What do you think?

After seeing The DaVinci Code...

Sorry if its been done before....

There is no record of suck a thing. There isn't even a reliable record of his existence.

Well youre wrong about 2 things... one there is a record of his existence by the Romans... and secondly... there is no more evidence that he did than he didnt...

i think your subconscious wants you to come out of the closet




i don't think there is any contemporary record. if you know of written evidence that he existed (roman or otherwise) that is proven to be contemporary i'd appreciate knowing the specifics.

http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html


its a start

http://www.geocities.com/7life/Jesusevidence.html

the second one about a quarter of the way down.. the bolded on the left

none of that is contemporary. i'm aware there was lots written about jesus after his supposed death - most scholars do think there is enough corroboration to indicate that he probably existed as a historical figure. i'm not aware of any irrefutable contemporary evidence that he existed, though.

also on an interesting side note (sorry if this is in the da vinci code, i haven't seen or read it yet) the shoud of tourin is a proven fake - it has been scientifically dated to roughly the time of da vinci, seems to have originated near where he lived, and it could have actually been created by da vinci himself.

There is also no evidence showing that Jesus did not have seven sets of conjoined twins, but it would be ridiculous to argue that he did.

Odds are yes. Jesus was Jewish. In those days, a good Jew married and had children. Therefore, since by all accounts Jesus was a good Jew, Jesus married and had children.

Yeah, but that's not speaking in terms of likelihood, as HtotheNootch pointed out, if Jesus was just a regular guy in those times, then he would be married with kids/

i think thats the most important fact... if im not mistaken wouldnt it have been a really big deal if he was NOT married back then? I mean wasnt it more normal to be married and it would clearly state that he wasnt because it was so unnatural? He did have brothers and sisters too didnt he?

i can't believe you posted this
good post though

But its refutable because there is evidence he existed as a person

But he wasn't just a regular guy.....he was an ascetic.

Actually, evidence suggest he was far from an ascetic.

This ties in with the whole "humble carpenter" thing that's somehow been attributed to Jesus. Carpenters were not poor people in that era. They were independent tradesmen who were capable of a good living. I don't remember chapter and verse, but you can find reference to "servants" (which in the original Greek is more accurately translated as slaves). Poor people don't have slaves/servants.

Both of those links refer (in the case of the first, inititally) to Josephus.

You need to do some research. The Josephus passage is widely accepted by scholars, both Christian and non-Christian to be a forgery.

Secondly, any references written about him after his date of death cannot be logically considered evidence, no more than ancient Greek texts discussing Hercules prove his or Zeus' existance.

These 2 simple points refute everything you have put forward as evidence.

Show something from Jesus's time, a single Roman record for example (from a society that were meticulus for record keeping) and you would have an valid argument.

As to your original question, the Da Vinci code is a work of fiction that gets it's appeal from rumours and innuendo regarding secret societies that may or may not have independant theories as to Jesus's life.

There is nothing to suggest, assuming he lived of course, that he did or did not have children or siblings. Just because DaVinci may have painted Mary Magdalan sitting with Jesus in The Last Supper, it hardly means she was actually seated there 1500 years earlier

From what little information I have, I was under the impression that scholars believed that the passage contained additions and was altered, but that in general it was accepted as fairly reliable evidence to Jesus's existence, if not to much else about him.

Isn't this the same line of thinking that atheists despise when Christians use "you can't prove there ISN'T a God"?

I suggest you do some looking around then. Whilst the contents of the document as are whole are considered to be authentic in the original form, it is generally agreed that 2 passages are false additions.

Interestingly one of these is the only passage that refers directly to Jesus, the other discusses his brother James, which for some reason, Christians touting the proof of Christ fail to mention

So ignoring the fact that the document was published in 93AD and is definately not contemporary ie heresay, you have 1 of 2 choices:

The document is accurate and Jesus had a brother or the document has been tampered with.

I mean once he became a religious person wandering around with John the Baptist.




That's what I was sayin.

of course he didnt. Jesus (and im talking from a Chrisitan) was so perfect that he didnt need to give into temptations such as sex.
and plus that would put the whole trinity thing way off.

(from a non-Christian point of view) i just dont think its plausable that someone would have a child with him. most thought he was either a crack-pot or belived he was too divine. not gonna happen


that is in their religion. Jesus was not a jew by religion, he was a jew by culture he was born into that line of family. There is the jew as in religion and Jew as in the race, culture and family.

yes, he did, and his name is godboy and he survives to this very day..the miracle we have all been waiting to witness

He survives, but serves the forces of evil.

That's why him and Hellboy are sworn enemies.

you can stop right there. don't take anything in the Da Vinci Code to heart, or as even a half-truth. Almost none of it is proven, and most ranges from highly suspect to downright fiction.




i make it a point not to insult or flame unnecessarily, but you cross certain lines. i am quite certain that you have FCP's homepage in your favourites and that someone put it there for you, since i don't believe you are literate enough to type it in yourself on a consistent basis. and i'm not just talking about bad grammar here. you have so little clue about anything discussed, and your opinion of so little value on nearly every single topic that you discuss regardless, that your consistent presence amazes me.

again, i am careful not to insult unnecessarily, but i have never read a post of yours that was not completely useless, as it was either illegible, missed the point entirely, or presented information so simple, false, confused or useless as to be a slap in the face to every person who has furthered humans' ability to communicate with each other.

Who benefits from a celibate Jesus? The Catholic Church, thats who. Who suffers from a celibate Jesus? The Catholic Church, thats who. Hmmm maybe this Dan Brown is a clever tactician secretly trying to confront The Catholic Church on the proable realitiess of a human Jesu's life. A human Jesus, you know a guy out fighting for humanity. A guy Pilot was afraid of. but what do I know.. I am no scholar.

hmm I vote yes.

This poll is biased

Very much so. It is a yes or no question with 3 possible answers, 2 of which are yes. If that doesn't influence a voter, I don't know what does.