Kevin's Watch

For those who have read the book, we come across the Opus Dei. The Opus Dei are(to my suprise) real group. They are a Catholic group. In the book, they are to be the ones who protect Jesus and his blood line. What do you think? Is there a Christ blood line? Do you think that Opus Dei hold all the serects? Dp you think that Jesus was married?

ask the easy ones eh?

firstly, opus dei hold very few of the secrets, leastways none of the secrets that matter to me.

and for the rest i geuss it comes down to what you believe. some say there is historical evidence that jesus existed but i've never cared enough to find it. it makes logistical sense that he(should that be He) would have married and had brothers and sisters but when your the son of god you can kind of make up the rules to suit yourself cant you.

Opus Dei does not protect any blood line. Jesus was not married. Dan Brown writes fiction.

i'm Catholic, you trust me.

What about Mary's line?
I thought Jesus had half brothers and sisters?
There's some line in the Bible about going his travelling back and visiting them or something like that?
I'm not sure.
Although as I write this I'm thinking about how Mary is said by the Church to be a virgin even after she had Jesus.

some say that the word is cousins. some say Joseph's children.

Dan Brown does write fiction but uses facts to do so.
Any discussion of Jesus should be firmly placed in the historical and cultural contexts of first century Judea.
I sincerely doubt Opus Dei has any knowledge of a bloodline assuming there is one. I think that unique distinction goes to the Knights Templar according to lore.
Regardless, Jesus, a jew, was almost certainly married and most likely had children. The bible describes Jesus preforming the full range of jewish premarital and marital custom (anointing, timely visitation, gifts). Then Jesus appears at a wedding and does everything only a groom would do according to custom. The Dead Sea scrolls and Gnostic gospels support the idea, the DSS in terms of culture and the GG's in the gospel of Mary M. and Phillip.
To Bible passages suggest that Jesus had at least one son. Firstly when Pilate offers up Barabbas or Jesus he is actually saying "Jesus or the son of Jesus", Barabbas is not a proper name but merely became one it is actually bar abba or son of the father. Makes a mortal sacrifice seem quite likely?
Later John and Jesus the Just, most likely "barabbas" of above are in Rome as I think Paul sends a letter. I'm not exactly sure if it is Paul.
Anyway, as I stated earlier one must understand the context from which Jesus came. Jesus had brothers and sisters not cousins, those kinship terms, and half or step siblings are completely different from full blood relatives. Check it out...

Kinslaughterer wrote:Dan Brown does write fiction but uses facts to do so.

Still, he writes fiction. There is no 'fact' of Jesus' bloodline. It's theory, not fact.

Kins: nice theories.

I know Dan Brown writes fiction and there is no proof but that is what this forum is for, right?

Exactly. Opus Dei, (God's great work), is, IIRC, a lay organisation of committed Catholics who network for the church's benefit, as it were.

Certainly the bible says that Jesus had brothers, and, as Kins points out, more than one source suggests that he was married, perhaps even to Mary Magdalene.

Numerous conspiracy theories have arisen from these claims, many of them based around exactly that sort of idea...some sort of unbroken lineage from Christ himself on down.

If you want to read an excellent (fictional) book about secret church societies, I recommend David Morrel's The Fraternity of the Stone. Very good, spys, assasins, secret societies. Great read. Fiction.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Numerous conspiracy theories have arisen from these claims, many of them based around exactly that sort of idea...some sort of unbroken lineage from Christ himself on down.

It makes good reading (well, if a little cliche nowadays). I've always said every conspiracy theoriest is a frustrated novelist.

Avatar: other than Magdelene being named in the bible what proof is there of a marriage?

When I finally start the Da Vinci Code ( its been waiting for me since LAST christmas ) I'll join in this discussion properly.

Some programmes on TV on this subject have been very interesting.

Brown is from New Hampshire. if I listen to Aerosmith with that in mind, I should read the damned book.

Jesus preforming the full range of jewish premarital and marital custom (anointing, timely visitation, gifts). Then Jesus appears at a wedding and does everything only a groom would do according to custom. The Dead Sea scrolls and Gnostic gospels support the idea, the DSS in terms of culture and the GG's in the gospel of Mary M. and Phillip.
To Bible passages suggest that Jesus had at least one son. Firstly when Pilate offers up Barabbas or Jesus he is actually saying "Jesus or the son of Jesus", Barabbas is not a proper name but merely became one it is actually bar abba or son of the father.

Mary M. anoints him in a way only a 1st century Jewish bride would her groom. Jesus appearance and direction as only a 1st century Jewish groom would do at the wedding feast. Understanding Jewish culture illuminates many of the seeming mysteries present in the bible.

suckerpunch

other than Magdelene being named in the bible what proof is there of a marriage?

Other than Jesus's savior status in the New Testament, what proof is there that he isn't just a mostly normal ambitious Hebrew?

well the book makes mention of him being the saviour, in at least one or two places. if He was married it seemed to escape the writers.

Or was deliberately excised, in the manner of many books, because it failed to fit in with current church doctrine or dogma?

--A

Kinslaughterer wrote:Mary M. anoints him in a way only a 1st century Jewish bride would her groom.

I thought the anointment was just like a 1st century burial.

well the annoiting could be allegorical?

I am catholic by nature ... but I have a suspension of disbeleif when it comes to what texts were used, how they were written and the intents of them and the compilers. All with a grain of salt. The underlying message is what is really important to me. Whether Jesus was married or wasn't isn't important to me. I recognize the possibility and the reasons it may have been left out, but it has no bearing on my views as a christian (other than feeling pity for the poor priests that cannot marry... )