Was Jesus married?

[1234-5678 0]

from CNN.com

 

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC News correspondent Elizabeth Vargas concedes her network is stepping into a theological minefield with its one-hour exploration of whether Jesus Christ had a wife.

 

The ABC News special, "Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci," is scheduled to air Monday at 8 p.m. ET.

 

"You can't talk about this subject without intriguing people or offending people," Vargas said Thursday. "We're trying to do it as respectfully as we can."

 

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

The book asserts that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife -- not a prostitute, as in some teachings -- and that she fled Jerusalem with his child following his crucifixion.

 

The story was kept alive for centuries by a secret society that included the painter Leonardo da Vinci, who supposedly inserted clues about it in his art, the book claimed.

 

The ABC special outlines the theories and speaks to several theologians who either discount the story or assert that it is possible.

 

The show unravels like a mystery perpetuated by secondhand gossip. Vargas said ABC found no proof that Jesus had a wife, but couldn't completely discount it, either.

 

Vargas, who was raised a Roman Catholic, said her own parents said to her, "Oh, my goodness, what are you doing?" when they found out she was working on the story.

 

 

She said she was never aware of the power struggles and political intrigue that went into how her faith is taught today.

 

"For me, it's made religion more real and, ironically, much more interesting -- which is what we're hoping to do for our viewers," she said.

 

It drew some immediate criticism, particularly from a representative of the Catholic League, who said ABC News relied too heavily on the opinion of Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, who believes Mary Magdalene's importance has been historically understated and that it's possible she was his wife.

 

"I think it was not sufficiently balanced," said Joseph DeFeo, policy analyst for the Catholic League. "The majority of the people who spoke believed in either the plausibility or the outright truth of (book author) Dan Brown's claims. The facts themselves scream out that this is a crackpot theory."

 

The show even drew criticism from Nikki Stephanopoulos, mother of ABC News correspondent George and the communications director for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. She the special might offend people who believe that women have a more prominent role in the church.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

So let me get this straight? People are taking a NOVEL as historical fact? Geez no wonder I think people are idiots.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I'd like to know why we keep asking questions on topics that we'll never be able to gain the answers to. I mean you could say "Did Jesus have one testicle and a fetish for feet?" and nobody could really sway the arguement in one direction because the evidence has been going for a loooooong time.

 

I'm sure there are more relevant and current "mysteries". The only thing this has going for it is the religion card

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"You can't talk about this subject without intriguing people or offending people," Vargas said Thursday. "We're trying to do it as respectfully as we can."

Well I'm neither -- intrigued or offended.

 

Wonder if the CBS "Reagans" writers were inspired by this?...

[starvenger 0]

I might watch it. I mean, it would be interesting, even if, as Plunderin says, we'll never know for sure whether this is accurate or not. I don't think that this is earth-shattering or anything, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

So let me get this straight? People are taking a NOVEL as historical fact? Geez no wonder I think people are idiots.

It is a kick-ass novel.

-=Mike

...Personally, I would hardly be shocked to learn that the Church might have edited the Bible to make itself more powerful

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

So let me get this straight? People are taking a NOVEL as historical fact? Geez no wonder I think people are idiots.

It is a kick-ass novel.

-=Mike

...Personally, I would hardly be shocked to learn that the Church might have edited the Bible to make itself more powerful

That's doubtful since the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered.

[Guest MikeSC]

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

So let me get this straight? People are taking a NOVEL as historical fact? Geez no wonder I think people are idiots.

It is a kick-ass novel.

-=Mike

...Personally, I would hardly be shocked to learn that the Church might have edited the Bible to make itself more powerful

That's doubtful since the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered.

I'm not saying it is true. I'm just saying that SOMEBODY had to put together the Bible and since the Church pretty much had the monopoly on education, it's not unfathomable that they did things to it to keep their pre-eminent place.

 

Not saying it's true --- but I wouldn't be stunned if the Church did suppress some of the Bible.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

What they basically did is lock people up for translating the Bible into the common language back then. It was all done in Latin but you got into some deep shit if you made a typo on a new Bible.

 

They didn't need to edit it b/c only a select few had the education to actually read it.

[Guest Goodear]

The book asserts that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife -- not a prostitute, as in some teachings -- and that she fled Jerusalem with his child following his crucifixion.

 

She couldn't be both?

 

Anyway, this is actually pretty harmless when you think about it. So what exactly would be the major malfunction if Jesus got married and had kids? How is that even a sacriligous thought?

[Slayer 0]

It was all done in Latin but you got into some deep shit if you made a typo on a new Bible.

Cardinal #1: "You ever notice this before...? On page 574, it says 'Jebus'..."

 

Cardinal #2:"....that's supposed to be 'Jesus', right?"

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Anyway, this is actually pretty harmless when you think about it. So what exactly would be the major malfunction if Jesus got married and had kids? How is that even a sacriligous thought?

Because that could mean there's possibly a person out there with a direct link to the Jesus bloodline which just isn't suppose to be.

 

 

"I'm the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of God!"

[Guest JMA]

Wasn't the belief that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute created because people didn't like a woman being so close to Jesus? I don't believe it is stated in the Bible that she was ever a prostitute.

[Guest Just Looking]

Anyway, this is actually pretty harmless when you think about it.  So what exactly would be the major malfunction if Jesus got married and had kids?  How is that even a sacriligous thought?

I just finished the book 5 minutes ago- and it is a phenomenal book. The reason that it would be sacriligeous is that according to the BiBle, Jesus was not human, but rather the son of God placed inside the Virgin Mary. To state that Jesus was married would be to state that Jesus was human, which would turn Christianity upside down. Not to mention the fact that if Jesus was married, he would have had sex, and that un-demonizes sex and sexual urges. Plus the whole bloodline thing- imagine if one of us were a direct descendent of Jesus Christ. It would make the Vatican look like the rulers of a treehouse rather than the rulers of the Catholic world.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Maybe we should spend time unravelling the mystery about whether or not Jesus even existed.

 

This whole thing is stupid. Are we supposed to go, "OMG! That Theologan can't disprove this!" and tell all of our friends?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Maybe we should spend time unravelling the mystery about whether or not Jesus even existed.

 

This whole thing is stupid. Are we supposed to go, "OMG! That Theologan can't disprove this!" and tell all of our friends?

It's proven that he did exist.

 

EDIT: Also the Bible didn't demonize sex. All it talked about was waiting until marriage and a few health issues.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

My feelings on this, and other similar matter, can be best summarized by the late Sam Kinison and his feelings on televangelists.

 

“We know who Jesus is. Get a f*cking job!...”

[Guest JMA]

It's proven that he did exist.

Although I believe Jesus existed (or someone like him) I don't recall there ever being any concrete proof of his existence.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Exactly. Some 2,000 year old book is considered concrete evidence now? When was it proven that he existed?

[Highland 0]

Jesus the man did exist, whether or not he was the Messiah depends on your religious faith or lack thereof.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Well, then, Jesus the man must have remains lying about somewhere, right?

 

Right? Oh, can't drudge up proof of his existence? Gotcha.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

ABC screened the special for some reporters and religious leaders on Thursday. The program is based on the best-selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code," which claims to be partly grounded on historical fact.

 

So let me get this straight? People are taking a NOVEL as historical fact? Geez no wonder I think people are idiots.

It is a kick-ass novel.

-=Mike

...Personally, I would hardly be shocked to learn that the Church might have edited the Bible to make itself more powerful

It was put together at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) headed by Emperor Constantine who wanted a single bible to unite the different sects into one Church that would become the official religion of the Roman Empire. The decision of what to include in the new Bible, and what not to was made at this time. For example, the Gospel of St. Thomas was kept out because they couldn't properly date it.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that he was married. There isn't much evidence to suggest that he wasn't either. We don't know. People have spent entire lifetimes researching the life of Jesus and haven't come up with much. This show is just a cheap attempt to get ratings.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Well, then, Jesus the man must have remains lying about somewhere, right?

 

Right? Oh, can't drudge up proof of his existence? Gotcha.

Actually you could probably find him in Roman census records since those still exist.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Exactly. Some 2,000 year old book is considered concrete evidence now? When was it proven that he existed?

Several 2000 year old books written by different sources. The Bible is just a collection.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Under what last name?

 

Barjoseph? That doesn't really help, now does it?

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

Anyway, this is actually pretty harmless when you think about it.  So what exactly would be the major malfunction if Jesus got married and had kids?  How is that even a sacriligous thought?

Because that could mean there's possibly a person out there with a direct link to the Jesus bloodline which just isn't suppose to be.

 

 

"I'm the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of God!"

"So that means Plunderin is part black?"

Edited November 4, 2003 by crandamaniac

[justsoyouknow 0]

Exactly. Some 2,000 year old book is considered concrete evidence now? When was it proven that he existed?

Several 2000 year old books written by different sources. The Bible is just a collection.

Kahran, you're an insanely intelligent guy, perhaps you could provide some proof that Jesus existed?

[chaosrage 0]

Actually you could probably find him in Roman census records since those still exist.

This comes up every two weeks and it always comes down to the fact that not only hasn't it been proven but there's nothing that could even really be considered evidence. Just look at some old threads.

 

Or look at

Historicity Of Jesus

Did Jesus exist?

 

"Indeed, Roman records show executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). "

 

"Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever records such a human figure. "

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Those are fairly biased sites. You can tell just by the language used.

[Justice 0]

Under what last name?

 

Barjoseph? That doesn't really help, now does it?

They've actually found his name in Roman records, but there's a legitimate question on whether or not they were modified by someone at a later date. The way the data was shown to me (In a post a while back, I can't quite remember where) I was convinced that it had been falsified. Personally, I could care less if Jesus were real or fiction: His tenants should really matter more than him.