quote:

---

Posted by Quinny

Obviously it would raise questions as whether the descendants of Jesus have a particular link with God that other humans don't have

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gextvedde:

quote:

---

Posted by Quinny

Obviously it would raise questions as whether the descendants of Jesus have a particular link with God that other humans don't have

---

Not really because Jesus would quite literally be just a man, albeit a very good one and being one of his descendants would be like being the descendant of any other good man. It’s an interesting question but I just can’t get round to thinking about it properly without my mind going but, but, but…….

Welcome to the ship by the way.

---

Why would Jesus having children mean that he was 'just a man', etc? Did his Sonship make him sterile?

T. (too tired to expand right now)
 

---

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :
 
You're right, Jesus having children wouldn't make him just a man, nor would being married but the DVC plot relies on the church being wrong about who Jesus was. The book claims that Jesus was a 'mortal prophet' and not divine in any sense related to Christian doctrine and that the church made that stuff up around the time of Constantine. So, if the book is true, Jesus was just a normal guy in all senses of the word and the church has covered up the truth by making him out to be divine.

I was thinking of what it would mean to be one of his descendents if this was the case and IMHO, if the whole book is correct (not just the married with kids stuff) then being one of his offspring wouldn't mean that much.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
Would his divinity be part of his DNA then? Or would it only be his humanity in his DNA?
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
If DVC was true, then we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

Since in the 2nd century Jesus's great-grandchildren didn't come forward as a clinching proof against that troublesome heresy, I assume DVC isn't true.
 

---

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :
 
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.
 

---

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.

---

Augustine -- you're a liar
Aquinas -- you're a liar
Polycarp -- you're a liar
Wilberforce -- you're a liar
Wesley -- you're a liar
Booth -- you're a liar

Because you all lurve your social power in this world.

But that does not make TDVC true.


 

---

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :
 
If the DVC were true, and Jesus had kids, I'm very surprised that people in the various branches of the early church weren't interested in finding them, and claiming them as their new leader.

Dan Brown's explanation of this (if I understand it correctly), that the disciples were so busy making Jesus into a God that his wife and kid would have feared for their lives, is total bunk IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quinny:
On the other hand Jesus was meant to sample life as a human and a big part of life for many humans is getting married and having children so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kbe323:
Matrix writes:


::If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.::

Why are liars or fools the only choices? How about being misled, misinterpreting their experiences or just plain being wrong? No matter how much adherents to one or another religion want it to be 'fact', the fact remains, although the great majority of those religions truly believe in them, a belief in any mystical system is just that--a belief, a faith, and not empirically provable and so beyond question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matrix:
These people i chose becuase they all claimed not merely a belief, but an experience, and one that drove thier ministry and life.

They each claimed to have had some kind of encounter with the risen Christ, not that they accepted a set of ideals or gave assent to a theory. So either they lie about their encounter, or they are fools, misled dupes.

M

---

quote:

---

I was just wondering if (and its a big if) the theory articulated in the Da Vinci Code and elsewhere, about Jesus having children with Mary Magdalene was corect, then would you reject youre faith .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by noneen:
DVCs story seems to say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he sneaked off, and lived a full life with Mary Magdelene his wife.

---

I think that claims is in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but not in DVC. I've not read either book, but I remember Dan Brown (who is himself a Christian) drawing attention to this point in the run-up to the plagiarism trial.

T.
 

---

Posted by Quinny (# 11441) on :
 
Thanks for your comments everybody

I would be interested to know how Dan Brown can justify being a christian if he genuinely believes the premise behind the Da Vinci Code.

In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quinny:
In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quinny:
I would be interested to know how Dan Brown can justify being a christian if he genuinely believes the premise behind the Da Vinci Code.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quinny:
In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If DVC was true, then we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

Since in the 2nd century Jesus's great-grandchildren didn't come forward as a clinching proof against that troublesome heresy, I assume DVC isn't true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:

Originally posted by noneen:
DVCs story seems to say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he sneaked off, and lived a full life with Mary Magdelene his wife.


I think that claims is in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but not in DVC. I've not read either book, but I remember Dan Brown (who is himself a Christian) drawing attention to this point in the run-up to the plagiarism trial.

T.

---

I stand corrected ... i gave away my copy of DVC so i can't check, ... i obviously 'remember it wrong' !!!

[ 30. June 2006, 11:24: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Honest John (# 11457) on :
 
I don't anything about microbiology but if Jesus had had kids, it would be interesting to see how their DNA compared to that of other mortals!
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest John:
I don't anything about microbiology but if Jesus had had kids, it would be interesting to see how their DNA compared to that of other mortals!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

---

Yep, you've got the right heresy. Though they first arose in the first century, did they not?

Could I reiterate to Quinny that Dan Brown doesn't believe it's true at all*. Also, he's said that the resurrection is the one thing he wouldn't dare question in a book. Which is interesting, because I got the impression from reading TDVC that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but obviously I was wrong. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

*Why don't the dumbclot conspiracy theorists who love the book actually listen to him? I suppose they think that he's been blackmailed by God's Rottweiler?
 

---

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
It took a long time for someone to answer Musicans's question about DNA. It's serious problem, and I think someone HAS dealt with it some where on these boards - anybody remember where?

Adeodatus's solution doesn't answer the problem for me - nice try, though. If Jesus's DNA was the same as any other human DNA, would not that mean he had a human, as well as a divine, Father? If his genes were all from Mary, would that not make him a clone (AH No - a clone would be female!) And God has no gender. So whence the male source of the (normal) genes in the blood of Jesus?

There's a useful article by Leslie Houlden in this month's "Theology" which talks, among other things, about the way we cling to the old
- perhaps comfortable - ways of working things out when those ways just do not work any longer.
This seems to be an example. Maybe DVC, flawed though it is as theology/history
, may be useful in showing up such problems in the arguments around it.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Of course I wouldn't reject my faith if he married and had kids. I agree with the poster who said that the proper response would be a resounding "So what?"

As for his hypothetical kids, there'd be no reason to expect them to be in any way different from the rest of the human race. He had (has, my bad) a full human nature.

As for the chromosomes, etc. I assume Mary had the usual full complement of genes, including unexpressed ones (recessives, etc.) I see no reason God couldn't have done a little jugggling to see to it that the parthenogenetic child came out with a somewhat different arrangement of the genes already present in his mother, rather than being a look-alike. The Y chromosome would be the only difficulty I can think of, and we've all heard that described as a crippled X

No, seriously, if a miracle did happen at his conception (and I believe it did), why would it be so much harder for God to add, rearrange, or modify a little genetic data? He's done far bigger things.
 

---

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
A little genetic data..I cannot believe I'm hearing this. We're talking first-grade sums?
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Originally posted by kbe323:

quote:

---

This is the heart of the problem in a nutshell. Does the current bible accurately express the original writings of the author(s) or has is what we now have a reference a work that some scriptologists contend is rife with omissions, changes, additions and errors introduced by scribes with good intentions but erring fingers or those who had their own idea of what the scriptures should say? Without originals to compare with and with scriptural scholars often at odds with one another as to what the original text said or meant in so many instances, do we have to trust the scholorship and intent of fallible men and women or our own intuition as to what is the 'real truth'?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0