Huge topic of the time, the idea that the Holy Jesus and Mary Magdeline a former prostitute would have a family. I personally don't see anything wrong with the concept, but i thought it'd be a good debate topic.

What i think it is really not that Jesus would have a child, but he actually had sex. And no matter what people say it easy to tell that society sees sex as an impure act, and the fact that a Holy figure could not ever have engaged in an impure act.

that's just my opinion on the topic, the real deal is the fact that there is absolutely nothing that points to the fact that this DID happen, but it's still an interesting concept and very well possible

The trouble is that Christians see this holy profit figure as actually being a manifestation of their god. And if he actually was a manifestation in manly disguise, then that makes sex extremely unlikely, even silly, because it has zero procreative purpose and pleasure is irrelevant.

So from a biblical perspective, it’s a non-issue.

If we’re talking logically and historically though, instead of spiritually; it seems that Jesus was a man who gathered quite a following to his ideas of reformed Judaism. Being a man he probably did all those manly things, like drinking, fighting and having sex. He probably didn’t take a wife or have any children though. There are lots of records and accounts from that time, as well as wild and wacky stories, and you could be sure there’d be a lot about his wife and kids if he’d had any.

Mary Magdeline does get mad respect from the eastern orthodox Christians.

The story is something like - Mary suggests Jesus will be ressurected and she is disbelieved, it's stated that Jesus would ressurect as surely as the egg Mary was holding would turn instantly red. Sure enough, the egg turns red. In Mary Magdelane's iconography, she's routinely holding a red egg. This ties into egg decorating at easter too.

Did Jesus father a child? Didn't Garth Ennis cover this territory years ago in Preacher?

We should probably point out that The Da Vinci Code says that Mary Magdaline WAS NOT a prostitute, and that was a LIE told by the Christians in charge to marginalize her position with Jesus (SHE was supposed to lead the church, not Peter). That is the theory, not that Jesus got a prosititute pregnant.

The argument is was Jesus DEVINE or just HUMAN?

I saw the movie yesterday. It was very good.
I am Catholic (non-practicing), and I have my doubts about certain things. I think the people that boycott and protest things like this are idiots, though. Their argument is that this should not even be shown, even though the author claims it's fictional.

The real reply to these morons should be "How deep is your faith?" If everything you believe in can be shaken by a movie or an idea, what does that say about YOU? :wink:

.: SpANG! :.

I heard this movie was terrible from the reviewers...

Anyway, it's like a giant game of Telephone. Who knows if any of this stuff about Jesus was true? And who cares if someone makes a book/movie off of a fictional idea?

ccs1989
I heard this movie was terrible from the reviewers...

I know. I think it was more like they didn't want to stir up any controversy themselves. Or they are part of the religious fanatics that want the film boycotted.

You can't get a good movie crit these days. Ebert and Roeper always say Disney films are great because they are owned by Disney.

The film wasn't fantastic, but was very, very good. The camera work and sound track were excellent. Tom Hanks also did a great job, and there were some great supporting actors as well. It was a bit predictable, and there were soem "lucky they did that" areas. :wink:

FinbarReilly
I really, really wouln't base anything off the movie. There have been a number of specials due to and focusing on the movie, usually highlighting some interesting factual issues...

It's a great movie, but it's a true work of fiction...

FR

And therein lies the question. What are the Christians of the world afraid of, then? :wink:

.: SpANG! :.

SpANG!
And therein lies the question. What are the Christians of the world afraid of, then? :wink:

Everything. :shock:

No... They just don't like people misrepresenting their faith. That's pretty comon, most religious groups don't like aspects of their faith misrepresented. Most organisations, groups, governments, towns, cities, individuals, and families don't like their image (beliefs, histories, etc.), misrepresented or mischaracterised to the public. It's perfectly normal and understandable.

It's perfectly normal and understandable.

To supress freedom of speech for your own religion? I guess. But these are the same people that would scream the loudest if THEIR freedoms were supressed.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees. :wink:

.: SpANG! :.

My main gripe about the movie is that people would much rather learn about Christianity from The DaVinci Code then from the Bible or history books. There are people out there who would contribute to religious discussions by saying "well, I've never read the Bible but I did read The DaVinci Code..."

Which drives me up the walls sometimes since it's a double whammy for me. It hurts me as an English major that people can't tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction. (In a way, I can't blame them though...Dan Brown had stated in his book that all architecture, art, documents, and rituals in his book are accurate.) It ticks me off sometimes that people think they got me all religiously figured out because of some fictional book/movie.

People boycott and protest movies all the time and I don't see how this is any different just because these groups of protesters happen to be Christian. It's not as if they actually have the power to take the movie/book off the market, nor is it the obligation of a Christian to read/watch/approve of every single thing that disputes their faith. Like Ozoneocean suggested, most people don't like being misrepresented.

Personally, I saw the movie yesterday and the only two things I thought were really good was Ian McKellen and the reenactment scenes. Everything else was okay and I'm glad I didn't pay that much for the ticket.

.: Black Kitty :.

"The DaVinci Code" was sold as a fictional story, based on existing - if somewhat suspect - theory. Therefore, it should be enjoyed (or not) like any other work of fiction. I see this as in the same vein as JFK (glaringly biased, but a fun romp through the many conspiracies).

I think the biggest fear the Church has is of the several truths that were peppered within the story. Mainly, the meeting 400 years after Jesus' death where a group of religious leaders decided what writings of and about Jesus should and shouldn't be included in the New Testament.

For many Catholics, this is new information. Just as many don't know that it wasn't decided until the 1800s that Jesus' mother Mary was a virgin, and so was her mother.

That sort of thing can shake someone who thought the Bible stories were written in stone.

Black Kitty
My main gripe about the movie is that people would much rather learn about Christianity from The DaVinci Code then from the Bible or history books.

.. And who says they aren't works of fiction themselves? Can you prove it?

.: SpANG! :.

SpANG!

Black Kitty
My main gripe about the movie is that people would much rather learn about Christianity from The DaVinci Code then from the Bible or history books.

.. And who says they aren't works of fiction themselves? Can you prove it?

So The Da Vinci Code and a typical history textbook are on the same level of accuracy?

You can argue that the Bible is a fictional piece of work as well so The Da Vinci Code is just as accurate since both are fictional...to a point. Christianity isn't based on just any fictional book, it's based on one particular book. If one wanted to learn about Jesus and the Christian viewpoint of who Jesus Christ is, which book should a person consult? The Da Vinci Code or the Bible? Which book is used for Sunday masses around the world? Which book is considered to be a religious text? Which book came first?

If people want to learn about Christianity, they should consider reading the Bible not necessarily because it's factual but because the whole religion runs on and interprets that book. It's easier to argue that God doesn't exist then the fact that a Christian's religious text is the Bible.

.: Black Kitty :.

These are not presented as theories, and Brown has defended their validity. To Brown, these are facts, and he has presented them as such. Ad that's the issue.

And the bible is fact... According to what valid source?

You can argue that the Bible is a fictional piece of work as well so The Da Vinci Code is just as accurate since both are fictional...to a point. Christianity isn't based on just any fictional book, it's based on one particular book. If one wanted to learn about Jesus and the Christian viewpoint of who Jesus Christ is, which book should a person consult? The Da Vinci Code or the Bible? Which book is used for Sunday masses around the world? Which book is considered to be a religious text? Which book came first?

Just because something is widely accepted for years does not solidify it's validity.

• - Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ... manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." In the Bible, slaves (servants in the KJV) are the rightful property of slave-owners; they are his possessions -- like an ox or an ass.
  
  - Leviticus 21:16-23 (Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. )
  
  - Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
  
  - Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own.
  There are tons of passages in the Bible like this, yet, we don't believe them anymore. Well, hopefully.
  
  The Bible was written by MAN, not God. That's what makes it just as questionable as anything else.
  
  .: SpANG! :.

That's an interesting route to take SPAng!; that you can say anything about Christians because you don't believe The Bible, and therefore any "fact" you come up with is historically accurate. If the Christians made it up, so can I.

I didn't write those passages. Yes, they are mostly sumations, but it does give you the gyst. Look it up yourself (that's why I gave you the refrence numbers, btw).

And I never SAID I don't believe the Bible, I just don't believe in certain parts of it. Just like you. :wink:

I believe in freedom of expression. But when that freedom is used to attack someone, I think that person needs to be sued.

Hey, who'd you vote for? :P

The Da Vinci Code may be a work of fiction, but it hasn't been presented as such, and in that regard nees to be reigned in...

That's what it's LISTED as. Go to a book store and check it out.

.: SpANG! :.

SpANG!
Just because something is widely accepted for years does not solidify it's validity.

In this case, yes it does solidify its validity. I'm not arguing whether the Bible is true, factual or even historical. I'm arguing that the Bible is the book commonly used by Christians everywhere and widely accepted as sacred Christian writings. Millions of Christians and countless number of churches use the Bible for religious purposes. The Bible is recognized as a Christian text even by non-Christians.

The fact that many modern Christians do not follow everything in the Bible to the letter is irrelevant in this context because despite this, the Bible is still the widely accepted and recognized text by both Christians and non-Christians. The same however, cannot be said of The Da Vinci Code.

So when people tell me that they read The Da Vinci Code and imply that it's just as good as reading the Bible when it comes to understanding Christianity...it's the equivalant to telling me that they saw Shakespeare in Love so now they know everything there is to know about Shakespeare and his plays.

The Bible was written by MAN, not God. That's what makes it just as questionable as anything else.

In that sense, everything is written and created by man, including God Himself.

.: Black Kitty :.

So when people tell me that they read The Da Vinci Code and imply that it's just as good as reading the Bible when it comes to understanding Christianity...

Well, I give you that. I'm sure there is much more deception and lies in the Bible that The Da Vinci Code doesn't even explore. Good point.

.: SpANG! :.

I don't propose myself as an expert on the Bible so I'm not going to suggest one way or another in regards to deception. What I personally believe however is that regardless of whether or not Jesus and Mary married and had children, the fundamental beliefs of Christianity doesn't change.

Neither am I really convinced that the Church is afraid. I think there was more fear and deception with the pedophilic priests scandals then there are about a novel that uses old ideas that were and still are widely accessible to the general public.

.: Black Kitty :.

I thought it was a pretty good book, I left it at that. :D

No need to wonder about something that may or may not be true about a history that may or may not had happened.

..well, at least for me.

.: Myxomatosis :.

FinbarReilly

SpANG!
Well, I give you that. I'm sure there is much more deception and lies in the Bible that The Da Vinci Code doesn't even explore. Good point.

Er...WHAT?

Sorry, but you've crossed the line from "intelligent discussion" to "attacking". It's a major leap from "allegorical" to "full of deception and lies". Just because you don't respect something doesn't mean that you should slander it. If your trying to show that there is a problem, don't use convenient quotes; use the entire thing. A lot of the rules and regs as put forward in the OT were effectively repealed in the New; seen a lot of sacrficing of doves any time recently?

The Da Vinci Code at no point explores your perceived "lies and deceptions"; it makes up its own. The marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalen is something that just didn't happen; even the Gnostic books have a problem showing that there was an any actual relationship. Worse, it shrouds it in a non-existance conspiracy theory that maligns certain groups. And somehow it has been taken seriously...

FR

"lies and deceptions of the Bible" might be too strong. More like factual distortions and omissions to maintain the narrative.

As for whether Jesus was married and had kids, there's no proof either way. Because proof would be some sort of historical record, of which there is very little in that area at that time period.

So instead you get ancient writings, all of which were written well after Jesus had died. There's no proof that any of the books of the Bible were even written by the original apostles (or even that we got who the original apostles right).

Like all things with religion, faith is required to believe that the Bible is even slightly accurate is required.

Which is fine. But the DaVinci code uses one of the oldest conspiracy theories - unproven and probably unprovable - and makes a thriller out of it.

But for people to get mad that there are other things that other people believe is ... oh, right, that's basically the purpose of organized religion. Forget I said anything. ;)

P.S. Remember the same people got mad about the Harry Potter movies as well. Probably because of the part where Harry summoned Jesus and they did bong hits all night.

Ronson
"lies and deceptions of the Bible" might be too strong. More like factual distortions and omissions to maintain the narrative.

As for whether Jesus was married and had kids, there's no proof either way. Because proof would be some sort of historical record, of which there is very little in that area at that time period.

So instead you get ancient writings, all of which were written well after Jesus had died. There's no proof that any of the books of the Bible were even written by the original apostles (or even that we got who the original apostles right).

Like all things with religion, faith is required to believe that the Bible is even slightly accurate is required.

Which is fine. But the DaVinci code uses one of the oldest conspiracy theories - unproven and probably unprovable - and makes a thriller out of it.

But for people to get mad that there are other things that other people believe is ... oh, right, that's basically the purpose of organized religion. Forget I said anything. ;)

P.S. Remember the same people got mad about the Harry Potter movies as well.

I have to argee with ronson here...
there's NO real proof from back then. Heck, Jesus was an popular name back then too, so you had like different types of guys named Jesus running around back then too at that. Mary was also a popular name, hence the many different types of mary ladies metioned in the bible.
So there's records of guys named Jesus, but did one jesus really exist where he could do all those amazing feats, or was those stories highly exgerrated by some people who were admirers of some guy named Jesus who were simply an priest/teacher type person who were simply just trying to do good?

so that's why I don't take the bible and such seriously. hell, it isn't even written by jesus, just after his death. I get the feeling that if it had been written by this Jesus person, the bible would be WAY much different.
just a feeling I have.

and yes, the kind of people who takes that book seriously is the kind of people who also bashed harry potter because supposedly it was luring innocent kids into a world of satanism, witchcraft or something. :roll:

I don’t think it's a good idea to turn a "discussion" of the da Vinci code into a bible knocking thread. It's one of the founding documents of Western civilisation, weather you're religious or not (which I am not) it's a very important text!
Of course there are crazy illogical stories in it, and contradictory statements, these are very old writings which a lot of people had a hand in creating. I'd be very worried about it if there were no contradictions or hypocrisy and everything seemed like some kind of logical ordered plan; that would suggest it was deliberately created to make people think in a certain way... As it is it's a genuine article and a good record of the history of some very turbulent events.
For at least 1700 years Christianity has been the main driving and unifying force in all Western culture, with the bible at the centre of that. Its importance cannot be overstated,

As for records of the time Jesus lived (or is supposed to have lived), there are enough. The Romans kept a lot of records, they’re known for it. The Greeks are famous for it too, as well as the Jews. You even have the Dead Sea scrolls that mention Jesus. Even the Muslims recognise his existence; they consider him to be one of their prophets. No one mentions children, at all.

Think on this: Traditionally Kings and rulers will justify their supremacy by claiming divine decent. I don’t know of any monarchy that claims decent from Jesus.

As a work of popular creative fiction “the da Vinci code” doesn’t really need to be looked at seriously, the silly misconceptions and crazy ideas that people hit upon after reading it do need to be addressed though. Or so it seems.

ozoneocean
I don’t think it's a good idea to turn a "discussion" of the da Vinci code into a bible knocking thread. It's one of the founding documents of Western civilisation, weather you're religious or not (which I am not) it's a very important text!

I disagree. Unless people want to discuss actual scenes of the movie - which were done fairly well (especially the flashbacks of history) - the point of the DaVinci Code -- and the book that inspired it "Holy Blood/Holy Grail" -- is to think about where the Bible came from.

And the simple truth is that this book came from men, like all other books. It is not a historical interpretation of events, but rather a biased interpretation of events that happened a long time before they were written down.

From there, you can make up your own mind as to how much of the Bible you want to believe.

Of course there are crazy illogical stories in it, and contradictory statements, these are very old writings which a lot of people had a hand in creating. I'd be very worried about it if there were no contradictions or hypocrisy and everything seemed like some kind of logical ordered plan; that would suggest it was deliberately created to make people think in a certain way... As it is it's a genuine article and a good record of the history of some very turbulent events.

It's actually a horrible record of history. Which is my point.

For at least 1700 years Christianity has been the main driving and unifying force in all Western culture, with the bible at the centre of that. Its importance cannot be overstated,

And it has been used as the main driving and dividing force against those who don't believe it or didn't know about it. It was used to justify slavery, racism and sexism at the same time it was used for unification.

As for records of the time Jesus lived (or is supposed to have lived), there are enough. The Romans kept a lot of records, they’re known for it. The Greeks are famous for it too, as well as the Jews. You even have the Dead Sea scrolls that mention Jesus. Even the Muslims recognise his existence; they consider him to be one of their prophets. No one mentions children, at all.

Exactly. There are better historical records that contradict the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls are still hotly debated, but I believe that one talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters and I could have sworn it also mentions that Jesus was married. But I am obviously wrong.

Think on this: Traditionally Kings and rulers will justify their supremacy by claiming divine decent. I don’t know of any monarchy that claims decent from Jesus.

So perhaps Jesus didn't have heirs. Still, lack of evidence isn't evidence. But this is an interesting statement because it's again displays the other side of the Bible as a propaganda tool used by men to fool their people into thinking they have a "divine" insight. Political and religious leaders have tinkered with the Bible whenever they wanted to shape society to their will.

As a work of popular creative fiction “the da Vinci code” doesn’t really need to be looked at seriously, the silly misconceptions and crazy ideas that people hit upon after reading it do need to be addressed though. Or so it seems.

Fair enough. But remember that the "silly" misconceptions and "crazy" ideas are in the eyes of the beholder. Wars have been started over less (well, not really. Wars are started for economic reasons and they use these misconceptions and ideas as a cover...but that's a whole 'nuther thread).

And again, there is enough "silly" misconceptions and "crazy" ideas in the Bible. I find it amusing that the ideas brought forth in "The DaVinci Code" are considered "crazier" and "sillier" even though they don't include or require the suspension of disbelief the Bible requires due to the many "miracles" that allegedly occured.

Personally, I don't believe either. But "The DaVinci Code" is probably the better written fictional account.

I actually did hear of Jesus having an brother... one that eventally got married and had kids while jesus was out there teaching people.

but anyway, don't mind me...

Mr. Neil

FinbarReilly
However, why is The Bible the only holy book required to be historically accurate?

Revelation 22:18-19

18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the book of this prophecy, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Oh, well! The writers of the Bible write IN the Bible that it's all true, it must be. Yep. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

.: SpANG! :.

Bashing religion can be fun, but it's also very easy and not worth spending time on in a debate. However, I do love anti-religious and anti-bible arguments that actually make me support religion and the Christian bible. :lol:

I don't believe in any religious teachings, or the divine authority of any text. But I also have nothing at all against the idea of religion and nothing against any of the 5 big main organised religions specifically. People need to believe in things, spirituality is part of who we are as a species, organised religion is a great tie to our past traditions and historical origins, as well as a good community binder, (in exactly the same way as government, social clubs, labour movements, sporting teams etc.).

Where I have trouble is with zealots and proselytising. The religious ones are particularly odious. But a zealous anti-religious proselytiser is almost as unpleasant.
Try to keep a balance and a good sense of perspective.

mlai
That's my point. If you're gonna believe in a religion, how can you pick and choose what you want from it? Did God say you can pick 5 commandments out of the 10 to follow? You can't be a part-time Christian and expect to get in Heaven. That's self-delusion, until the day you are cast into Hell along with the atheists, with you screaming "WTFFFFFFF~??" all the way down.

Sure there are things in the Bible that seem "outdated," "allegorical," and "unreasonable." Who are you to judge? Obviously God thought it's reasonable; you gonna tell Him "but I thought it was metaphorical crap so I ripped that page out"? Whoever said your God is reasonable? If I devote my life to good works but I don't believe in Christ, I still go to Hell. So what makes you think you can just ignore what you think is "unreasonable," and not go to Hell???

Ppl today have it too convenient. Fundamentalists of all religions have the right attitude. Religion isn't supposed to be liberal and malleable. Religion isn't about personal freedom. That's why there's separation of church and state.

actually, a lot of the "outdated" things are in a part of the bible that is said to have been rendered useless by Jesus. the way I understood it, it was said that Jesus himself that said many certain parts weren't meant to be followed anymore and even listed it as such.
so, Christians aren't being hypocritical or being only a part-time Christan unless they actually choose to follow the outdated parts and choose to ignore jesus's words despite the fact that they believe in Jesus and claim to follow his teachings.

Mr. Neil
always worth the time. Especially when you know exactly what people are going to say.

Actually, arguments that make me stick up for the Bible make me angry. It's like people don't understand that the point of being skeptic is to NOT be every bit as insane as the people you're criticizing. There are lots of reasons to be a skeptic without resorting to outlandish conspiracy theories, such as that of the Priory of Sion hoax.

Like I said... The best resource for making skeptical arguments: The Bible itself.

I agree. I'm open to the idea of there being an Christan god, but I'm an skeptic toward the religion as a whole for many reasons.
and I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, even if they are fun to discuss and ponder the possibilities of.

honestly, I tend to believe that too many people take things like this way too seriously. it's just not healthy.

The thing abou the DaVinci code is that Brown did not make up the conspiracies he's touting in it. He grouped some of them together and reinterprets a few, but the whole thing is based on ideas and conclusions that other people have already come to. There is evidence of cults following some of the beliefs Brown mentions, but they were all fairly minor and didn't really go anywhere.

Dan Brown is to biblical conspiracies what Michael Crichton is to dinosaurs. Brown found the Priory of Scion mentioned in a book, Crichton read an article about mosquitos in amber with dino blood in them.

Both extrapolated fun stories from them, but neither claims to have proven anything.

The funny thing I find in the whole thing is for people to assert that the "facts" as they are presented in the Bible are any more reliable than the conspiracy theories floating around about Mary Magdeline actually being Jesus' wife. Son of God, absolutely ... Miracles, sure ... Resurection, you bet ... Jesus getting it on with the ladies, no way!

Every reason you give for why it can't be true, I could come up with a hypothetical why it might be true. And I don't really put a lot of stock in either.

Example: It was mentioned that Jesus' mother cleaned the body and that she wouldn't have if Jesus was married. Well, there are 2 things right off the top of my head that could account for that:

1. Both women were named Mary. Maybe it was an assumption made by the person who wrote the story down that it was his mom. After all, this was written many decades after the event itself (maybe even centuries!)

2. All of the apostles made themselves scarce when Jesus was crucified. Remember, they were hiding? It seems to me that Jesus' spouse might have also been keeping a low profile.

...and that's from me, hardly a biblical scholar.

I think ozoneocean made the best case against Jesus having heirs, and that's that no one has ever claimed to be decended from him. But again, that isn't concrete proof. It's just a fact that might point to the possibility that he didn't have any kids. But that's like saying there weren't submarines during the Civil War. It's only true until one shows up.

FinbarReilly
Wrong. Brown decided that he had proven something, and put it into a fictional form to make easier to swallow. In fact, he specifically used the dialogue between characters in order to espouse his theories.

I was not aware that Brown felt that he proved anything. Please cite the interview where he says "The DaVinci Code" is difinitive proof that everything he says actually happened.

1) At least with The Bible there is some sort of record. On the other hand, the conspiracy theories require more faith than The Biblee ever did...

Loaves and fishes, bringing the dead to life, curing the sick with a touch, walking on water, rising from the dead...these are the things the Bible asserts that those who believe it take on faith. Seems at least as farfetched as a conspiracy to hide Jesus' wife from history. More so, I'd say.

just look at the Templars: Disbanded, exiled, and killed, yet they are still supposed to be around. Yet no one has any proof even though they have been out of sorts for almost 700 years. That's impressive...

But is it more impossible than walking on water? Or less? How do you quantify the unlikelihoods?

2) If there was something solid, sure. And Jesus wasn't exactly a non-partier type (without sin, but not afraid of wine, and definitely willing to figure out ways to keep the party going). However, the best you've got are the gnostic books, which are difficult at best to translate beause there are literally physical holes and damage that make an accurate translation possible.

And all you've got in the Bible is a record written down a long, long, long time after the events described.

Yeah; you have a social situation where every knows how many times you go to the bathroom each day, where your moles are, and the concept of a "secret" is a joke, and yet the most famous person at the time (at least in that locality) would have a secret wife. Sure...

I didn't realize that ancient Jerusalem had George Bush's NSA, but that certainly is not what has been said. At the time, Jesus' wife was not a secret. The assertion is that the Church sought to wipe out references to her so as to consolidate all Christians under their organization.

Obligatory: Huh? The two subs weren't exactly top secret; they just didn't make it into most school history books because it was pretty much a lackluster battle, the subs weren't exactly great, and subs weren't really important until WWII. So they were skipped. Yet, Civil War historians knew about them, and it's not that hard to find info on them.

I thought I remembered reading that there was a debate about whether the subs were built or just planned. But please use the historical reference of your choice that you're comfortable with.

On the other hand, there is no genealogical proof of the kids (bear in mind that the Jews kept track of that, and were great at it), there's no scriptural proof, and there's no oral history. It takes some extremely liberal translation of a damaged scroll in order to even give a chance that Jesus may have had a wife, much less kids.

Sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but there just doesn't appear to be any kids...

Trust me, it doesn't offend my sensibilities. As I've stated at least twice, I don't believe either account. But I'm willing to look at the Bible as a book written by men long after the fact, filled with alterations and omissions with the set purpose to justify a religion.