is there any real answers about jesus and mary magdalene? is there really a descendant from their bloodline?
487880
Jesus had a half brother named James.  He wrote one of the books in the bible.  There is no proof Jesus was married, that was a made up fact to promote a book and a movie.
912410
While it is true there is no mention of Jesus marrying in the Bible, this doesn't mean that it is true. The Bible doesn't mention Christ's life between (roughly) the age of 12 and 30 - but we assume that he didn't skip over those years. (In fact, who is to say that that was the exact time that Jesus did have a family?)\n\nThe fact is, despite being 'the good word', religious texts (including The Bible) were written down, translated, and interpretted by humans. The words of the Supreme Being might be perfect, but humans are fallable. Things get lost in translation, people 'leave out' and edit something they don't believe sounds right (for the best, of course), and who knows what kind of 'Chinese whispers' have gone on when one human tells another human what is written or said. In the past, in the present, and in the future, literal translations of the Bible will cause as many crises of faith as it mends. (I fully realise that this is a huge discussion, and I have just attracted the anger of a LOT of people.) It doesn't make the Bible any more or less valid than it was at any other point in time (if you go for that kind of stuff), but it makes sense that it is a theological work that draws on 'historical' events rather than a literal account.\n\nThe works of Dan Brown are fiction in and of themselves. They do contain some thoughtful suppositions, and would encourage anyone (Christian or otherwise) to discuss the ideas proposed. Jesus Christ may have been the son of God, but he was also a man.\n\nDid Jesus Christ have any children? Maybe and maybe not. It's not like there is any evidence for or against.\n\n(If so,) are there offspring alive today? Well, after 2000 years, no not really. Two millenia is a long time to accurately trace ancestry, so any descendants would be just as related as any of us are to ancestors 2000 years removed....\n\n\n(For the record, I tend toward the agnostic/aetheist end of the scale.)
325835
I don't think everything he writes about is true, of course. The author himself admitted to this. The only thing that I'm starting to be sure of is Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene and her being present in Da Vinci's "The Last Supper". We shouldn't believe everything the book tells us, but we might be able to read between the lines.
1019817
Which story?\n\n* The story of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu?  They're fictional characters, the invention of the author.\n\n* The story that Jesus and Mary of Magdala were married and had children?  It seems unlikely -- although the Bible doesn't specifically say that Jesus was *not* married, (1) it would be a strange thing to omit considering that even Simon Peter's mother-in-law gets a mention, (2) none of the early church historians say anything about it in their writings, and (3) the Gnostic books that imply the possibility of romantic relationships between Jesus and MM were all written, at the earliest, 120 years after the fact.\n\n* The story of the Priory of Sion?  I think it's been fairly well established that, at the very least, Dan Brown (as well as the authors of /Holy Blood, Holy Grail/, one of his major sources ) was duped by the hoax -- see Wikipedia's entry on Pierre Plantard for more details.  Based on Brown's own statements and writings, however, I get the impression he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this one, so I'm having a hard time imagining him as an innocent victim of Plantard's ruse.
1141769
Caution, contains spoilers...:)\n\n\n\n\nIf Jesus and Mary Mag. had a baby, Jesus must have been a mortal man...the whole basis of the Catholic church is that Jesus is the immortal son of God...
112680
The da vinci code basically says that jesus was married to mary magdalene and that they had a daughter who later had descendents who survive to this very day in france. It also says that the church is trying to supress this knowledge. It further says that Jesus was not divine, just a good mortal teacher. Book raises some good points but is filled with truths, half truths and rumor all mixed together.
1077773
The last descendant of Jesus is Jenna Jameson...\n\nJesus... J... Jenna... J... Jameson... J...\n\nPlus you can see she continues Jesus's will, to give love to everyone, no matter who he/she is !!!
462578
The primary question, as written, demands an answer of "nothing." There is a considerable amount of written text attributed to Jesus' followers, though perhaps to no one who actually knew him. But I've yet to run across anything that claims Jesus' own authorship.
664647
The fact that the early Catholic church made MM out to be a prostitute (even though the Christian bible does not say this anywhere), is evidence to support that they had something against her. This tradition goes back to saint Peter who, according to the [banned] gnostic scriptures indicate that he was against "the woman". Now just look at the mindset of those Roman Catholics who burned gnostics and their writings, and imagine that these are the ones who chose the books for the bible. Do you think they were honest? No, the Magdalene was not a whore, not even demon-possessed, she was the son of man's consort.
27681
The new guy has obviously been influenced by the _da_Vinci_Code_ or other, similar works that posit that Jesus was married (most likely to Mary Magdalene), and likely had children through that union.\n\nThere are a couple verses in the gospels (depending on your translation - I'm looking at the New International Version) where Jesus is referred to as having brothers; I'd look specifically at Matthew 13:54-56, which says \n\n"54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"\n\nWhile scholars have argued that "brother" might actually mean "cousin" or "other close male relative", the text wouldn't directly support that.\n\nThe wife and children thing can't be disproved Biblically - but neither can it be proven.  Some take the absense of direct reference to a wife as proof, while say that any man referred to as a rabbi/teacher would need to be married to have that status (as per the culture of the time).  Either way, there isn't anything that can be used definitively either way.
109438
That was Mary Magdalen.  Some people believe she was actually the wife of Jesus.
542435
These are all part of the same myth.\nNot much is known about the life of Jesus as he was unimportant in his own lifetime. Subsequent generations have filled in the gaps with their own speculation.\nAs you can see from some of the answers.
1084031
All well and fine but I think you may be getting your Marys mixed up.  I believe that there may be two separate Marys.  Mary Magdalene: the forgiven prostitute and Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus of whom Jesus was a close friend. Cross reference various commentaries and see if this may be correct.
487754
I would like to clear up some errors found in the above answers. Mary Magdalene is explicitly named in the canonical scriptures as demon possessed, but NOT a prostitute. The woman who was going to be stoned for being caught in the act of adultery was not named in the Bible (John 8:1-11). \n\nThere is a Mary (of "Mary and Martha") - she was the sinner who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried his feet with her hair. She also anointed Jesus with ointment (beginning in Luke 7:37). John 11:2 identifies this woman as Mary of Bethany. She had a sister named Martha -- they were both sisters of Lazarus. People often mistake this Mary for Mary Magdalene. This isn't true, either.\n\nMary Magdalene was one of several women who was healed of evil spirits and infirmities as Jesus toured Galilee for the fourth time. She had seven demons cast out of her Luke 8:2). Once she was healed, she became a follower of Jesus Christ.
124551
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6,7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary showing Jesus' NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' LEGAL right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.  Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father, but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.  Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) Notice that he does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) he says" "Jesus...being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son Of Heli." Luke 3:23.\n\nSince Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, but was the Son of God, Luke's genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.  Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit (1) That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; (2). That, this afffiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.  But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to his grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.  Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother, and among Jews the adage was: "Genus Matris non vocatur gfenus, translated "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"\n\nWe may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely. (a) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and (b) that Jesus was also the Legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
614798
Most of the book is a fabrication.  The National Geographic channel and 60 min. recently had specials on this topic, exposing the completely fraudulent claims made in the book. \n\nThe thing I find the most humorous is that numerous non-Christians have exposed many of the false claims.  Any knowledgeable historian who has looked into the matter will tell you the same thing.\n\nA plethora of books have been published exposing the bogus claims of the book, including the "FACT PAGE".  \n\nThe title itself is repugnant to art historians.  da Vinci means "from Vinci", it is not a last name. Any art buff will tell you they refer to him as "Leonardo". Furthermore, Leonardo experts will tell you that he did not put hidden meanings into his paintings.  In his painting of the Last Supper, there is a picture of John to Jesus' left. The book claims that this is actually Mary Magdalene. John has a somewhat feminine appearance, but John was young. Leonardo and others painted what we know was John many other times with feminine looking features, we still have these paintings.\n\nThe book claims that there was a secret organization called the Priory of Scion created to protect documents that proved Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. THERE IS NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.) On a logical level, if this secert were so terrible, then why wouldn't they just destroy the documents? It doesn't make sense. \n\netc.etc.etc.
501098
They are two different people.  Some think Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene.  Others think she may have been a prostitute. ANd, the other Mary is Jesus's mom.  She's the Virgin Mary.