Well, FWIW, to be totally honest I happen to believe that Jesus was married. I find it very difficult to believe that in that location and era that a purportedly respectable son of a carpenter [who was himself probably also a carpenter] would not have been married at the socially and legally acceptable time in his life when all his contemporaries were getting married. The sacrement of marriage was just one of those things that happened, gay straight or neutral if you wanted to be considered part of society. Yes there were those in the lunatic fringe who went out into teh desert and did wacky crap, but the average joe[sephus] did what was accepted.
Did he have kids? Not a freaking clue. Does it matter? Not in the least. I don’t think his having a family would change things for me - a person can be holy with a dozen kids crawling around. I would prefer to think of Jesus as simply a man with a love for humanity that was willing to be a symbol - the whole virgin birth and diety crap doesnt interest me, his teachings do.
For those who know, can you spoil this for me? What is the significance of the alleged descendents of Jesus? Are they supposed to be semi-divine or is it just a matter of keeping them hidden from the world? If the former, then how much “God DNA” is there going to be left at this point (~80 generations removed from the time of Jesus)? Basically none, is probably the best answer. I hope the idea isn’t that they’ve been inbred all these years… :eek:
This certainly wasn’t universal in Jewish communities of the Roman Empire, though. For example, at least one group of the Essenes is reported to have practiced celibacy. Semi-nomadic radical reformers, such as Jesus and his disciples, may well have been perceived as having a different social role from sedentary tradesmen and craftsmen.
the story kind of peters out by the time we actually get to whether anything is of significance. I can’t even really remember what happens at the end, after defeating the bad-guy, who is sort of a conspiracy of one without greater significance. They hang around some weird ruins and talk to some lady about symbols and some secret place we never see. But nothing much happens. I think the main character implicitly is having sex with the other main character.
The desendents of Jesus are supposed to be the Meroviginian (sp?) dynasty that spawned a number of royal families in Europe (which would make them rather inbred I guess). The actual desendents aren’t that important to the plot of the book (I think some of the characters end up being part of the bloodline, but maybe I’m misremembering), just the fact that there were such decendents and that Jesus had a wife. There is a cache of texts and relics that prove this fact, which are what the various conspiracies in the Da Vinci Code are trying to protect/reveal/hide/
In anycase, as has been already mentioned, The Da Vinci Code is rather full of crap, and I can’t blame the Catholic Church for giving their side of the story. NPR had a priest on giving a very nice and good natured response, pointing out many of the flaws in the theories. But the overthetop response quoted in the OP is stupid, not only because it doesn’t convince anybody, but that it makes the Church look like its full of the same hotblooded reactionary weirdos with something to hide that Dan Brown describes in his book.
On the other hand, considering the history of Catholic literary critisicm, I guess even the overthetop idiocy is a pretty measured response. At least Dan Brown isn’t being invited to a cookout in St Pete’s square.
We’ve never had a cookout at St. Pete’s. We’ve always managed to keep the fires outside the Vatican gates: Giordano at Campo de’ Fiore, Savanarola up in Florence, Jan Hus in Constance, etc.
Heh, when I typed that, I thought to myself “I betcha someone is gonna come along and tell me no one was ever burned in St Pete’s square” Then I thought “nope, I’m pretty sure Giordano Bruno was burned at St Pete’s square, I should be safe”. Now I look it up, and it turns out you’re right. They even have a statue at the real location. Doh!
So the Church is more upset about the idea that Jesus actually might have had relations with an actual woman than about the fact that they have a problem with priests having relations with children?
The Church is more upset about the idea od prophylaxis as a method of attenuating the incidence of HIV, and about population planning/litter size limits as a method of reducing poverty?
Nice selective outrage, Catholic Church, gotta love these people.
The latest round of shrieking has emanated from a Nigerian, Francis Cardinal Arinze. OTOH, he is pretty much shaped in the mold of the Italian prelates, feeling a need to swing the heavy hammer of indignation (backed by a feeling of authoritarian righteousness) whenever he feels he or his have been “attacked.”
I’ve thought about protesting this novel. Not on any religious grounds, but just because it’s a badly written load of crap and I’m sick of the Da Vinci Code displays at all the bookstores. Christ, I saw one the other day called “The Da Vinci Code Diet,” and it wasn’t even a parody.
first thing that bothers me is, prince charles & siblings. did Jesus have a bad case of the uglies?
second is - did this guy do any actual research? albinos can barely see 2 feet in front of their face. would you hire a legaly blind hit-man? i should think stephen hawking would be a better choice - he could run them down with his wheelchair.
No, I don’t remember him. None of my classmates ever knew the answers, no matter if they studied or not. The only one who knew all the answers was me, even though I never…
Ah.
And my parents said there were no more family secrets.
The difference is that Preacher is read by mainly a) non-Catholics who are b) smarter than a damp mop, whereas The Da Vinci Code is read by everybody, thus opening the door to the misconception that the book is not entirely and totally fictional.
