what r your thoughts on the topic of Mary Magdelene's marriage to Jesus Christ??
362940
I have been reading about that as of late and find it interesting.  plausible. The bible has seen a lot gone through a lot in that i mean translations.  It also stands that some books were purposely left out.  With that in mind I don't feel it proves with out a shadow of a doubt that its true.  However it does leave enough room for the thought and probability.
230320
Many people seem to have a problem remembering that this book is fiction.  Some Christians take offence because it is important to them that Jesus was a virgin all his life.  I think these people somehow see sex -- even in marriage -- as "dirty" -- otherwise, why would it sully Jesus' purity to have a wife and children?  They seem to think the possibility detracts from His perfection.  \n\nFor me, it makes no difference.  Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, whether He was married or not.  And the possibility of His bloodline continuing seems to me to be important only to those who think His blood contained some special DNA that would be passed down.  Unless that DNA somehow makes people better people, more likely to love others and change the world -- what difference does it make?  And from what I see of the world, any DNA that makes people better has been as diluted as the Truth He brought (sorry, Christians).  It would be nice if His Teachings existed and were followed in their entirety, but if they were, the world would not be in the state it is in now.\n\nI don't read too much into "The Last Supper" -- it's a painting, not a photograph!  It was done centuries after the fact and the people shown *represent* the people who were there but do not look like them -- since no one knows what they looked like.  If the figure to Jesus' left looks feminine, it is only because da Vinci painted it that way -- and reflects da Vinci's beliefs and/or skill -- not reality.  \n\nI enjoyed the book, but really don't understand the furor.  There are so many books that are more interesting and controversial -- but many of them aren't fiction.  :-)
86507
Hello zun_noon.. :)\n\nThere is no marriage..For we will be liken unto the angels..neither male nor female..we will receive glorious new bodies..\n\n\nMatthew 29  ¶ Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.\n \n30  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.\n\n============================================================\n\nThere is a pure river of water of life..the Tree of life is on either side of this river..Revelation 22 \n\n1  And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.\n \n2  In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,  which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.\n \n3  And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:\n \n4  and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.\n \n5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.  \n\n============================================================\n\nThere is no more pain nor suffering for God shall wipe away all of our tears and there shall be no more death..Revelations 21\n\n4  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death,  neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.\n \n============================================================\n\nThere is no longer any need for the sun nor the moon..for the Glory of Our Lord shall be our light..there will be no more night..or darkness..Revelations 21\n\n23  And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, Is. 60.19 and the Lamb is the light thereof.\n \n24  And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it.\n \n25  And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.\n \n============================================================\n\nNo there will be no cars or any that is not of celetial body..nothing that is terretial will be there..for only spiritual things can enter into Heaven..or be with our Heavenly Father..\n\nIn Jesus Most Precious Name..\nWith Love..In Christ..
362936
What do you mean by believe? I believe she lived, and I believe she was the mother of Jesus, and I believe that she was a virgin until Jesus was born. I think you might mean Catholic practice of praying to Mary and so on. That I do not believe - not at all, as the Bible says nothing about praying to Mary. I don't pray to anyone but God the Father, but I do so in the name of Jesus - as the Bible says.\n\n\nThe Bible further states that Jesus had siblings, and says that Mary did not know her husband UNTIL Jesus was born (this last is found in Matthew, and the siblings part is in Mark 3:31). These half siblings would have been direct descendents of Mary, not of Jesus. There is nothing wrong with there being descendents related to Jesus... I think people think that if others were related to him, it would mean they were born with part of the Holy Spirit, since Jesus was conceived of the Spirit - but that's not true. The siblings were born of two humans and were all human. The Holy Spirit had nothing to do with their conceptions.
466075
To the original question:\n\nI'm not sure if anyone has explained -- when Mary was found to be pregnant she was "betrothed" to Joseph.   This was the 'first stage' in a marriage.  It legally bound the two together, and any violation was considered adultery.  Also, breaking this required a divorce\n\nBut the marriage was COMPLETED and consummated when the two 'came together'.  Mary and Joseph were betrothed, they had not yet come together.   \n\nMatthew tells us that, when Jospeh discovered it he was thinking of quietly, privately divorcing her (to avoid a scandal).   But at the instruction of the angel, who told him the child was 'of the Holy Spirit' he 'took her to him', i.e., took her into his household and they became 'fully' husband and wife.\n\nOthers have raised the question of whether Mary REMAINED a virgin after this.  Frankly, Matthew ONLY tells us that "he did not know her until" Jesus' birth.  The rest of the NT says nothing at all about the matter.  Protestants have usually deduced that they had normal relations after this, Catholics have appealed (as we have seen) to traditions beginning in the 2nd century (which Protestants do not accept as authoritative).   \n\nI will not get into that debate here, except to correct the point on John Calvin' view.  Calvin essentially insisted on leaving the question OPEN, neithre adopting a later tradition as authoritative, nor simply dismissing it.  He thought the reference in Matthew too unclear to settle the matter.  To BOTH sides he said:\n\n"What took place afterwards the historian does not tell us. . . . Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from extreme fondness for disputation."
650043
Interesting fiction.\nEntertainment.\nCompletely challenges my religion but I don't care. \nPerhaps a grain of truth.\nThese rumors didnt' just begin with DaVinci Code.\nIt's been ongoing gossip since the crucifiction\nThere must be a grain of truth to it.\nIf not, it's interesting.  \nGet's people interested in discussing religion.  \nI see no problem with Jesus being married and having children. \nWhy would he have not?  \nThe bible completely skips a majority of his life when marrying and having children would be the normal thing to do at the ages skipped.  \nWhy leave those years blank?  \nIs it true?\nWho knows?  Who cares?\nIt's just interesting.  \nNot offensive.
600412
There would be nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife and even children. He would not have violated His perfectness because marriage then was a very sacred thing. Most marriages at that time were arranged and it is quite possible that to hold with the customs of the time Jesus may have had an arranged marriage.\n\nWhether or not He was married to Mary Magdeline is a topic that will be discussed for many years. There is some evidence in the Gospel of Mary that she may have been because Jesus told her things that He did not tell the other disciples. It also says (indicates) Jesus kissed her on the mouth, not done except to a wife at that time.\n\nThose who were chosen to assemble the Bible as we have it today had hundreds of letters and gospels to choose from. Because they wanted to make the Bible masculine they choose mainly those books that carried out this wish of the early mainly Catholic church. They required all the other writtings to be destroyed. Thank goodness they are slowly finding some of the copies that did not get destroyed such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and now the most recent Gospel of Judas.\n\nAlthough the De Vinci Code is basically a fictional story, I beleive the reason, especially the Catholic Church is so opposed, the occurances depicted is because it is closer to the truth than they want the people to know. The church has always tried to control the people by fear; something that I have always disliked. By making many things that were not sin into sin they could make the people pay to have forgiveness of these "sins". The church was able to fill their coffers easily in this way and some churches still do this today.\n\nTo me Jesus is a very real person and He is my Savior, but I do not hold with any church because of they way they have lied to their people over the years. You don't have to go to a church to be a Christian...All it requies is a belief and a love for Jesus. there is no other requirement.
322372
It is the absolute Truth. Everything discussed in the book is Undeniable Fact. The Church has stolen the Truth from the people for too long! Jesus is the male part of a duality that involves Mary Magdelene.
319730
Try a book called Holy Blood / Holy grail. It proposes that the "Grail" is actually the bloodline of Christ as opposed to a cup. Many persons believe this especially as Mary Magdelene was "written out" of the bible as a disciple by the early church. Presumably to suggest that women had no place as leaders in the early church. As with all of these theories they are just that. The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction about the protagonist trying to verify this theory and should be taken with a pinch of salt. However the underlying theory is very much debated and real.\nI do, however, believe that Jesus (as an individual) did exist so it is reasonable to assume he did marry and have children as he would have appeared VERY odd in those days as an unmarried individual. Whether he was the son of god or not...that's up to the individual.
638866
There are many aspects of the book that might prove interesting to debate. One of the most controversial items that the book brings forth is the question of whether Jesus was married and had children. It has NEVER been church doctrine, that such was the case. However, some members and a few leaders back in the early days of the church have speculated on the subject of marriage. In the end, since we do not know, it remains, just that, speculation. \n\nOne of the biggest problems that I, personally, have with the book is that, in the end, Brown's theory seems to be more about Jesus being human rather than divine. I completely disagree with this viewpoint. Members of our church are generally well read. I can't see this book affecting the faith of anyone who has taken the gospel seriously. \n\nDespite Brown's claim that everything is "accurate," people seem to be forgetting that it is just a clever and somewhat interesting piece of entertainment. There may be bits of truth in it, just as in other fictional novels, yet it is still just a work of fiction. \n\nMany religious groups seem to be overly concerned about this book's message or impact. I am of the opinion that while the book may cause some few to doubt, there will be others who may actually start reading the scriptures to find out just what they say. Opposition is not a bad thing. Many people may find their faith strengthened as a result of all of this religious fervor. Is that such a bad thing?\n\nThis is just one "mormon's" opinion on the matter.
175073
mary was not a prostitute.  that thought was put into effect by the church in the time of Constitine.  The bible never states that she was a prostitute.  The bible also does not state whether she or Jesus was married however there is a big whole in the story of Jesus from the bible.  We do not know much about his life during his teenage years unto where he professed to be God's son.  Therefore we cannot have a fair dipiction of his life if you were to go by the bible.  It was customary for jewish men of his day to marry as it was customary for women to marry.  They married young by todays standards so it is possible that he or she was married.  It was the church who commissioned what books went into the bible that we know today and not God.  There are several books now known that were purposely left out by the church of the time.  They give more detail as to the life of Jesus as well as Mary and the desiples. here is a link that has some information and links on some of the info I mentioned here if you are interested.
329978
Its about the theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene & their blood line still exists protected by a secret society called Priority of Sion. \n\nThough this is the main theme od Da Vinci Code, there are also many controversial facts such as Jesus was a mortal just like any of us, the church has been putting down the role of women in the society & many such things.\n\nIts worth a read, very intresting.
931321
yes! ~ I agree! ~ Marriage is sacred and shouldn't be changed to conform to those who want to make it less than what it is.  If they want a civil union with the same benefits as marriage, fine.  But marriage shouldn't be changed.  And this has nothing to do with the bible ~ this is about the tradition and the meaning of marriage.
686251
cdf-rom: You are a lunatic. No one is trying to sway people away from the faith. Seriously. If you honestly believe that is a real motive for anyone, anywhere in this whole Magdalene/DVC controversy, then you suffer from paranoid delusions and need to get your head checked. \n\nIt just seems weird to a lot of people, myself included, that so many Christians (not all, but a lot) went totally apesh*t over the mere suggestion of Jesus acting like a normal guy of his times.\n\nI really like Mary Magdalene, always have. Never cared much for the Madonna, though. What did she do, really? She had a kid, supposedly while a virgin (not actually true, see Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14, definitely says young woman, not virgin). So, basically she had a kid. Which is what the "Church Fathers" believed was all women were really good for, anyway. So their number one female figure is a girl whose biggest accomplishment is getting knocked up.\n\nNow take a look at this passage from the Pistis Sophia, referring to Mary Magdalene:\nJesus, the compassionate, answered and said to Mariam:\n"Mariam, thou blessed one, whom I will complete in all the mysteries of the height, speak openly, thou art she whose heart is more directed to the Kingdom of Heaven than all thy brothers."\n\nYeah, she was bright, she got was Jesus was saying, apparently more than his other (male) disciples. And that's nothing compared to the Gospel of Mary (go look it up). So I figure, why not have the female co-star of Christianity be Jesus's wife instead of his mother? She was actually an intelligent woman, rather than just a pregnant one. Aren't we a little past the 'barefoot in the kitchen' era?
563850
Well I´ve read the book and enjoyed it throughly! But sad to say there is a lot of thingd in the book that is false, \nbut it does makes you wonder. \n\nWhat I can´t understand is that a few years ago there were some old scripures found, but wouldn´d be accepted by the church. These scriptures underwent all the neccassary test to prove its validity(and it was found to be written the time Jesus was alive and 100 after he died).But it was a little bit contridicting to what is in the bible.\n\nAnyway what the da vinci code does is start to put doubt in the minds of people, and why did  the church reacted so strange to this book which is a novel! \n\nAnd okay the thought that Jesus actually has a living heir is strange, but Dan Brown was not the first to write about this there are many other listed books. And ´if´ that were true then the church would clear not want that knowledge to be known because it would loss a lot of credibility.\nSome modern writers,including Dan Brown, have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. These writers cite Gnostic writings to support their argument. Sources like the ´Gospel of Philip´ do depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple. \nHowever, there is no known ancient document that claims she was his wife and Gnosticism was generally non-supportive of sexuality. The closeness described in these writings depicts Mary Magdalene, representing the Gnostics, as understanding Jesus and his teaching while the other disciples, representing the Church, did not.\nMary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation, this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.\n\nAn argument for support of the married status of Jesus is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment) — "Be fruitful and multiply". According to this reasoning, it would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi.\nA counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.\nPaul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among Christians. Jesus himself approved of voluntary celibacy for religious reasons and explicitly rejected a duty to marry: "There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (Matthew 19,12)\n\nThe idea that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus was popularized by books like the pseudo-historical Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) and The Da Vinci Code (2003), a novel heavily influenced by the former book. These assertions have found no acceptance from scholarly circles.\n\nAnd secret societcy are meant to be kept secret so I don´t expect the historians to find a lot of concrete information about the Priory of Sion. \n\nAnd maybe Leonardo did discover something and instead of just saying or exposing it out right he decided to be clever and hide it within his works of art. After all he was known as a genuis.\n\nSo I(am born and raised catholic, but was taught to have an open mind about things.) personally an very intrigued by this idea of Dan Browns, but I am neither for it nor against it. I
1174446
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of gay marriage. Perhaps those against gay marriage just done want to be outdone by spectacularily fab weddings that are sure to be the result of gay weddings. On the downside, if gay weddings would be lavish, tastefull affairs can you imagine how nasty a gay divorce would be! Yes, I am being silly, but in all seriousness I think that whoever wants to get married should be able to.
392738
No she did NOT. Mary was only pledged to be married to Joseph.\n\nMary was a person conceived without original sin as she was the chosen one to bear the Son of God. \n\nMary & Joseph did not have any physical relationship. So before Mary & Jospeh came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. \n\nYou can read the whole Holy Bible. Every thing is written and happened under the name of Lord Jesus, the Son of God. Even in the old tesimony God has indirectly told about the birth of the Christ.\n\nAccording to my knowledge, You are an anti-christian and placed this question here to insult Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and make fun of the Catholics with the anti-christ answers.\n\nIt doesn't matter if you believe or not, people answer possitively or negatively....the Truth is "Truth". No one can change it. \n\nMay the Blessed Mother pary to God for you that God may enlighten your mind to understand the truth.