"Jesus wife"????

[leinad]

Apparently, there's an ABC special Monday night at 8 p.m. exploring the theory that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus's wife and that they had a child.  Supposedly, Leonardo Da Vinci knew about this and left clues in his art.

This sounds like a crackpot theory, as someone quoted in the article put it, but I'm going to try to watch the show.  It's on at the same time as 7th Heaven, so I'll have to tape one and watch the other.

More information: The theory apparently is that Da Vinci (along with several other prominent historical figures) was a descendant of Jesus and Mary and thus knew about it.

[Guest]

The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown.

[smartash]

yeah, i just read a writeup about the book in this months Relevant Magazine. an interesting concept-- i'm not believing it, but from the writeup it seems to be an interesting idea, one i'd read.

i just dont think the gospel writers woul have left that out. some may argue that they would since its irelevant to mention someone's wife or anything that might show women as important figures, but there are some points where the bible does mention women, like the WOMEN being the ones to find the empty tomb, or jesus cracking down on the pharisees over a WOMAN, and an adulteress at that. if its one thing the gospel doesnt do, its make the disciples look good-- they're pretty honest about their shortcomings and about jesus' treatment of women-- why would they leave out that he and Mary Magdalene were married?
i think i want to read this book, it sounds interesting.

[Vlad!]

That sounds pretty much like bunk to me. If DaVinci did know anything about it, he would have to have gotten it from oral tradition, which is notoriously unreliable.  

[bloop]

If it would be oral tradition that would make that information highly suspect, then wouldn't the Bible be highly suspect?

(I don't believe Jesus was married, but scholars agree that at least parts of the Bible were written from oral tradition)

[Vlad!]

Probably so, bloop, but much of the Bible was preserved through rituals and customs as exacting as any preservation methods we have today. Versions of the Bible found from different time periods show an astounding amount of textual accuracy. So the Bible cannot really be said to be the result of oral tradition, at least not exclusively.  

[-standman87-]

I personally don't know anything about this subject, but my dad (a Lutheran pastor) read The Da Vinci Code and found it to be absolutely contrary to his beliefs. -So I infer that the book was most likely contrary to basic Protestant beliefs.