Question by Aquila: How can DaVinci code be right about Jesus having children?
According to the gnostic christians (these are the original christians according to the manuscripts the Catholics banned), they practiced sexual magic, and the male did not ejaculate during sexual intercourse. So how could Jesus and Mary Magdalene have children? Is this why the Nag Hammadi Library only mentions that they were lovers but no children? How then can DaVinci Code claim Jesus had children?
@ Tanks. You should brush up on your history before you say Gnosticism is from the 2nd century. Evidence of Jesus & MM having sex is found in the Nag Hammadi.
@ oxyman. Yes that is a possibility of course 😉
Best answer:
Answer by Donald Shaw
It’s fiction
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
davinci code is fiction
to discuss wether or not jesus ejaculated, this i can’t say for sure, but willing to expiriment on it
Gnosticism, as far as I understand it, is based on the premise that Jesus was not the way, but rather that He attempted to show us the way, and that there is a truth beyond Him.
Interesting question. I’d never heard that … perspective on the procreative act before.
Gnostics? Please help enlighten me.
The reason they weren’t put in the bible is because they were written too long after the original gospels. The da vinci code is pure fiction and has no basis in historical fact.
perhaps he did accidentally
It can’t, and he didn’t.
Most gnostics did not engage in sexuality at all, if they could avoid it, as they generally regarded the body as sinful and evil, to a greater extent even than Christians. (This in part is why Dan Brown’s claims that the gnostics support his theory are ridiculous. The gnostics’ archtypical characters, like their version of Mary of Magdala, would not show any carnal nature, in conformance with their own beliefs.)
There is no evidence whatsover anywhere in the 5th century Nag Hammadi at a carnal relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala. Not even the go-to “gospel” for the most outlandish claim of that kind – the not-known to be earlier than fifth century Gospel of Phillip – hints at any sort of claim that they were ‘lovers’.
The Gnostics were not around until the 2nd century so they were hardly the original Christians. Dan Brown has written a book of fiction, the so-called facts he has woven into it are no such thing. There is no evidence at all that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene.
ok, several women have had children when the man did not “ejaculate” they usually refer to it as pre-cu’m. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if this is the case but it sounds probable.
Also you can take into account that there are many holes in any Jesus story, even in the Bible he goes from age what 12-30 without a single page. Take for instance the fact that Jesus birth is a miracle because Mary was “a virgin” did you know that the meaning of being a virgin back then only meant she was not bleeding yet. So what if she hadn’t had her first period, apparently she got pregnant first and that happens many times today does that make each one the next Christ?
As they stated in other answers it’s fiction made to make you think not believe.
I don’t know about the DaVinci code but it is a matter of the ancient Jewish records kept by the Rabbis that Jesus married and had children. There are also living descendants of his walking the earth today. This is kep highly secret though, to prevent these people from being harassed and perhaps mistreated.
Its fiction dumb***
JEEZE
The Da Vinci Code is fiction. It can claim anything it wants to, because it’s purpose is entertainment, not historical accuracy.
Unfortunately, the DaVinci Code gets just about everything wrong, not because Dan Brown is trying to destroy Christianity, but because it’s just lousy historical research. He too naively credits certain ancient documents with being accurate sources about Jesus when they were written two to four hundred years after Jesus lived in Palestine.
The so-called “Gnostic Gospels” are of many, many kinds, and not all have the same value for understanding the historical Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas, for example is a gnostic gospel, but historians believe that there is much of value in it for understanding what Jesus did and said. Even the Gospel of Judas may have similar value. I don’t know because I haven’t read it, yet.
The gnostic writings used by Dan Brown, however, are written so long after the time of Jesus that they are useless for anything except understanding the people who wrote and used them–Gentile believers of the 3rd and 4th centuries.
One of the tests you can use as you read these documents is to ask the following question: “Does the background of the story, or its elements, reflect the conditions of 1st Century Galilee?” For example, are there perhaps Aramaic words still embedded in the stories? Do the rituals around eating and drinking reflect Jewish practices of Galilee and Jerusalem? Do the arguments and controversies either explicitly told or lying beneath the stories reflect the arguments among rival Judean sects of the 1st Century, namely, among Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, et. al.?
You’ll find that the documents used by Dan Brown in the DiVinci code don’t reflect Palestian Jewish life at all, but do reflect Roman customs and spirituality that are developed in the the centuries after Jesus.
For example, the withholding of semen, is not only not a 1st Century Jewish practice, it would have been anathema to them. The delay of male orgasm is a practice that developed in South Asia among Buddhists and possibly among some Hindus. It was a spiritual practice utterly foreign to the people who lived in the time and place of the New Testament.
Finally, the Nag Hammadi Library is a massive collection of documents and tiny scraps of documents, most of which have nothing at all to do with Jesus or his followers.
Hope this helps.
First, no manuscripts were banned. The Christian story first spread orally, as was often the case back then, whether the writing was from a Roman emperor or from a follower of Jesus. After a few decades, they began to put the writings to “paper” (actually papyri). The Gnostic Gospels simply quit being used by Christians. Constantine and the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the Canon (in fact, it wasn’t finalized until long after his death).
The vast majority of Christians started using Paul’s letters (the very earliest Christian documents we have, either inside or outside the canon of the New Testament, written in the 50’s or 60’s), Acts and the 4 Gospels (the 2nd earliest documents we have, either inside or outside the New Testament, written between the 70’s and 90’s) and they were generally known and distributed by the mid-to-late 2nd century. All books now in the NT were written no later than early 2nd century.
Meanwhile, the Gnostic “Gospels” (misnamed in the first place because Gospels are documents that are meant to tell Jesus’ story and some of these were just collections of saying, not his story) weren’t written until the mid-to-late 2nd century at the earliest. This means they are at least 50-100 years later than the books that actually made it into the Bible. The Nag Hammadi documents are 4th or 5th century copies of texts that historians think were probably written in the 2nd through centuries.
Further, there are some reasons why most shouldn’t want the Gnostic “Gospels” to be in the Bible:
Many of them were anti-semitic. They disregarded the Jewish Scriptures completely and many considered the Jewish God to be inferior. They had some much more blatantly misogynistic aspects than the New Testament documents. Yes, Paul told women at one point to keep their heads covered, which basically was him telling them not to rock the cultural boat, but to focus on following Jesus. The so-called “Gospel of Thomas,” on the other hand, has the following as its last saying of Jesus:
(114)Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
So now tell me you still think the later, more misogynistic and anti-semitic Gnostic Gospels should be the New Testament.
It is not true. You either believe what the Bible says, or you do not. I believe the Bible.
First of all the DaVinci Code is all a bunch off bull**** and it’s completely fiction. And by the way it’s sin to think that Jesus had kids.
I don’t think “The DaVinci Code” is right about much of anything.
Jesus speaks of those who live celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God, and tell us, “Let him who can accept this, accept it.”
It is doubtful that Jesus would issue such an invitation to live celibacy to anyone, unless He were doing it Himself.
He was not the sort of guy who encouraged other people to do something, while He Himself was NOT doing it.
The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction. That means the author made up certain things in order to create his story the way he wanted it. You are not meant to believe in it any more than I am meant to believe that Frodo Baggins actually went on his quest, or that Harry Potter actually lived. I haven’t seen people get this worked up over a fictional book since Heinlein’s “A Stranger in a Strange Land”.
Its interesting to see how people take a question like this and immediately go to the bible for answers. Even knowing that there are more gospels and books out there which the church banned.
The fact that neither the bible or the library mention a child is a good push in the direction that they did not have any. However I am personally not completely closed off to the idea either. In Jesus’ day it was customary to marry and have children. It was customary to have children. And as a Jewish man following his faith as he did, it wouldn’t be so far fetched that he did such things as they were customary for a Jewish man to do so.
Now just because there was sexual ritual magic and the male did not ejaculate during such times (this practice is no different now for those who practice such rituals) does not mean it was improbable. If Mary was his lover/wife isn’t it possible that they had sex outside ritual? When we make love to our spouses it is for pleasure and procreation. why would his case be any different?
when was the terrorist organization ‘Illuminati’ formed, and for what purpose?
Whether the male ejaculates during intercourse or not, a child can be conceived. Ever heard of precum? Besides if Jesus was married I think he came in his wife. They state that Jesus’ child wasn’t born till after he died, so he was lovers with her and didn’t know about a child.
Look up sex ed dude. Precum is semen that come from the penis before ejaculattin and there are millions of people conceived that way throughout history.
I don’t think that it can….As I’ve said in answering one of your other questions,that would have made it impossible for him to be the perfect lamb.
Why couldn’t he have? Why couldn’t he have married and fathered children! No one was in Jesus’ bedroom! I would follow someone that was in love and knew how to love then someone that the catholic church and other modern religions have made Jesus some kind of celibate monk! PLEASE there is nothing dirty about making life so why would Jesus feel that he could not love and father children? Why are we sexual human beings??? I hope there is a holy blood line. It makes more sense to me because he was a human. LIKE Mary (Jesus’ mother) was a VIRGIN. Joseph was his father on earth and GOD was his Holy father! When he said God was his father does not mean he was his biological father.
The Bible is too unbelivable to me because It is someone’s imagination if we can not have pregnant women today have VIRGIN births then there never was such a thing…What it is is that JESUS was chosen to teach and guide people in religion not that he was concieved by the “air” or how ever they say she was pregnated! It is too funny to me!