The Da Vinci Code: Christ's sexual life

[roger1440]

When Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code, well...I was not particularly Christian at that time.
But I remember that I believed in everything that was written in the book; that is, Jesus and Magdalene were lovers, and conceived a daughter.

I thought that this wouldn't have diminished Christ's divinity- But as a Catholic, I believe that Christ is made of a double nature: a nature which is both divine and human and one does not exclude the other.

[FONT=&quot]Have you even read the Gospel of Philip? [/FONT]
The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[Shad]

well..the hypothesis we are dealing with, is that Jesus and Magdalene fell in love with each other, and then became a stable monogamous couple.
and they probably used to have sex. I don't think it is weird at all.
premarital sex was against the Mosaic law, of course.

It was taboo not against the law in all cases. It would push wedding plans ahead of schedule in the case of a betrothed couple.

 

[Sunstone]

Reading this thread has cured my insomnia tonight. Really. I'm off to bed now.

 

[Estro Felino]

[FONT=&quot]Have you even read the Gospel of Philip? [/FONT]
The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Yes, I have. well...kissing on the mouth doesn't imply necessarily an erotic friendship. What we are sure about is that Magdalene is described as his companion, or partner.
well...these elements make the Dan Brown theory more and more probable. But not certain.

 

[roger1440]

Yes, I have. well...kissing on the mouth doesn't imply necessarily an erotic friendship. What we are sure about is that Magdalene is described as his companion, or partner.
well...these elements make the Dan Brown theory more and more probable. But not certain.

Here is a in-depth commentary on the Gospel of Philip. Take the time and read it please.

https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/SBA/article/download/19536/18151.

 

[Pegg]

When Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code, well...I was not particularly Christian at that time.
But I remember that I believed in everything that was written in the book; that is, Jesus and Magdalene were lovers, and conceived a daughter.

I thought that this wouldn't have diminished Christ's divinity- But as a Catholic, I believe that Christ is made of a double nature: a nature which is both divine and human and one does not exclude the other.

you know the difference between a fiction novel and a non-fiction, yes?

 

[Estro Felino]

you know the difference between a fiction novel and a non-fiction, yes?

all right. It is a novel, but the Gospel of Philips seems not to contradict this theory.
It is just a theory.

what makes me laugh is that JWs find it absurd that Mary didn't conceive children with Joseph, whereas they find acceptable that Jesus had no sexual life.

maybe JWs think he was asexual, or frigid...or maybe that he didn't have a penis.

 

[roger1440]

The Gospel of Philip relies heavily on allegory. The challenge for scholars since its discovery in 1945 has been to unravel its meaning. This Gospel is poorly written. It jumps from one idea to the next. Unlike the canonical Gospels there isn’t a nice flow of ideas leading from one to the next. A child can understand much of the canonical Gospels. The author of this Gospel uses the canonical Gospels as building blocks for his own Gospel. Either that or he uses the same source or sources the canonical Gospels had used. Scholars believe the canonical Gospels were written between 60 AD and 120 AD. Estimates for the Gospel of Philip are between 150 AD and 250 AD. Mary does play a very important role in this Gospel. The two primary characters in this Gospel are Jesus and Mary. The relationship between Jesus and Mary is that of union. The term “bridal chamber” is mentioned at least 16 times in this Gospel. Adam and Eve are also mentioned several times. According to the author of this Gospel, death did not come into the world until Eve had separated from Adam. Therefore to overcome death we must be reunited. This reunification is allegorically represented with the union between Jesus and Mary. It is the coming together with what is above with what is below.

 

[Pegg]

all right. It is a novel, but the Gospel of Philips seems not to contradict this theory.
It is just a theory.

what makes me laugh is that JWs find it absurd that Mary didn't conceive children with Joseph, whereas they find acceptable that Jesus had no sexual life.

maybe JWs think he was asexual, or frigid...or maybe that he didn't have a penis.

Dan Brown got the idea from the apochryphal gospel. Thats all. Dan Brown is not an authority on the life of Christ...he's just a story teller like the writer of the apocryphal gospel was.


Jesus was obedient to the mosaic law which made fornication and adultery illegal. He was a young man who was not a slave to sexual desire....he was in perfect control of his physical impulses and desires. Besides, his purpose in coming to earth was to offer his life as a ransom....he had no intention of marrying and having children for that was not his purpose.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course it was. But as a matter of fact, the research on the Holy Graal, the history of the French monarchy and the Merovingian dynasty can induce people to doubt the fact that Jesus was a chaste man.

How?

Besides, there is a Gospel of Magdalene too.

1) Nowhere in the Gospel of Mary is Jesus described as a lover of Mary, and the language used to describe the way Jesus "loved" Mary more than the other disciples is likely imitating John's "the disciple whom Jesus loved".
2) It is entirely possible that the Mary described not only isn't Mary Magdalene, but not even a single character: Shoemaker, S. J. (2001). Rethinking the" Gnostic Mary": Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 9(4), 555-595.

Certainly, the Mary is never identified other than by that name and is not differentiated from other Mary's that Jesus knew or that became part of the Christian tradition.

3) There is also an "gospel" supposedly written by Thomas about Jesus' youth that dates from the 2nd century and describes him as Dennis the Menace with superpowers. It's equally historical (i.e., it contains no historical information about Jesus but does tell us about the development of Christianity, just like the Gospel of Mary).

4) The so-called "gnostic gospels" generally use Mary (if they include her) as a character to undermine Peter and by extension more mainstream early Christian views. The earliest "gnostic" gospel, Thomas, ends with Peter saying "let Mary leave us for women are not worthy of life", to which Jesus responds "I shall guide her in order to make her male, so that she too can be a male like you/For every who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." What does this mean?

"Here it is surprising to note that the basis of access to spiritual life is not, for example, an act of grace or atonement available to everyone, nor is the reason for Christ’s reprimanding Peter that Christ has forbidden or overturned the rejection of women from the spiritual world. Rather, Mary is to be accepted into a circle of the spiritually authoritative and granted access to salvation because Christ intends to make Mary male so that she is thereby qualified for ‘life’. Maleness, which resembles the state of being a ‘living spirit’ in this text, is the grounds for inclusion and is so firmly established as such that even this Apocryphal Christ manages to include Mary as a legitimate and worthy member of a religious group only by overriding her sex.6 Hence Mary is not included or accepted as a woman, but is transformed and re-categorized as a man, and then accepted."
Stefaniw, B. (2010). Becoming Men, Staying Women: Gender Ambivalence in Christian Apocryphal Texts and Contexts. Feminist Theology, 18(3), 341-355.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for thinking that the "gnostics" considered Mary to be Jesus' spouse or lover (and that's without getting into the extent to which the category "gnostic" can be meaningfully applied to the diverse and disputed texts it is).

 

[Estro Felino]

Jesus was obedient to the mosaic law which made fornication and adultery illegal. He was a young man who was not a slave to sexual desire....he was in perfect control of his physical impulses and desires. Besides, his purpose in coming to earth was to offer his life as a ransom....he had no intention of marrying and having children for that was not his purpose.

I totally agree with you. It is quite probable that Jesus had no sex life. But if he did, it wouldn't be something against the Mosaic Law.
Sex between two people who deeply love each other, is not a sin. Even if it's premarital sex.

 

[Pegg]

I totally agree with you. It is quite probable that Jesus had no sex life. But if he had, it wouldn't be something against the Mosaic Law.
Sex between two people who deeply love each other, is not a sin. Even if it's premarital sex.

if it is not done within the bounds of marriage, it is a sin.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I cannot see any reason to doubt that Jesus had 'known' women...After all, he did kiss her on the lips..

I can't find that in any bible i've seen, where is it?
Incidentally monks are happy to live their lives without the opposite sex, and I've not had a girlfriend for 12 years, so I'm sure if we can do without women, so could Jesus..

 

[BSM1]

precisely...bravo. That's exactly what I claim.
It is sick to see wickedness in a normal love affair. Jesus was a man and he may have fallen in love with Magdalene, after that she stopped being a prostitute.

Paul's moral statements are anti-Christian. I believe Paul was a great theologian, but he was certainly not infallible.
Let's not forget that Paul said that women don't have the right to speak in assemblies.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

 

[Estro Felino]

if it is not done within the bounds of marriage, it is a sin.

I am sorry, but this is pure bigotry and Victorian-style hypocrisy.

I bet you think that two young people who are deeply in love with each other and make love before marriage, are sinners.
They are not, dear. Romantic love is never a sin. Even if outside the marriage

Lust is a sin. And two married people who try the most disgusting kama sutra positions just out of carnal lust, are sinners.