Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by Aidan, Mar 12, 2018.
Whats your opinion of the theory that Jesus started a lineage with Mary Magdalene ?
It made the Davinci Code an interesting read, sort of, but other than that I see no reason to have an opinion.
It's unrealistic at best and sacrilegious at best.
Yeah, sacrilege pure and simple.
Who actually believes this stuff?
Baigent's book Holy Blood Holy Grail, raised the matter to a new level in 1982, and Dan Brown does not present much more than a popularied story based on those suggestions. Barbara Thiering also posited a similar theory strongly connect with the Qumran community. Much of this is based on an argument from silence - namely that if Jesus was not married it would have rated a discussion given that the Bible never mentions Jesus marital status. As marriage was the normal expectation of an adult Jew of the time, the argument assumes that as nothing to the contrary is said, then we must assume that he was married.
The argument is highly speculative and in a real sense flawed, as there is no appreciation of the resurrection or indeed the incarnation in such a view, and generally the argument ultimately chooses to ignore these solid biblical themes largely because they get in the way of the theory. The thirty nine articles ask that we not expound one part of scripture in a way that is repugnant to another part of scripture.
Of course one of the great positives of the Dan Brown Book is that it has made popular for tourists the Rosslyn Chapel and as such generated sufficient revenue to preserve a great building with many great stories, and further the witness to Our Lord through that place.
I believe there was some expert (mathematician or something of the like) who mentioned that if anyone living around Jesus' time has descendants, they would number in the tens of millions.
Total lack of historical proof for it and it completely ignores medieval and late second temple history.
I'm not sure if it has actually furthered Christian witness there. True, church services are still held there on Sunday, however the tourism Dan Brown's book has attracted I suspect has caused the chapel's christian past to be overcast by gnostic stories and conspiracy theories. I've been to Rosslyn Chapel myself and I was offended seeing occult literature and symbols sold in the gift shop in the chapel. There was very little of the building's christian witness featured in the tour either.
In Italy, clerical authorities and priests have had to put up signs explaining Brown's inaccuracy at various relevant sites.
Interesting, I went last year, and I was very impressed by the guide who I felt managed a solid witness to faith whilst still managing to be an entertaining interesting and engaging tour guide. That was just my take on it.
I'm glad to hear that. Your experience is much more up to date than mine. Must have been around 2010 when I last went there.
Did the bookshop still have pentagram and occult books when you were there?
Can't say I noticed. I was looking for the positives rather than negatives. I found the Rosslyn Chapel deeply moving.
I've seen the math for that, if Jesus had living descendants today basically everyone would be a descendant of him.
It's actually fairly interesting, but going back only a couple thousand years basically everyone is descended from everyone (whose line did not die out) so chances are most Europeans are descendants of Mohammed for instance.
And there was some Pharaoh that they could prove almost everyone in the world was descended from (basically they could prove he still had descendants centuries later).
The only exception would be isolated island communities like that one where they killed that missionary. But even they would really only need one outsider to enter their bloodline for this to occur.
Of course that doesn't mean you actually carry any of that ancestor's DNA.
This chart shows how much DNA we share, and how quickly to degrades. The facts are that we are likely to share some cM with anyone, completely random people. My DNA testing has produced numbers of possible 4th and 5th cousins, however in the absence on any other information I take it that they are not related. DNA as such is not a discovery tool, so much as a confirmation tool.