Well we now how accurate that belief is. Why do I get the feeling that those who wrote that were looking for a way to prove that their doctrine was correct and others were heretics?
That would be laughable were it not so pathetic...
Why is the thought that Jesus may have married - which has been discussed for many hundreds of years, hardly Brown's idea, - so repugnant? Good grief - is marriage then repugnant, dirty, and married people lecherous? (I'm not really addressing you, Shadow..., for I would not presume to enlighten you on anything - but my remarks are for those who might be tempted to take your postulations as whole cloth)
WARNING: for those who do espouse to such cocooned dogma, DO NOT read my posts no. 102 and 111. I wouldn't want to be responsible for over-stretching the gray matter.
Say whatever you will against the Son of Man, for it shall be forgiven. Yes, I suppose the details of Jesus' personal life might have been left out of the scriptures in order to stress the importance and meaning of his mission as Savior.
Whether he married as a man or not is really beside the point. His office as Christ, the Son of God is where the story is. There was a point that he yielded his will to the will of God and thereafter forsook his rights and self-interests as a human, even refusing to defend himself when his life depended on it.
But to defend himself, thereby saving his body, he would have to take back his statement that He was the Son of God when if fact he was, and is. The law at that time said it was blasphemy and punishable by death to claim to be equal with God. His resurrection proved the matter and mankind found no defense for their actions. No where to go for atonement except through the one that they killed, his body being the last and perfect sacrifice which they knew not until later.
From thence, any blood-offering for sacrifice for atonement was a rejection of the true sacrifice which had already brought the laws of sacrifice to fulfillment.
There are many who practice some sort of sacrifice to atone for their 'sins' who do not understand and refuse to admit that God had already provided the perfect sacrifice -- His own express image whom we call the Son of God.
I think it would be wise to let the future reveal the truth of the matter on whether or not Jesus was married, rather than reject the notion out of hand and refer to him as a 'lecherous, two-timing cheater' if he did exercise his human-ness as the Son of Man. Wouldn't it be more proof that indeed his body was real flesh and blood, and felt pain and passion, rather than some ethereal phantom apparition that wouldn't be able to relate to the problems that humans have on human terms?
Why should it make a difference anyway, insofar as our salvation is concerned?
I concur with your assessment.
The language used to imply Jesus would be a two-timer if he was married to Mary Magdalene, is probably better understood by others in the same vain to wit CS Lewis may have brought out counterargument or even the apostles and Paul noting that if our faith were untrue in its object then we are the most worthless of all creatures.
Generally speaking I find most of the Dan Brown novels to be preoccupied with Illuminati and antiChristian perspectives of religion and spiritism and the occult in general. The fascination with such things and lure to 'expose' a worldly scheme as presented in his novels reveals its own inadequacy.
If any person sincerely seeks God through faith in Christ, i.e. simply remaining honest and seeking to understand who God is and what He has prepared for us all, then one is led to an indwelling of all three persons in the Godhead, as well as a desire to more fully understand how Christ thought, made decisions and behaved prior to the Cross, while on the Cross, after the Ressurrection, and how He still reigns and is very much alive in body, soul and spirit today.
When I compare websites such as Dan Brown interests to sites such as www.watchers.com or even more new age sites such as http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/index.htm, I notice that the preoccupation with the supernatural and spiritual, when prefaced by honoring our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus takes a considerably different tone than those who fail to develop the basics of faith and doctrine in Christ first.
Even without the content of Brown's perspectives fully analyzed, when Brown becomes absorbed in angelology without a firm foundation in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, one is led to discern Brown is on the wrong track. When he then attempts to refocus a reader's attention on conspiracy theory, completely preoccupied with worldly perspectives of the Church, rather than first grasping the simple foundations of gradeschool level faith, and then degenerates into proposing grand conspiracies attacking even the behavior of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, then Brown well reveals a very degenerate thinking.
It is worth noting, however, that for the past week the History Channel has devoted quite a lineup on Dan Brown, Freemasonry, Catholic Church conspiriacy theories, the Illuminati and a handful of other occultic information shows.
Recent UFO shows on the cable networks, I must admit, have honed the presentation of their information to become quite believable.
It appears as though there is a substantial ongoing information warfare campaign to realign public perception of angels, demons, aliens, and Christianity, all with very little attention paid to the simplest foundations of faith.
It's been said that it takes only a very little more faith than absolutely no faith at all, to have a saving faith.
In all the recently presented volumes of conspiracy theory in such a recent occultic information campaign, it is revealing that such little mention is made for any significance of belief in God through faith in Christ.