Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 146: Mary, Jesus, and Leanardo!

Entered by bru on Mon Nov 3 13:06:45 2003:

So apparently they are going to look into teh relationship be tween Mary
Magdelene and Jesus on a tv special looking into the DaVinci Code on ABC
tonight.

Speculation is that Davinci was a member of a secret society of the church
that kept certain information secret, including the possibility that they had
children and the location of the holy grail.

Also mentioned is that scene outside the tomb where the risen jesus tells Mary
"do not touch me", which correctly translated says "do not cling to me"
suggsting a more intimate relationship.

What do you think?
51 responses total.

#1 of 51 by edina on Mon Nov 3 14:58:16 2003:

I think that it's pretty odd to think that a 30-year old man did not have a
wife/companion and kids.


#2 of 51 by aruba on Mon Nov 3 15:03:30 2003:

Hey now, some of us just haven't gotten around to it yet. :)


#3 of 51 by edina on Mon Nov 3 15:10:04 2003:

I should clarify -  back in that time.  


#4 of 51 by anderyn on Mon Nov 3 15:22:05 2003:

According to the new testament by Biff, Christ's childhood best friend, also
known as "Lamb", Jesus was too busy rocketing around learning cool things in
the rest of the mysterious East to have a wife/children. (It's a hysterically
funny book, and oddly enough not exactly counter to the Biblical accounts.)


#5 of 51 by remmers on Mon Nov 3 16:33:14 2003:

For the authoratative word on the Magdalene Cult, everybody should play
the computer game "Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the
Damned."  In addition to the question of whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene
had kids, vampires get into the act.  As an added bonus you get Tim Curry
as the voice of Gabriel Knight.


#6 of 51 by tod on Mon Nov 3 16:58:56 2003:

This response has been erased.



#7 of 51 by rcurl on Mon Nov 3 20:30:27 2003:

I think it is all just legend and invented mythology. There is no
historical evidence that Jesus even existed and also none that any of the
things attributed to Jesus happened (although I grant that *something*
happened back then that started all the legends). 



#8 of 51 by edina on Mon Nov 3 20:43:21 2003:

How nice of you to "grant" that.


#9 of 51 by slogsdon on Mon Nov 3 20:45:27 2003:

The DaVinci code theories are steeped in Gnosticism. I discount everything
about them.



#10 of 51 by edina on Mon Nov 3 20:55:05 2003:

It was a fun read, though.


#11 of 51 by rcurl on Mon Nov 3 20:55:12 2003:

Re #8: I say I grant that something happened because when I don't people
say, "well, *something* must have happened", which is correct, so I
grant it in advance so no one will start that argument (but it never fails
that someone does anyway). 

However, what is your basis for your sarcasm, edina? You don't know any more
than I do about it. 


#12 of 51 by flem on Mon Nov 3 22:33:20 2003:

Frankly, I thought "The DaVinci Code" was terrible.  One of the worst
books I've read in years.  Awful dialogue, completely stupid plot,
piss-poor historical research.  If you're looking for something in that
genre written by someone who has a clue what they are talking about and
can actually write, check out Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".  


#13 of 51 by aruba on Mon Nov 3 22:47:05 2003:

Yeah, I enjoyed the book, but he's not a great writer.  THe other book he
wrote with the same character has an almost identical plot.


#14 of 51 by tod on Mon Nov 3 22:58:01 2003:

This response has been erased.



#15 of 51 by bru on Mon Nov 3 23:25:45 2003:

Heck, they even found his brothers remains.  (No, I am not kidding.)


#16 of 51 by tod on Mon Nov 3 23:56:25 2003:

This response has been erased.



#17 of 51 by md on Tue Nov 4 00:33:05 2003:

No, Howard was the lawyer.  The guy they dug up was Arnold.  He was a 
plumber -- bad career choice back in those days.  


#18 of 51 by tod on Tue Nov 4 01:07:19 2003:

This response has been erased.



#19 of 51 by jmsaul on Tue Nov 4 01:54:53 2003:

Re #15:  Some real question about that, though.


#20 of 51 by md on Tue Nov 4 02:02:58 2003:

"Arnold, ah PLUMMAH??  What are you, meshuggah?  Plumbing won't even be 
invented for another fifteen hundred yearsenen!  Such a putz I 
married!!"


#21 of 51 by bru on Tue Nov 4 04:31:40 2003:

Hey! what can I tell you.  Mary Magdalene was Jesus wife, his brothers
tombstone was found, Did any of the apostles exist or are thay all figments
of someones imagination as well?  And what about rome?  They have a lot of
history about rome, most of it about emperors, but you will find they have
some information on very minor figures as well.

The bible does not stand alone as it did in the 17th century when everybody
believed the world was created in 4004 B.C.  Time ha smoved on and we now know
much more about history, from many sources.


#22 of 51 by rcurl on Tue Nov 4 07:50:42 2003:

None of those you name above have any verified historical existence.
Biblical scholars agree that most of the specifics of the bible are
legendary stories without historical evidence. Places can be identified
and some major characters. But what do you expect? History was mostly
oral, and we know how stories evolve as time goes on, and nothing was
written down until fifty years after the purported events. By that time
it had become embelished to suit contemporary purposes. 

There is a lot of recorded history about the Roman empire - contemporary
histories were written, statues were carved, edicts were engraved, mosaics
were constructed. But things were different out in the boondocks, where
literacy was rare. 


#23 of 51 by bru on Tue Nov 4 13:05:59 2003:

any roman edicts issued against the Christians?  any leaders named?  Pontius
Pilot didn't exist?


#24 of 51 by jp2 on Tue Nov 4 13:28:52 2003:

This response has been erased.



#25 of 51 by jp2 on Tue Nov 4 13:49:41 2003:

This response has been erased.



#26 of 51 by bru on Tue Nov 4 18:02:00 2003:

Thats what this item is about, the idea that Christ married Mary Magdelene.
That she is the Holy Grail, ( I am not going into the sexual inuendo that
leads to her being the cup of Christ), and the mother of his child.  (Lets
really get into the Divine Right of kings here)

I am not saying I support any of these conclusions. But there are a lot of
things that can be looked at.

Did he marry Mary?  I don't know.  But is it impossible?
did he have children?  I don't know.  But is it impossible?
Did Christ exist?  Yes.  There is evidence to support his existence outside
        the bible.
Did he have brothers and sisters?  There is some evidence that this is true,
        but you will not find it in the Bible.
Pontius Pilot existed.  Herod Existed.  Ceaser existed.  It is amazing just
how much evidence there is that many of the stories in the Bible may have
happened.  The new testament is a lot easier to prove than the stories in the
old testament.  Hey!  It was only 2000 years ago.


#27 of 51 by gelinas on Tue Nov 4 18:15:13 2003:

(Bruce, I'm curious what you mean by "Did he have brothers and sisters?
There is some evidence that this is true, but you will not find it in
the Bible."  I can think of at least one reference to siblings in the
Gospels.)


#28 of 51 by tod on Tue Nov 4 18:57:46 2003:

This response has been erased.



#29 of 51 by flem on Tue Nov 4 20:54:41 2003:

I think the divine right of kings is an idea pretty well understood by
NON-crackpot historians.  


#30 of 51 by jp2 on Tue Nov 4 21:10:59 2003:

This response has been erased.



#31 of 51 by flem on Tue Nov 4 21:56:08 2003:

One of the crazy theories advocated in the book that started all this
nonsense is that one of the French dynasties (Salian?  Can't remember)
was descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene's love child, and that the
Divine Right of Kings was based on this descent.  


#32 of 51 by mcnally on Tue Nov 4 23:39:29 2003:

  If the hokey conspiracy stuff in Robert Anton Wilson's books is the
  same hokey conspiracy stuff here, I believe it's the Merovingian
  dynasty..


#33 of 51 by tod on Tue Nov 4 23:52:14 2003:

This response has been erased.



#34 of 51 by jp2 on Wed Nov 5 00:15:33 2003:

This response has been erased.



#35 of 51 by russ on Wed Nov 5 01:11:22 2003:

If the "remains" people are talking about is the supposed ossuary
(bone box) of James, it's a fake (the box is old, but the inscription
on it is recent).  And it contains no bones, either.


#36 of 51 by other on Wed Nov 5 04:53:14 2003:

Did Pontius Pilot a ship until Ceaser made him cease?


#37 of 51 by rcurl on Wed Nov 5 06:20:33 2003:

Would those that claim that there is concrete historical evidence for the
existence of person as described in the bible as Jesus, and his specific
deeds, please provide the citations for the scholarly substantiation of
that.



#38 of 51 by happyboy on Wed Nov 5 08:53:17 2003:

you just need to have a little faith, rane.

re26: so basically you're an agnostic fundamentalist new-age
christian cracker?



#39 of 51 by bru on Wed Nov 5 15:28:20 2003:

What?  You want me to bring forth a photograph of Jesus turning water into
wine at the wedding?  You want me to bring out  newsreel of him healing his
desciple on the mount of olives?  You want a court transcript of his trial?

EEEEGHHH!  

Sorry, it aint gonna happen.  

What historical evidence do we have of anybody who lived in those times.  We
have some oral tradition, adn we have the written word.  All we had to prove
the existence of Troy was a legend until Schliemann cut thru a mound and found
the city. While this has nothing to do with Christ, it does show that oral
tradition has some fact in it.

I guess I am just not as closed minded as you are.

Why do you care happyboy?  Looking for a guru you can follow?


#40 of 51 by rcurl on Wed Nov 5 17:40:32 2003:

Most fiction is written within a realistic context. The tales of Dickens
have real places and real people as backdrops for his fictional characters
and events. But the real existence of those places and people does nothing
to support the real existence of those fictional characters and events in
their lives. 

It is not "closed minded" to hold in abeyance blind belief in
unsubstantiated legends, especially when they involve magic. I suspect
that you take that attitude toward many legends, such as those of
Hiawatha, even though components of them have some historical basis. So,
why do you pick and choose to believe some subset of legends of myth and
magic? 



#41 of 51 by tod on Wed Nov 5 18:42:53 2003:

This response has been erased.



#42 of 51 by happyboy on Wed Nov 5 19:32:42 2003:

/cues: "If I were a Rich Man"

 (happyboy mountainstyle banjo version)


#43 of 51 by slynne on Wed Nov 5 19:40:16 2003:

No, it just shows that oral tradition can have some basis in fact, not 
that it necessarily does. 


#44 of 51 by jmsaul on Thu Nov 6 02:47:27 2003:

That spear was kept at the Wewelsburg, right Tod?


#45 of 51 by tod on Thu Nov 6 19:41:11 2003:

This response has been erased.



#46 of 51 by tsty on Fri Nov 7 09:48:33 2003:

soooooooooooooo, any comments on teh upconing mel gibson movie using
the bible as the script?
  
better script than what cbs used on the reagans .... eh, what?


#47 of 51 by gull on Fri Nov 7 14:22:57 2003:

Should we consider it a sign that the actor who plays Christ was hit by
lightning?
http://www2.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/24/gibson.passion/


#48 of 51 by flem on Fri Nov 7 16:33:42 2003:

Some of the extremely religious folks I encounter through work have had
good things to say about it.  I'm expecting that it will be one of those
movies that you enjoy if you're religious, and sleep through or hate if
you're not.  *shrug*


#49 of 51 by tod on Fri Nov 7 20:12:35 2003:

This response has been erased.



#50 of 51 by tsty on Sun Nov 9 18:58:06 2003:

at last teh script ahs been around for long enough for vetting.


#51 of 51 by willcome on Thu Nov 27 08:29:07 2003:

"orial" whores


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: