JESUS ETERNAL VIRGIN

JESUS ETERNAL VIRGIN



Analysis of Martino Gerber and Guliano Lattes, biblical scholars

**********************************************************

In recent times many write books and novels which insist that Jesus was married or that He could do.
The Holy Bible, however, teaches that Jesus is the Eternal Virgin.

********************************

In the Gospel, Jesus teaches us that in the resurrected life the elected saints will live in the Kingdom of God,
and they will live like angels and do not take a wife or husband;

Luke 20: 34-37
34 Jesus replied, 'The children of this world take wives and husbands,
35 but those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead do not marry
36 because they can no longer die, for they are the same as the angels, and being childenof the resurrection they are children of God.
37 And Moses himself implies that the dead rise again, in the passage about the bush where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the Godof Isaac and the God of Jacob


Now we see that both the angels and the elected saints resurrected, are children of God, they can not take a wife or husband, they can not have sex, but they live most chaste and pure.

**************************

Jesus before being born into this world, lived with God was the Word and the Son of God;

John 1: 1

1 In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John 1: 14


14 The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So Jesus existed before being born into this world, and He taught this;

John 3: 13


13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man;

John 6: 51

51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever;
and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'

Jesus explains His eternal existence very clearly;

John 8: 58

58 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, before Abraham ever was, I am.


John 17: 5

5 Now, Father, glorify me with that gloryI had with you before ever the world existed.

John 17: 24

24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they may always see my glory which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

So Jesus is God, and being in the world He can not get married, but He was like an angel.

**********************************************************************

We see that Jesus was not born from a marriage union, but through the Holy Spirit;

Matthew 1: 20-21


20 He had made up his mind to do this when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit.
21 She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.'

Luke 1: 26-35


26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'
29 She was deeply disturbed by these words and asked herself what this greeting could mean,
30 but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favour.
31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.
32 He willbe great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;
33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.'
34 Mary said to the angel, 'But how can this come about, since I have no Knowledge of man?'
35 The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.
And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.


Jesus was born as God incarnate, He can not marry, even if He takes human nature, He retains His divine nature.

****************************************************************************************


John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, to show His purity and holiness;

John 1: 35-36


35 The next day as John stood there again with two of his disciples, Jesus went past,
36 and John looked towards him and said, 'Look, there is the lamb of God.'


************************************************************************

Jesus makes His divine nature to be known by His Apostles, before the resurrection, in the transfiguration;
Matthew 17: 1-5

1 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
2 There in their presence he was transfigured: his face shone like the sun and his clothes became as dazzling as light.
3 And suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them; they were talking with him.
4 Then Peter spoke to Jesus. 'Lord,' he said, 'it is wonderful for us to be here; if you want me to, I will make three shelters here, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.'
5 He was still speaking when suddenly a bright cloud covered them with shadow, and suddenly from the cloud there came a voice which said, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favour. Listen to him.'

******************************************************************

Jesus appeared as the third person of the Holy Trinity, He is the Son of God, God is his Father, and with them is the Holy Spirit;


Matthew 3: 16-17

16 And when Jesus had been baptised He at once came up from the water, and suddenly the heavens opened and he saw the Spiritof God descending like a dove and coming down on him.
17 And suddenly there was a voice from heaven, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on him.'

Matthew 28: 18-20


18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.'

So Jesus being the third person of the Holy Trinity, He can not get married.

***********************************************************************

Jesus reveals His divine qualities, He teaches that He is the Bread that came down from heaven;

John 6: 51

51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven.
Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the l life of the world.'

Jesus explains this well at the Last Supper;

Matthew 26: 26-28


26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. 'Take it and eat,' he said, 'this is my body.'
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he handed it to them saying, 'Drink from this, all of you,
28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



Now Jesus the Bread of heaven can not get married.

********************************************************
Jesus teaches that He is the Light;

John 8: 12


12 When Jesusspoke to the people again, he said: I am the light of the world; anyone who follows me will not be walking in the dark, but will have the light of life.

Now Jesus the divine Light can not get married.

************************************************************
Jesus claims to be the Son of God;

John 10: 30


30 The Father and I are one.

Jesus the Son of God can not take a wife.


**********************************************
Jesus declares that He is the Resurrection;

John 11:25

25 Jesus said: I am the resurrection. Anyone who believes in me, even though that person dies, will live.

Jesus is the divine resurrection and the eternal life, He can not get married.


***************************************************

Jesus claims to be the Way, Truth and Life:

John 14: 6

6 Jesus said: I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through me.


Jesus is the divine Way, Truth and Life, He can not get married.

************************************************************

Jesus reveals that who sees Him sees the Father;

John 14: 7-11
7 If you know me, you willknow my Father too. From this moment you know him and have seen him.
8 Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and then we shall be satisfied.' Jesussaid to him,
9 'Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father, so how can you say, "Show us the Father"?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.
11 You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe it on the evidence of these works.

Jesus is God and He can not get married.

******************************************************************

Then Jesus lived virgin and He is virgin forever. Jesus also advised his followers to remain virgin for the kingdom of heaven;

Matthew 19: 12


12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb,
there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.
Let anyone accept this who can.'

Now if Jesus asks to His followers to remain virgin, He virgin certainly.

********************************************************************

Even St. Paul advises believers to virginity;

1 Corinthians 7: 7-8


7 I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different.
8 To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.

1 Corinthias 7: 32-34

32 I should like you to have your minds free from all worry. The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord's affairs and to how he can please the Lord;
33 but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind.
34 So, too, the unmarried woman, and the virgin, gives her mind to the Lord's affairs and to being holy in body and spirit;
but the married woman gives her mind to the affairs of this world and to how she can please her husband.

**************************************************************************

St. Paul imitates Jesus, then he is unmarried;

1 Corinthias 11: 1

1 Take me as your pattern, just as I take Christ for mine.


*************************************************

Jesus has His bride anyway, the church;

Ephesians 5: 21-33



21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord,
23 since, as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife;
24 and as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything.
25 Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her
26 to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words,
27 so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless.
28 In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a manto love his wife is for him to love himself.
29 A mannever hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christtreats the Church,
30 because we are parts of his Body.
31 This is why a manleaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh.
32 This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to Christ and the Church.
33 To sum up: you also, each one of you, must love his wife as he loves himself; and let every wife respect her husband.

*************************************************************
Conclusion: Jesus is divine and heaven nature, He was like an angel, He could not and did not want to marry.

Jesus loved the virginity and advised the virginity to those who could, for the Kingdom of Heaven.


Jesus taught us to pray that is the Rhine of Heaven soon, where all the angels and the elect saints will live holy and pure.

**************************************************************
Biblical quotations

New Jerusalem Bible

http://www.catholic.org/bible/


http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it

DISMANTLING THE DA VINCI CODE BY SANDRA MIESEL

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code
By Sandra Miesel

“The Grail,” Langdon said, “is symbolic of the lost goddess. When Christianity came along, the old pagan religions did not die easily. Legends of chivalric quests for the Holy Grail were in fact stories of forbidden quests to find the lost sacred feminine. Knights who claimed to be “searching for the chalice” were speaking in code as a way to protect themselves from a Church that had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned non-believers, and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” (The Da Vinci Code, pages 238-239)

The Holy Grail is a favorite metaphor for a desirable but difficult-to-attain goal, from the map of the human genome to Lord Stanley’s Cup. While the original Grail—the cup Jesus allegedly used at the Last Supper—normally inhabits the pages of Arthurian romance, Dan Brown’s recent mega–best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, rips it away to the realm of esoteric history.

But his book is more than just the story of a quest for the Grail—he wholly reinterprets the Grail legend. In doing so, Brown inverts the insight that a woman’s body is symbolically a container and makes a container symbolically a woman’s body. And that container has a name every Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children.

Over the centuries, the Grail-keepers have been guarding the true (and continuing) bloodline of Christ and the relics of the Magdalen, not a material vessel. Therefore Brown claims that “the quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene,” a conclusion that would surely have surprised Sir Galahad and the other Grail knights who thought they were searching for the Chalice of the Last Supper.

The Da Vinci Code opens with the grisly murder of the Louvre’s curator inside the museum. The crime enmeshes hero Robert Langdon, a tweedy professor of symbolism from Harvard, and the victim’s granddaughter, burgundy-haired cryptologist Sophie Nevue. Together with crippled millionaire historian Leigh Teabing, they flee Paris for London one step ahead of the police and a mad albino Opus Dei “monk” named Silas who will stop at nothing to prevent them from finding the “Grail.”

But despite the frenetic pacing, at no point is action allowed to interfere with a good lecture. Before the story comes full circle back to the Louvre, readers face a barrage of codes, puzzles, mysteries, and conspiracies.

With his twice-stated principle, “Everybody loves a conspiracy,” Brown is reminiscent of the famous author who crafted her product by studying the features of ten earlier best-sellers. It would be too easy to criticize him for characters thin as plastic wrap, undistinguished prose, and improbable action. But Brown isn’t so much writing badly as writing in a particular way best calculated to attract a female audience. (Women, after all, buy most of the nation’s books.) He has married a thriller plot to a romance-novel technique. Notice how each character is an extreme type…effortlessly brilliant, smarmy, sinister, or psychotic as needed, moving against luxurious but curiously flat backdrops. Avoiding gore and bedroom gymnastics, he shows only one brief kiss and a sexual ritual performed by a married couple. The risqué allusions are fleeting although the text lingers over some bloody Opus Dei mortifications. In short, Brown has fabricated a novel perfect for a ladies’ book club.

Brown’s lack of seriousness shows in the games he plays with his character names—Robert Langdon, “bright fame long don” (distinguished and virile); Sophie Nevue, “wisdom New Eve”; the irascible taurine detective Bezu Fache, “zebu anger.” The servant who leads the police to them is Legaludec, “legal duce.” The murdered curator takes his surname, Saunière, from a real Catholic priest whose occult antics sparked interest in the Grail secret. As an inside joke, Brown even writes in his real-life editor (Faukman is Kaufman).

While his extensive use of fictional formulas may be the secret to Brown’s stardom, his anti-Christian message can’t have hurt him in publishing circles: The Da Vinci Code debuted atop the New York Times best-seller list. By manipulating his audience through the conventions of romance-writing, Brown invites readers to identify with his smart, glamorous characters who’ve seen through the impostures of the clerics who hide the “truth” about Jesus and his wife. Blasphemy is delivered in a soft voice with a knowing chuckle: “[E]very faith in the world is based on fabrication.”

But even Brown has his limits. To dodge charges of outright bigotry, he includes a climactic twist in the story that absolves the Church of assassination. And although he presents Christianity as a false root and branch, he’s willing to tolerate it for its charitable works.

(Of course, Catholic Christianity will become even more tolerable once the new liberal pope elected in Brown’s previous Langdon novel, Angels & Demons, abandons outmoded teachings. “Third-century laws cannot be applied to the modern followers of Christ,” says one of the book’s progressive cardinals.)

Where Is He Getting All of This?

Brown actually cites his principal sources within the text of his novel. One is a specimen of academic feminist scholarship: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. The others are popular esoteric histories: The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince; Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln; The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird. (Starbird, a self-identified Catholic, has her books published by Matthew Fox’s outfit, Bear & Co.) Another influence, at least at second remove, is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker.

The use of such unreliable sources belies Brown’s pretensions to intellectuality. But the act has apparently fooled at least some of his readers—the New York Daily News book reviewer trumpeted, “His research is impeccable.”

But despite Brown’s scholarly airs, a writer who thinks the Merovingians founded Paris and forgets that the popes once lived in Avignon is hardly a model researcher. And for him to state that the Church burned five million women as witches shows a willful—and malicious—ignorance of the historical record. The latest figures for deaths during the European witch craze are between 30,000 to 50,000 victims. Not all were executed by the Church, not all were women, and not all were burned. Brown’s claim that educated women, priestesses, and midwives were singled out by witch-hunters is not only false, it betrays his goddess-friendly sources.

A Multitude of Errors
So error-laden is The Da Vinci Code that the educated reader actually applauds those rare occasions where Brown stumbles (despite himself) into the truth. A few examples of his “impeccable” research: He claims that the motions of the planet Venus trace a pentacle (the so-called Ishtar pentagram) symbolizing the goddess. But it isn’t a perfect figure and has nothing to do with the length of the Olympiad. The ancient Olympic games were celebrated in honor of Zeus Olympias, not Aphrodite, and occurred every four years.

Brown’s contention that the five linked rings of the modern Olympic Games are a secret tribute to the goddess is also wrong—each set of games was supposed to add a ring to the design but the organizers stopped at five. And his efforts to read goddess propaganda into art, literature, and even Disney cartoons are simply ridiculous.

No datum is too dubious for inclusion, and reality falls quickly by the wayside. For instance, the Opus Dei bishop encourages his albino assassin by telling him that Noah was also an albino (a notion drawn from the non-canonical 1 Enoch 106:2). Yet albinism somehow fails to interfere with the man’s eyesight as it physiologically would.

But a far more important example is Brown’s treatment of Gothic architecture as a style full of goddess-worshipping symbols and coded messages to confound the uninitiated. Building on Barbara Walker’s claim that “like a pagan temple, the Gothic cathedral represented the body of the Goddess,” The Templar Revelation asserts: “Sexual symbolism is found in the great Gothic cathedrals which were masterminded by the Knights Templar...both of which represent intimate female anatomy: the arch, which draws the worshipper into the body of Mother Church, evokes the vulva.” In The Da Vinci Code, these sentiments are transformed into a character’s description of “a cathedral’s long hollow nave as a secret tribute to a woman’s womb...complete with receding labial ridges and a nice little cinquefoil clitoris above the doorway.”

These remarks cannot be brushed aside as opinions of the villain; Langdon, the book’s hero, refers to his own lectures about goddess-symbolism at Chartres.

These bizarre interpretations betray no acquaintance with the actual development or construction of Gothic architecture, and correcting the countless errors becomes a tiresome exercise: The Templars had nothing to do with the cathedrals of their time, which were commissioned by bishops and their canons throughout Europe. They were unlettered men with no arcane knowledge of “sacred geometry” passed down from the pyramid builders. They did not wield tools themselves on their own projects, nor did they found masons’ guilds to build for others. Not all their churches were round, nor was roundness a defiant insult to the Church. Rather than being a tribute to the divine feminine, their round churches honored the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Actually looking at Gothic churches and their predecessors deflates the idea of female symbolism. Large medieval churches typically had three front doors on the west plus triple entrances to their transepts on the north and south. (What part of a woman’s anatomy does a transept represent? Or the kink in Chartres’s main aisle?) Romanesque churches—including ones that predate the founding of the Templars—have similar bands of decoration arching over their entrances. Both Gothic and Romanesque churches have the long, rectangular nave inherited from Late Antique basilicas, ultimately derived from Roman public buildings. Neither Brown nor his sources consider what symbolism medieval churchmen such as Suger of St.-Denis or William Durandus read in church design. It certainly wasn’t goddess-worship.

False Claims
If the above seems like a pile driver applied to a gnat, the blows are necessary to demonstrate the utter falseness of Brown’s material. His willful distortions of documented history are more than matched by his outlandish claims about controversial subjects. But to a postmodernist, one construct of reality is as good as any other.

Brown’s approach seems to consist of grabbing large chunks of his stated sources and tossing them together in a salad of a story. From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown lifts the concept of the Grail as a metaphor for a sacred lineage by arbitrarily breaking a medieval French term, Sangraal (Holy Grail), into sang (blood) and raal (royal). This holy blood, according to Brown, descended from Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, to the Merovingian dynasty in Dark Ages France, surviving its fall to persist in several modern French families, including that of Pierre Plantard, a leader of the mysterious Priory of Sion. The Priory—an actual organization officially registered with the French government in 1956—makes extraordinary claims of antiquity as the “real” power behind the Knights Templar. It most likely originated after World War II and was first brought to public notice in 1962. With the exception of filmmaker Jean Cocteau, its illustrious list of Grand Masters—which include Leonardo da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Victor Hugo—is not credible, although it’s presented as true by Brown.

Brown doesn’t accept a political motivation for the Priory’s activities. Instead he picks up The Templar Revelation’s view of the organization as a cult of secret goddess-worshippers who have preserved ancient Gnostic wisdom and records of Christ’s true mission, which would completely overturn Christianity if released. Significantly, Brown omits the rest of the book’s thesis that makes Christ and Mary Magdalene unmarried sex partners performing the erotic mysteries of Isis. Perhaps even a gullible mass-market audience has its limits.

From both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, Brown takes a negative view of the Bible and a grossly distorted image of Jesus. He’s neither the Messiah nor a humble carpenter but a wealthy, trained religious teacher bent on regaining the throne of David. His credentials are amplified by his relationship with the rich Magdalen who carries the royal blood of Benjamin: “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,” laments one of Brown’s characters.

Yet it’s Brown’s Christology that’s false—and blindingly so. He requires the present New Testament to be a post-Constantinian fabrication that displaced true accounts now represented only by surviving Gnostic texts. He claims that Christ wasn’t considered divine until the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 at the behest of the emperor. Then Constantine—a lifelong sun worshipper—ordered all older scriptural texts destroyed, which is why no complete set of Gospels predates the fourth century. Christians somehow failed to notice the sudden and drastic change in their doctrine.

But by Brown’s specious reasoning, the Old Testament can’t be authentic either because complete Hebrew Scriptures are no more than a thousand years old. And yet the texts were transmitted so accurately that they do match well with the Dead Sea Scrolls from a thousand years earlier. Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century and indicate that they’re earlier than the Gnostic forgeries. (The Epistles of St. Paul are, of course, even earlier than the Gospels.)

Primitive Church documents and the testimony of the ante-Nicean Fathers confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God, and Savior—even when that faith meant death. The earliest partial canon of Scripture dates from the late second century and already rejected Gnostic writings. For Brown, it isn’t enough to credit Constantine with the divinization of Jesus. The emperor’s old adherence to the cult of the Invincible Sun also meant repackaging sun worship as the new faith. Brown drags out old (and long-discredited) charges by virulent anti-Catholics like Alexander Hislop who accused the Church of perpetuating Babylonian mysteries, as well as 19th-century rationalists who regarded Christ as just another dying savior-god.

Unsurprisingly, Brown misses no opportunity to criticize Christianity and its pitiable adherents. (The church in question is always the Catholic Church, though his villain does sneer once at Anglicans—for their grimness, of all things.) He routinely and anachronistically refers to the Church as “the Vatican,” even when popes weren’t in residence there. He systematically portrays it throughout history as deceitful, power-crazed, crafty, and murderous: “The Church may no longer employ crusades to slaughter, but their influence is no less persuasive. No less insidious.”

Goddess Worship and the Magdalen
Worst of all, in Brown’s eyes, is the fact that the pleasure-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating Church suppressed goddess worship and eliminated the divine feminine. He claims that goddess worship universally dominated pre-Christian paganism with the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as its central rite. His enthusiasm for fertility rites is enthusiasm for sexuality, not procreation. What else would one expect of a Cathar sympathizer?

Astonishingly, Brown claims that Jews in Solomon’s Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, via the services of sacred prostitutes—possibly a twisted version of the Temple’s corruption after Solomon (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Moreover, he says that the tetragrammaton YHWH derives from “Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.”

But as any first-year Scripture student could tell you, Jehovah is actually a 16th-century rendering of Yahweh using the vowels of Adonai (“Lord”). In fact, goddesses did not dominate the pre-Christian world—not in the religions of Rome, her barbarian subjects, Egypt, or even Semitic lands where the hieros gamos was an ancient practice. Nor did the Hellenized cult of Isis appear to have included sex in its secret rites.

Contrary to yet another of Brown’s claims, Tarot cards do not teach goddess doctrine. They were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century and didn’t acquire occult associations until the late 18th. Playing-card suites carry no Grail symbolism. The notion of diamonds symbolizing pentacles is a deliberate misrepresentation by British occultist A. E. Waite. And the number five—so crucial to Brown’s puzzles—has some connections with the protective goddess but myriad others besides, including human life, the five senses, and the Five Wounds of Christ.

Brown’s treatment of Mary Magdalene is sheer delusion. In The Da Vinci Code, she’s no penitent whore but Christ’s royal consort and the intended head of His Church, supplanted by Peter and defamed by churchmen. She fled west with her offspring to Provence, where medieval Cathars would keep the original teachings of Jesus alive. The Priory of Sion still guards her relics and records, excavated by the Templars from the subterranean Holy of Holies. It also protects her descendants—including Brown’s heroine.

Although many people still picture the Magdalen as a sinful woman who anointed Jesus and equate her with Mary of Bethany, that conflation is actually the later work of Pope St. Gregory the Great. The East has always kept them separate and said that the Magdalen, “apostle to the apostles,” died in Ephesus. The legend of her voyage to Provence is no earlier than the ninth century, and her relics weren’t reported there until the 13th. Catholic critics, including the Bollandists, have been debunking the legend and distinguishing the three ladies since the 17th century.

Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ’s “companion,” meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to “kiss her on the mouth” and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter’s reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that “women are not worthy of Life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

That’s certainly an odd way to “honor” one’s spouse or exalt the status of women.

The Knights Templar
Brown likewise misrepresents the history of the Knights Templar. The oldest of the military-religious orders, the Knights were founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. Their rule, attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, was approved in 1128 and generous donors granted them numerous properties in Europe for support. Rendered redundant after the last Crusader stronghold fell in 1291, the Templars’ pride and wealth—they were also bankers—earned them keen hostility.

Brown maliciously ascribes the suppression of the Templars to “Machiavellian” Pope Clement V, whom they were blackmailing with the Grail secret. His “ingeniously planned sting operation” had his soldiers suddenly arrest all Templars. Charged with Satanism, sodomy, and blasphemy, they were tortured into confessing and burned as heretics, their ashes “tossed unceremoniously into the Tiber.”

But in reality, the initiative for crushing the Templars came from King Philip the Fair of France, whose royal officials did the arresting in 1307. About 120 Templars were burned by local Inquisitorial courts in France for not confessing or retracting a confession, as happened with Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Few Templars suffered death elsewhere although their order was abolished in 1312. Clement, a weak, sickly Frenchman manipulated by his king, burned no one in Rome inasmuch as he was the first pope to reign from Avignon (so much for the ashes in the Tiber).

Moreover, the mysterious stone idol that the Templars were accused of worshiping is associated with fertility in only one of more than a hundred confessions. Sodomy was the scandalous—and possibly true—charge against the order, not ritual fornication. The Templars have been darlings of occultism since their myth as masters of secret wisdom and fabulous treasure began to coalesce in the late 18th century. Freemasons and even Nazis have hailed them as brothers. Now it’s the turn of neo-Gnostics.

Twisting da Vinci
Brown’s revisionist interpretations of da Vinci are as distorted as the rest of his information. He claims to have first run across these views “while I was studying art history in Seville,” but they correspond point for point to material in The Templar Revelation. A writer who sees a pointed finger as a throat-cutting gesture, who says the Madonna of the Rocks was painted for nuns instead of a lay confraternity of men, who claims that da Vinci received “hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions” (actually, it was just one…and it was never executed) is simply unreliable.

Brown’s analysis of da Vinci’s work is just as ridiculous. He presents the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait when it’s widely known to portray a real woman, Madonna Lisa, wife of Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo. The name is certainly not—as Brown claims—a mocking anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and L’Isa (Italian for Isis). How did he miss the theory, propounded by the authors of The Templar Revelation, that the Shroud of Turin is a photographed self-portrait of da Vinci?

Much of Brown’s argument centers around da Vinci’s Last Supper, a painting the author considers a coded message that reveals the truth about Jesus and the Grail. Brown points to the lack of a central chalice on the table as proof that the Grail isn’t a material vessel. But da Vinci’s painting specifically dramatizes the moment when Jesus warns, “One of you will betray me” (John 13:21). There is no Institution Narrative in St. John’s Gospel. The Eucharist is not shown there. And the person sitting next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene (as Brown claims) but St. John, portrayed as the usual effeminate da Vinci youth, comparable to his St. John the Baptist. Jesus is in the exact center of the painting, with two pyramidal groups of three apostles on each side. Although da Vinci was a spiritually troubled homosexual, Brown’s contention that he coded his paintings with anti-Christian messages simply can’t be sustained.

Brown’s Mess
In the end, Dan Brown has penned a poorly written, atrociously researched mess. So, why bother with such a close reading of a worthless novel? The answer is simple: The Da Vinci Code takes esoterica mainstream. It may well do for Gnosticism what The Mists of Avalon did for paganism—gain it popular acceptance. After all, how many lay readers will see the blazing inaccuracies put forward as buried truths?

What’s more, in making phony claims of scholarship, Brown’s book infects readers with a virulent hostility toward Catholicism. Dozens of occult history books, conveniently cross-linked by Amazon.com, are following in its wake. And booksellers’ shelves now bulge with falsehoods few would be buying without The Da Vinci Code connection. While Brown’s assault on the Catholic Church may be a backhanded compliment, it’s one we would have happily done without.

Sandra Miesel is a veteran Catholic journalist.




http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

WHAT DID LUTHER SAY?JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE

What did Luther say? Jesus and Mary Magdalene.("Mary Magdalene: A Biography")
From: The Christian Century | Date: 5/16/2006 | Author: Becker, Matthew

A recent New Yorker article on Mary Magdalene, obviously written with an eye on her role as Jesus' paramour in Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code, began by noting that "Brown is by no means the first to have suggested that Christ had a sex life--Martin Luther said it" (February 13-20). Bruce Chilton, an Episcopal scholar from Bard College, also makes this claim about Luther in Mary Magdalene: A Biography (2005). And a 2003 story in Time magazine declared that "Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married."

Did Luther really make these assertions? An electronic search of the digital edition of Luther's works, the massive Weimar Ausgabe (WA), uncovers no evidence that he did. Only two statements come even close to suggesting these unorthodoxies.

The first is a comment on Psalm 119:145 in which Luther interprets Mary Magdalene's actions at the tomb of Christ as an example of loving devotion. Mary "came beforehand at the dawn and with untimely haste and cried and called for her betrothed [sponsum] much more wonderfully in spirit than in the body. But I think that she alone might easily explain the Song of Songs."

Luther's Works: American Edition (LW) unfortunately mistranslates sponsum as "husband." In Luther's medieval monastic context, the word meant something different. The verb spondeo means "to pledge oneself to" or "to promise oneself to someone," as in "to pledge in the vow of marriage." The male form of the noun is "fiance" and the female form is "bride."

The full context of Luther's remark indicates that he was thinking allegorically. Influenced by mainstream allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, Luther viewed Mary as the prototypical disciple (a celibate nun?), the first "bride of Christ," who had made her vow of unconditional love and obedience to her sponsum ("betrothed," "groom"). Even today Roman Catholic nuns wear a ring to symbolize their betrothal to Christ. On another occasion Luther argued that all Christians are "brides of Christ" (LW 28:48). He certainly did not think Jesus and Mary were actually husband and wife. Several unambiguous statements in his writings clearly indicate that he held the traditional view that Jesus, like Paul, was celibate and chaste.

Seemingly more problematic is a small notation from John Schlagenhaufen, one of Luther's close friends, which contains a recollection of something Luther supposedly said informally at his Wittenberg dinner table in 1532:


Christ [as] adulterer. In the first instance
Jesus became an adulterer
with the woman at the well in John
4, because they say (no one understands),
"What is he doing with
her?" In the same way with Magdalena;
in the same way with the
adulteress of John 8, whom he let
off so easily. In that way the godly
Christ first of all must also become
an adulterer before he died. (WA
TR 6, 107, sec. 1472; cf. LW 54:154)
No one knows if Luther actually said this. The critical apparatus in the Weimar Ausgabe reveals the textual and grammatical problems in this supposed quotation. Schlagenhaufen recorded only a portion of what he remembered Luther to have said that day (and after how many beers?). No context is given.

Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154).

A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.

Trapped in a literalistic approach to Schlagenhaufen's contextless note, some readers have missed the metaphorical character of the remark, which Luther may have made, if he made it at all, with a twinkle in his eye. I'm confident that Luther would not be a fan of The Da Vinci Code--except perhaps with a beer in hand and that twinkle in his eye.

Matthew Becker teaches theology at Valparaiso University.

COPYRIGHT 2006 The Christian Century Foundation

For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:146175208

THE MAGDALENE LEGACY

A review of Laurence Gardner's The Magdalene Legacy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by

"Punkish"

|http://www.tektonics.org/books/maglegrvw.html


I don't need to say much about this one, which is mostly a rewrite of Gardner's previous book Bloodline of the Holy Grail. If you own that, I don't advise you part with your money on this as well. It also explores the same premise: it supposes Jesus was married - to Mary Magdalene of course.

A quick look at the bibliography is quite revealing: John Allegro, Baigent and Leigh, Rudolph Bultmann, Dupont-Sommer, Robert Eisenman, Riane Eisler, Knight and Lomas(!), G.R.S. Mead, Ahmed Osman, Morton Smith's Secret Mark, Barbara G. Walker(!!) and some of Gardner's previous books and other oddball or outdated works for sources. To be sure there are gems of scholarship as well, such as Michael Grant, but the combination is hardly satisfactory.

No Laurence Gardner book would be complete without the obligatory uncritical overuse of Barbara Thiering (whose work Jesus the Man is described as "the finest work for describing precisely how the Essene scribal codes work in practice"!, 315) or mention of the pretender Michael of Albany. Basically this is a compendium of Gardner's bad methodology and argumentation from his previous books stuffed into a single volume. Actually the book deals more with art and allegory than hard data.

There are some real howlers in this book - two examples should suffice:

He has Mary Magdalene performing something related to a pagan rite with Jesus! [158] Why would Jesus, a Jew, submit to such a thing?? This is not explained. (His sources for this claim: Margaret Starbird, who uses sculptor and art-history professor Merlin Stone; and Barbara G Walker, whose source dates from 1901!)
If you thought that was bad; try this, it is just amazing how Gardner can so misread a passage and interprets it exactly the opposite way as presented in the book. The passage reads:
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. (Qumran Temple Scroll) [127]

Gardner applies this to the events of the Crucifixion (may we ask what sin Jesus committed?) - even having Joseph of Arimathea supposedly getting Pilate to change how Christ is being executed to fit with the law in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 [126], as if Pilate would allow such a thing) and - this is the amazing part - interprets the scroll's last phrase as meaning "the alternate Jewish custom of burial alive"! Burial alive? The text's second line says "put to death", does it not? Further, Pilate, in Mark 15:42-45 asks for the centurion's confirmation that Jesus was dead. This is either a bizarre misreading or a deliberate attempt to push through a theory regardless of contrary data! (The theory being the vastly outdated swoon theory refuted by D F Strauss in the 1830s!)

He then goes on to claim the old canard that the accounts of the Resurrection are "very confusing". All miraculous gospel events are interpreted as non-supernatural in some way or other. Quoting a Dominican friar who thinks faith and evidence are two separate things. Uncritical use of Gnostic texts. The "Son of man" title means "a human being" [345 and he doesn't deal with Daniel 7 at all]. The usual stuff. The usual place for storage: the round filing basket.

Gardner also demonstrates he cannot do mathematics. [365] The circle-ratio constant pi is not equal to 3.1416! Nor is it constructed out of formulae using rational fractions. (That one was disproven in 1761!) I realise this is non-central to the book's thesis but if he cannot present indisputable facts properly why should his theories be believed?

Despite these errors in scholarship the book does have one interesting feature: its criticisms of Dan Brown's fictional novel, The Da Vinci Code. Now Gardner, before he turned his hand to writing the Holy Bloodline series, was an art restorer; hence he is qualified to discuss the da Vinci painting of the Last Supper, indeed showing Brown's book to be incorrect by relying on outdated information about the painting; information which was available at the time Brown wrote his novel! [266] There's also a chapter on the Priory of Sion, in which Gardner pegs Brown for more errors despite acknowledging the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction.

And so, again, Laurence Gardner's conspiracy-based work is to be considered a waste of time - except for the novel entrance of some critical thinking which is to be encouraged; whether this will be applied by Gardner in future works (or even by fellow bloodline theorists) - instead of the par-for-the-course uncritical lunacy - remains to be seen.

Mrs.JESUS

Mrs. Jesus

The juiciest part of the Da Vinci conspiracy is the assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a secret marriage that produced a child, perpetuating his bloodline. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene's womb, carrying Jesus' offspring, is presented in the book as the legendary Holy Grail, a secret closely held by a Catholic organization called the Priory of Sion. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci were all cited as members.

Romance. Scandal. Intrigue. Great stuff for a conspiracy theory. But is it true? Let's look at what scholars say.

A Newsweek magazine article, that summarized leading scholars' opinions, concluded that the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married has no historical basis.15 The proposal set forth in The Da Vinci Code is built primarily upon one solitary verse in the Gospel of Philip that indicates Jesus and Mary were companions. In the book, Teabing tries to build a case that the word for companion (koinonos) could mean spouse. But Teabing's theory is not accepted by scholars.

There is also a single verse in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus kissed Mary. Greeting friends with a kiss was common in the first century, and had no sexual connotation. But even if The Da Vinci Code interpretation is correct, there is no other historical document to confirm its theory. And since the Gospel of Philip is a forged document written 150-220 years after Christ by an unknown author, its statement about Jesus isn't historically reliable.

Perhaps the Gnostics felt the New Testament was a bit shy on romance and decided to sauce it up a little. Whatever the reason, this isolated and obscure verse written two centuries after Christ isn't much to base a conspiracy theory upon. Interesting reading perhaps, but definitely not history.

As to the Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion, Brown's fictional account again distorts history. The legendary Holy Grail was supposedly Jesus' cup at his last supper, and had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene. And Leonardo da Vinci never could have known about the Priory of Sion, since it wasn't founded until 1956, 437 years after his death. Again, interesting fiction, but phony history.


The "Secret" Documents

But what about Teabing's disclosure that "thousands of secret documents" prove that Christianity is a hoax? Could this be true?

If there were such documents, scholars opposed to Christianity would have a field day with them. Fraudulent writings that were rejected by the early church for heretical views are not secret, having been known about for centuries. No surprise there. They have never been considered part of the authentic writings of the apostles.

And if Brown (Teabing) is referring to the apocryphal, or infancy Gospels, that cat is also out of the bag. They are not secret, nor do they disprove Christianity. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels, "We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus' ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his."18

Unlike the Gnostic gospels, whose authors are unknown and who were not eyewitnesses, the New Testament we have today has passed numerous tests for authenticity. (Click to read Jesus.doc) The contrast is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories. New Testament historian F. F. Bruce wrote, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."19

New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger revealed why the Gospel of Thomas was not accepted by the early church: "It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by some fiat on the part of a council: the right way to put it is, the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy."17

THE JESUS CONSPIRACY

The Jesus Conspiracy

The Da Vinci Code begins with the murder of a French museum curator named Jacques Sauniere. A scholarly Harvard professor and a beautiful French cryptologist are commissioned to decipher a message left by the curator before his death. The message turns out to reveal the most profound conspiracy in the history of humankind: a cover-up of the true message of Jesus Christ by a secret arm of the Roman Catholic Church called Opus Dei.

Before his death, the curator had evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although (according to the plot) the church tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings such as the Mona Lisa and Last Supper by da Vinci, in the architecture of cathedrals, even in Disney cartoons. The book’s main claims are these:

The Roman emperor Constantine conspired to deify Jesus Christ.
Constantine personally selected the books of the New Testament.
The Gnostic gospels were banned by men to suppress women.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married and had a child.
Thousands of secret documents disprove key points of Christianity.
Brown reveals his conspiracy through the book’s fictional expert, British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing. Presented as a wise old scholar, Teabing reveals to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325 “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon,” including the divinity of Jesus.
“Until that moment in history,” he says, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”

Neveu is shocked. “Not the Son of God?” she asks.

Teabing explains: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”

“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing tells the stunned cryptologist.2
So, according to Teabing, Jesus was not regarded as God until the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, when the real records of Jesus were allegedly banned and destroyed. Thus, according to the theory, the entire foundation of Christianity rests upon a lie.

The Da Vinci Code has sold its story well, drawing comments from readers such as “If it were not true it could not have been published!” Another said he would “never set foot in a church again.” A reviewer of the book praised it for its “impeccable research.”3 Pretty convincing for a fictional work.

http://y-jesus.com/monalisa_2.php

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE DA VINCI CONSPIRACY

Mona Lisa's Smirk
The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Conspiracy

The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus' identity is true. So what is the truth? Let's take a look.

Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?
Was Jesus' divinity invented by Constantine and the church?
Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?
Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?
Has a gigantic conspiracy resulted in the reinvention of Jesus? According to the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, that is exactly what happened. Several of the book's assertions regarding Jesus smack of conspiracy. For example, the book states:
Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.1
Could this shocking assertion from Dan Brown's best-selling book be true? Or is the premise behind it just the stuff of a good conspiracy novel--on a par with a belief that aliens crash-landed at Roswell, New Mexico, or that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Either way, the story is compelling. No wonder Brown's book has become one of the best-selling stories of the decade and is predicted to become one of the top movies of all time.

http://y-jesus.com/monalisa.php