.
272662
Nobody knows if Jesus was celibate or not. For the Church to claim that people are now cynical about its claim regarding Jesus being celibate because of their interest in the Da vinci code is a good thing. People need to continually question their beliefs in order to reaffirm them or dismiss them as nonsense. The church is equally cynical about the claim that Jesus and MM were an item. Nobody knows the truth. There is not enough supporting evidence either way.
448837
I mean this, too....where are the Arc of the Covenant and the Holy Grail?  Some say they are hidden in secretive places by the Jews, some say they're hidden beneath the Vatican.  Some say Atlantis sank into the sea near present day Greece and some say it sank off the coast of northern Africa.  Some say...some say...until these things are found or proved true they will remain just that....some say!
209480
Its another fake Gospel written by an early christian sect who obviously had no contact with Jesus, the disciples or the disciples followers. It was common for christian sects with no direct link to church founders to create bogus gospels to support there beliefs.\nIf the gospel is real it would have been mentioned somewhere in the ancient history or copies of it would have surfaced elsewhere. Not to mention a true gospel always matches with what the rest of the bible says.\nPeople have a bad habit of thinking if a text is old then it must be a part of Gods word.  This is not true!
650101
Jesus actually ran his own escort service out of Nazareth and his twelve disciples were actually his posse of prostitutes that were rented out to King Herod's bi-sexual henchmen.\n\nJesus was gay, but celibate. True story.
320144
YOUR "FACT" is completely flawed, I keep hearing so-called experts on television say that, and it's complete rubbish.  In Ancient Judaism there were always so-called "priests" that served as the religious leaders of Jewish society.  Many of them never married as they remained free of anything secular (including family life), often traveling into the wilderness and building entire communities that were similar to what we know as monasteries.  Research the term "Qumran" on yahoo or google as it is one of the most popular and well-researched Jewish monasteries that actually existed during the lifetime of Jesus.  In fact, Qumran was located very close to the caves that held the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is probable that the very UNMARRIED Essene monks at Qumran authored the scrolls, as many of the scrolls outlined the lifestyle of the Qumran inhabitants in detail.\n\nFurthermore, if you read any of the writings of Paul in the New Testament of the bible, you will see that only a few years/decades after Christ religious men were clearly encouraged NOT to marry, as families would serve as distractions from God's service, and do you really think that in a few decades habitual tradition concerning religious men changed that rapidly? \n\nBut I DO agree with you that it wouldn't be so bad if Jesus did have a wife and children.  It's just that it doesn't fit at all with how we know Jesus lived. Therefore, it's just not true.  \n\nAnd as far as "The DaVinci Code" controversy, I seriously doubt anyone feels threatened by the novel and movie because they are "insecure" in their own faith.  THATS NOT THE CONTROVERSY.  I know that on TV the media is talking it up, and I know that some, not most, but SOME Christians have been complaining about the movie.  But it has NOTHING to do with their own faith.  It is the duty of any good Christian to have compassion for the non-believer.  The Great Commission according to the Bible is to go and teach the world the Good news that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That is something that should be held close to the heart and sacred for any Christian.  \n\nSO, I don't think ANY Chritian opposes "The DaVinci Code" because he is afraid for his OWN faith, but because of the damage it does to the possible or POTENTIAL faith of the non-believer.  It is hard enough in this world to spread the Word and to share the Gospel without these multi-billion dollar enterprises like "The DaVinci Code" working directly against you.  In other words, the Christian believes that he is already informed of the Good News, and so of course he does not feel personally threatened by a novel and movie.  But any Christian or layperson should be intelligent enough to also realize that there are plenty of weak-minded people out there that will be duped into believing the book and movie are fact, and in believing such a tale it is that much harder for them to become a believer; to become a Christian.\n\nThe DaVinci Code story is passed off as fact.  And it just isn't at all.  It's fiction.  Yet because people believe it, there literally are those among us now in this world that believe Christ was not divine at all, but a man that married, had children, and that such children prove Jesus was NOT the Son of God.  That's the danger of this story and movie that you see some clergymen talk about on TV.\n\nThat said, I am a Christian and I WILL be seeing the DaVinci Code, as any story relating to church history attracts me greatly.  I can't wait to see the movie after church this Sunday!
333923
Priory of Sion and Da Vinci notwithstanding, of course it is possible. Remember that there are many years in the life of Jesus not accounted for in the Bible. Anyone who thinks that he did not have relations during this time period is being a little naive. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, just that we need to look at him as a man. Now...what would Jesus do?
130234
3rd or 4th-century document called "The Gospel of Judas" was launched upon an unsuspecting world yesterday by no less a biblical authority than the National Geographic magazine in Washington. Its contents were "explosive", according to Mario Roberty, president of the Swiss foundation which now owns the ancient papyrus manuscript. \n\nSo as the heat faded from the television lights at the press conference, has 2000 years of orthodox Christianity been overturned? Well, not quite. But it was all jolly interesting, for those who love that sort of thing.\n\nHalf of the 62-page codex, written in Coptic script, is devoted to an account of the final days of Jesus Christ written from the viewpoint of the man who has for two millennia been excoriated as Christ's deadly betrayer. The text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot three days before he celebrated Passover..."
13368
I am not sure if he was, but our current bible is missing several books.  Each of the 11 disciples wrote a book (all but Judas), but we only have 4.  Also, bear in mind that the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible have different books.  However, although I am sure he probably wrote "something" about Christ, I can not say for sure it was a "book," and that his book was rejected.
649316
Ok, once again, you found it in the fiction section, correct? Then it is not true. Fiction=non truths. \nDan Brown didn't do his homework, not even historically. (Definitely not Biblically.) Aquila wasn't there, Dan Brown wasn't there, and the painting? That was made about what ?? 1200- 1500 years later? Doubt if he knew who sat where, or what they looked like. \nThe council that was suppose to have voted on Jesus's divinity, did no business on that supposed " big day," and on and on and on....\nOh, by the way, why didn't Jesus take time out to say goodbye to his wife and son when He was on the cross? Took time out for other important people...(Would have had to be a son, to carry on the bloodline, and they always put the sons in the picture.)\nCome on, something that big would have been recorded in the Bible. Jesus was the authority. The New Testament is largely about Him.  If he had been married, it would have been accepted, would have been ok,  and would have been written.
90683
This is true. :) Matthew (Levi) did [seem to] want to prove to the Jewish that Jesus was actually the Messiah, thus all the Old Testament stuff.\nI would guess an original Hebrew copy cannot be found because of the persecution. The Greek copies were probably made prior to the Hebrew version being destroyed. The copies were likely sent out to others, while the copier, I would imagine kept the original for himself to use. Only specualtion, of course.\n\n***\nOh, and borrowing heavily from Mark? Probably because the gospel was written a time after the events occured. He may have wanted to keep his facts straight. Or it could have been a coincidence, seeing as there were writing about the same thing.
513972
Hello, my friend. This book--"Mere Christianity"--and especially this bit about Christ's being either a lunatic or else the Son of God, was instrumental in my opening up to Jesus, simply on account of the fact that I had, for years, "respected" Jesus of Nazareth as a great teacher, ever ignoring the (what I then thought to be) creepier things he was quoted as saying in the Gospels (such as "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light")...and Lewis, with this very simple and basic observation, blew my cozy little respect for Jesus of Nazareth out of the water.\n\nWhich did something to a door. Meaning, I then had to face the very choice that Lewis proposed in this book. In other words, I was either going to have to open the door all the way (and believe Christ was who he said he is) or else close it (and believe Jesus of Nazareth to be deranged and blasphemous).\n\nUltimately, I would say that I chose to believe that Christ is God's Son, but truly God gave me the knowledge that Christ is his Son (John 6:44)...and perhaps he gave me the gift of faith for the sole reason that I was seeking it.
70509
The article is interesting, but it seems to have some flaws. It was too long and involved to read carefully, but I skimmed the points it was trying to make. One that jumped out at me was worshipping on Sunday. The article says we do that because the Pope said to. The fact is that the earliest church worshipped on Sunday. Paul says the day doesn't matter, as long as we worship.\n\nAnother problem is that the Bible tells us that once the antichrist comes to power, we only have 7 years left before the end. The catholic church has been around for far longer than 7 years!\n\nThere are more, but I'm a very slow typer, so I'll let it go at two.\n\nI have a big problem with some of the catholic beliefs, but I really don't think this article should be taken seriusly. When I have more time, I am going to look at it more closely, though.
197307
Are you sure they knew nothing of it?  Also, are you sure that the Pharisees knew that he would rise from the dead?  Otherwise, why would they put guards at the tomb if they thought he would really rise.  I think the Pharisees thought someone would remove him from the tomb.  And I think his disciples didn't really know what "rise" meant.
504043
Nothing is really known about Jesus, including whether he actually existed.  All the stuff written about him was written decades after he supposedly died.