Christ's celibacy. Even feminist scholars such as Karen King, a Harvard professor and leading authority on early non-biblical texts about Magdalene, have said there is no evidence Christ was married to Magdalene or to anyone else.
|
While I don't base my every move on the Bible, I know it offers some enlightening wisdom.
But 2000 years of human editing and "spinning" give me, at least, some pause.
At the very least, Brown's book has value in instigating an interest in early Christianity
At least.
Compare Revelations and and the Gospel of John. In my opinion, those are two very different authors; but the traditionalist view has both are the writings of Apostle John.
I'm convinced Mary was the "Beloved disciple" and the Gospel of "John" is, in fact, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Whether Christ was married or betrothed or not, it wouldn't make one jot of difference in my faith.
It's a fairly good read if you like whodunits, which I don't. Brown writes well. It moves rapidly, and the sophisticated background of Paris, London, the Louvre, etc. is fun. But it is so contrived! It gets silly, boring, and predictable, especially toward the end.
Just... just... aah!
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Prior to Constintine, the Romo-Byzantium empire had an official state religion which we would today call a form of paganism. The head of the religion was a Roman official, the Pontius Maximus, based at Rome. The Vestial Virgins served in the formal practices which also included a large group of priests.
As the empire expanded to the east, the official religion adopted some of the festivals and practices of the assimilated religious groups--the feast of Evergreens on December 25 during the week of renewal that begins on the winter solstice; the feast of Eashtar at the Vernal Equinox celebrating the egg and fertility.
In 325 AD, Constintine became a Christian and adopted Christianity as the state religion--the origin of the Roman Church.
The Council of Nicea was a political exercise--resulting in adoption of a number of the bureaucrats and practices of the pagen religion in exchange for agreement to the Roman Church and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome who also became the Pontinus Maximus, a title the Pope still holds.
On the other hand, whatever negatives were involved with its creation, God prospered the Roman organization in the west as the body of believers. During the period, to enhance its political control, credibility, and political power, the Roman organization concealed documents, created fictions, and did all the things modern political organization do to enhance their power. All in a period long before the printing press during which believers did not have access to their own copy of a Bible to study; most could not read; and most local churches did not have copies of the Bible either.
The truth prospered anyway by the Will of God--Jesus is Lord.
To the modern era in which we can not only study the translated Bible; but also copies or transcriptions of original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts.
And the historical texts confirm the Bible we venerate. Again, as someone else points out, we find earlier and earlier copies and fragments of manuscripts, all of which, without exception, confirm the text of the words we now use. The Roman Church has a copy of a very early text (40-60 AD) "sayings of Jesus Christ from unknown scribe" which appears to be handwritten quotes from an oral rendition. Some Bible scholars contend the Unknown Scribe is really the writings of Mark but other quotes that do not appear in Mark's gospel (referenced in other gospels or elsewhere) are included.
Whatever, the credibililty of the Bible as we now have it as a collection of writings in general circulation at the end of the first century is soundly attested by evidence that would be accepted in any modern courtroom as proof.
Meanwhile, on another front, the Old Testiment is developing a sounder historical record also. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies of every book of the old testiment, particularly including a pristine copy of Issah dating at least 260 years before Christ, and a copy of Daniel including Daniel 9:24-27 and the prophecy that the Messiah would be "cut off but not for himself" 483 years after the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. A prophecy that until the 1950's, the critics claimed was written after the fact.
You are welcome to believe or view the Bible anyway you like--but for the careful student of the evidence, the only conclusion available is that it is the revealed Word of God demonstrating his Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, who was sacrificed for our sins, who rose from the dead, alive, on the third day, and who will come again in power and glory to rule the world.
Was Jesus married? There is no evidence one way or the other. I wonder how, as the perfect man, Jesus could have been perfect and not married. But there is no evidence that he was. God does not tell us. Lots of other things God does not tell us also. But it is very difficult to imagine some important element of God's Plan not revealed to us through the Bible and concealed through documents held in secret for 2000 years. So I consign this book to the nonesense pile.
It's depressing that people actually fall for this stuff. The hard work of reading historical texts is just too much for most people, I suppose. They would rather be titillated and entertained.
Christ's celibacy. Even feminist scholars such as Karen King, a Harvard professor and leading authority on early non-biblical texts about Magdalene, have said there is no evidence Christ was married to Magdalene or to anyone else.
|