WAS JESUS MARRIED?

We knew Dan Brown wanted to make a living by writing novels and perhaps want a little space on popularity wagon but please not to the extent of making outright lies and making a fool of his readers.

  Mr. Brown is making some bogus claims on his novel and brag that they are factual.I am just wondering where he is getting all his historical research? Did he ever step inside a library? 

   We knew he had some architectural blunder and even geographically lost in making the plot of his two novel (Angels & Demon and Da Vinci Code). Even if I had not been to Rome, I could easily check the map and that this guy is inventing a location. He even had big errors on names and locations of places. Well if you want to read more about some of the obvious error he had written in his book read my blog  DA VINCI CODE IS A BOOK FULL OF LIES 

    There is just something in the book that irritate me so much. His claim that some Gnostic gospel actually prove that Jesus is married, and another claims he wrote is that the Catholic Church decided what are the content of the Holy Bible thru the Council of Nicea.

   Before, we debunk the "in a relationship status" of Jesus let me first clarify the issue of Council of Nicea. I'm making it short on this real fact: The Council of Nicea was formed not to discuss the Divinity of Jesus but the growing misunderstanding between two Catholic factions. It has nothing to do with what book to include on the Standard Bible the people are enjoying for more than 300 years. In reality, less than a 100 years after Jesus died...the Apostle had already organized almost similar Bible we had now with the four inspired Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (More info you can Google The Council of Nicea; just in case you doubt my claims) 

   Now let's jump into the terrible crime of Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons; against Christian faith. The claim that Jesus is married to Magdalene. 

   Now, granting the main passage Brown uses as support was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit even though it was taken from a Gnostic gospel, it still does not directly imply anything about Jesus and Mary of Magdala. Brown was specifically pointing from the Gospel of Philip. Imagine the cinematic effect while Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) listen to this revelation...a secret kept by the Knights Templar like King Arthur that Mary of Magdala is the Holy Grail herself or the vessel that carry Jesus bloodline.

   First, unlike the four gospels, history points out that this supposedly gospel written by Philip was compose during the 2nd half of the 3rd century. More or less 300 years after Jesus ministry. In no way, this could be associated with apostle Philip and that is physically impossible. That alone make us suspicious when Brown or Langdon claims it was written by one of Jesus disciples. 

   Let us examine the passage he is referring to from the archive. 

   Gospel of Philip 63:32 and 64:10...

   The key part of the text is broken at 63:33-36 and reads (Ellipses represent the broken locations in the manuscript and may signify missing words or phrases),    “And the companion of the…Mary Magdalene…her more than…the disciples…kiss her…on her…”.   The passage that Brown uses as his premise has many missing elements. 

Brown adds his own words to this manuscript to support point. Brown uses this manuscript and his imagination to say that Jesus was married to and had sex with Mary Magdalene. No serious scholar or serious historian who understands the complexities of Bible and extra-biblical exegesis would call this skillful academic interpretation. -- http://www.allaboutgod.com

Historical Record of Jesus Marriage

   Would it be a paradoxical mistake from Gospel writers and even non-Christian Historian like Josephus and Tacitus (Two famous historian of Jewish and Roman Ancient History) not to mention the wife of Jesus in compiling records of his life?  

   Now during Jesus trials and death, there was not even a hint that Mary Magdalene had any special role except that she was among the first who saw Christ resurrected.. Obviously, as a wife she could have been mention as such who is grieving like Mary the mother of Jesus. At the cross, it would be irresponsible and uncaring for Jesus to his wife not to even speak a word to her but instead said to John, "Son, behold thy mother...." 

   I think this verse could have made more impact if Jesus said, "My wife, behold thy mother." Plainly, Jesus did not even speak to her, in spite the fact that she was there on the cross witnessing his death.

   Dan Brown, is making an assumption from myth and legends turning them into truth. These fable were baseless and had been form to deteriorate Christianity. You can read "Stolen Identity of Jesus" for further reading, on who's responsible in the Black-propaganda against Jesus Christ. 

   If Jesus had wife again, it would have been used by Paul also as defense regarding his right to have a wife... 

1 Corinthians 9:5
⁵ Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas...

   "If Jesus had a wife, why shouldn't I?" This would have hit his detractor right in their faces instead of using Peter and James (The brother of Jesus) as his example. But obviously Paul can't use that argument because Jesus is celibate. 
   Additional on this apologetic is very plain, when you are writing a biography of a person would you miss an important person in his relationship status? His family were all recorded, mother, father, half-brothers and half-sisters were all mentioned but NO WIFE. (Read also The Virgin Mary Tale)

   If Jesus lives during our time, would his Facebook status wrote: it's complicated? Not at all, that would be the work of an identity theft. I think Dan Brown should be charge guilty of that offense. 

What is Gnostic?

The term "gnostic" derives from "gnosis," which means "knowledge" in Greek. The Gnostics believed that they were privy to a secret knowledge about the divine, hence the name. The Gnostic gospels, then, concern themselves with the way to achieve divine knowledge, which is through completely human means.