Da Vinci Code Truth Home Forum Discussion

The Truth About Da Vinci Weblog

This blog is the outgrowth of the www.TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com Web site. Many people have asked questions or raised points of discussion on Dan Brown's book and its recent movie release. Therefore, this blog was created to take the discussion farther - to capture certain thoughts and answer some of the questions we've received at the site.

To post a comment to this blog, click on the Comments link below each post.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

So what if Jesus was married?
"What difference does it make whether or not Jesus was married. It doesn't affect his teaching does it?" This is a question that a lot of people have been asking. "Couldn't you accept this as true and have it not change a thing?"

It does make a difference, though not for the reasons you might think; and while some of you may take issue with the assumptions behind why it is important, the purpose of this post will be to explain why the question is important in the first place.

On the one hand, marriage, sex and having children, taken together, are a good thing. So much so that we can argue, on one level, that marriage, in and of itself, should have no effect on how we view Jesus. After all, in addition to being fully God, Jesus is also fully man.

On the other hand, while marriage would not diminish who Jesus is, to say that he was married (as odd as this sounds) would. Here's why:

More than becoming a man in order to just deliver a message, Jesus' purpose for entering into history was to do something for mankind that both needed to be done, but that mankind could not do for itself. This was to fix mankind's relationship with God; in order to accomplish this, he had to live his life without sinning in thought or action, and, in dying, accept a punishment and thereby pay a debt that would allow mankind to be reconciled to God. In other words, Jesus' "prime directive" was to reunite man to God ; anything that he said or did was in support of this purpose.

So if Jesus' purpose in becoming man was to die the death he died by being hung on the cross, two questions arise in relation to his being married:

1) Would marriage have supported or hindered this purpose?


2) What does this say about the reliability of Bible?

The first question is less weighty than the second, but still has great relevance. If the purpose of Jesus' coming was to live and die in the way that He did in order to to show God's love by obtaining reconciliation for mankind, then getting married only hinders that purpose by creating questions and diversions of precisely the kind that we find in The daVinci Code.

More importantly, If Jesus was married, this would not only muddy the waters by raising the question "why"? but it would also mean that the Bible (which is pretty clear that He was not married) is not a reliable source of information.

Therefore, if, in answer to question 2, the Bible is not reliable, not only are the words of Jesus also unreliable, but so is the information in provides on what we need to know in order to be reconciled to God. In turn this is important because if we cannot be reconciled with God, we have no reason to have confidence or hope in this world or in any world after we die -and without this hope, there is no sensible reason for anyone to live or strive for anything greater than their own self-interest.

Of course, in order for my thinking to be relevant, all the assumptions that I am making about God, reconciliation, hope, and the Bible being the vehicle by which God tells us things - these things must all be true.

Is this helpful to those of you who have been asking this question?


Matthew Cummings said...

I agree with you that it makes a difference. Besides the reasons you mentioned, what would we do if they had a child? How can God unite with sinful man? Isn't this borderline wrong, sacreligious?

On a somewhat related note, I am surprised that no-one on this site has written about the fact that, at the heart of Brown's book, is the disgusting scene in the Grand Master's basement. What Brown does throughout the book is gradually prepare us for the scene, then deals with our revulsion to it by propping it up philosophically and theologically. He cleverly rehabilitates paganism and occult sex, calling evil good.

I think this is one of the most dangerous aspects of the novel. Behind Brown's attack on Christianity there seems to be the age-old desire to do what we please in the area of sex, and despite the sexual revolution in the U.S., he thinks the church still represses what is natural and good. Someone needs to address Brown's contentions about Christianity and sex, because I think this is where Brown's arguments have their emotional entry gates: people want to do what they want, without guilt. If they can be convinced the enemy is their guilt, not their sin, then half the battle is lost.

Matt Cummings

07/01/06 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...

Wow...I am simply amazed at how you can just blindly make all of these conclusions based on INACCURATE information to begin with. I believe that in order for you to continue spewing your vulgar propaganda you should first study all sides of history before deciding that one side is correct. If Jesus had a clear purpose, it was to teach that at the root of Judeo-Christian belief is to Love thy Neighbor as thy self. Jesus’ Prime Directive was to teach man that loving each other was paramount! By creating peaceful coexistence with fellow man is man only able to truly achieve Godliness. If Brown got anything right he was right in condemning Leigh as being unworthy, simply because his murderous sins were not "Godly" at all. Therein lays the true issue with Christianity as it stands today that Christians will kill in the name of God as though it was his will. The "Muddy" history of Christianity is that focus is more on death than on life. If you study the Old Testament it clearly states that God's intention for man is greater than any merit of any angel in heaven. Because with free will is the opportunity to forsake God, which angels do not have. So by choosing not to sin (i.e. be at peace with your fellow man) you are thus creating a greater achievement than any angel in heaven and thus become more Godly. Jesus was a Jew. He understood that at the core of Judaism was the belief that peace on Earth was God's will.
Ok, all of that aside, your argument for what this all does to the New Testament's reliability is truly cowardly. If this indeed raised questions and muddied the waters of your belief then perhaps you should re-examine it than to cower in fear that the truth may destroy the fabric of your belief. After all isn't believing a lie much worse than discovering the truth?
Lastly, chances are, if Jesus did exist, he was a man born of a woman and a man. God does not, never will, or never has needed a human extension of himself to exist on Earth. The very notion of God being more than one entity is a Pagan belief to begin with since on it's very base belief means that there is more than one God, or at least a separation thereof, which is no longer monotheistic. Seriously people, do some real research!
I find all of this debate quite offensive. If Jesus was anything at all, he was a teacher and one that should have inspired generations of do-gooders instead, more blood has been spilt in the name of "Christianity" than any other religion or for that matter any amount of people who were "saved."

Oh and hmm....here's a final thought for YOU! If Jesus died to save mankind, why is merely the belief in him enough to absolve you of responsibilities for YOUR sins in this life or in the afterlife? In the end we will all be judged by God and belief alone in Jesus will not "save you" from the repercussions in the world to come. Only can our actions be judged. Saying a few Hail Mary's wont save you from God's judgment. If you want to atone for your sins, simply ask God for forgiveness, mean it, and then change your actions!
Oh yes, and if Jesus was married GOOD FOR HIM! And If he had any kids...well....you should rejoice and celebrate the children of your lord? I mean hey you believe that God had a son right? What's wrong with Jesus having a daughter? Together they can be one great big happy family.

07/03/06 5:56 AM
byniggle said...

You bring up a few issues worth looking at, and with a somewhat more of theological focus that what most folks might have.

In asking the question "How can God unite with sinful man?", I guess it is also worth asking how this is different than being "united with him" in his death and resurrection as it is described in the Paul's letter to the Romans.

Another worthwhile question to ask is if there is such a thing as "borderline wrong" in this context It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what you mean by this term.

In terms of the emotional entry gates of the story, I think I'd disagree with you that the occult sex scene would be it. As I recall, it was a bit obscure. Rather, I think the emotional appeal of the book is the author's ability to build upon a common resentment of the Church- particularly the Roman Catholic church - in our culture. In the media, the church is known much more for sex scandals, forwarding a political agenda and making sweeping judgmental statements than it is for explaining and living the gospel. I think it is resentment in response to this that makes the story plausible. People don't need much persuasion to believe Dan Brown. Many start out with an inclination toward wanting to believe what he says and the story is able to capitalize on this.

A prior blog entry on anger and resentment expressed in emails to us touches on this issue, but did not elicit any response, so I'd be interested to hear if the sex scene you mention had a strong effect on other folks as well

BTW an interesting, if long, treatment on the topic of sacred sex in The DaVinci Code can be found at:


You'll learn things that you may wish you hadn't, but it's a worthwhile read nonetheless. It ends better than it begins, so I encourage you to stick with it through the first pages if you do end up reading it.

Thanks Matt. It will be interesting to hear both your response to what I've said, and others' responses to what you've written as well

07/04/06 8:49 AM
Matt Cummings said...

I'd like to address a few points you made in your response to my post. One, I'm not sure one can compare our union with Christ to sexual union between male and female. It seems to be comparing apples and oranges. What I meant by "borderline wrong" is that it just doesn't quite "smell" right to say that it makes no theological difference to the Christian faith if Jesus was married. I think you agree with me that it does make a difference, if I read your entry correctly. Besides the reasons you mentioned, Jesus being married would lessen the significance of the church being the bride of Christ, and would single out Mary M. in a way that runs counter to the equality of humanity in Gal. 3:28. The husband-wife relationship would set Mary apart from other humans in a way that would be confusing to succeeding generations, to say the least. Finally, because of all the things that marriage symbolizes, it is hard to imagine the creator of the universe having this sort of physical relationship with a sinful human being. In the Bible, we see that it is not until the church has been purified, when we are in a state of glory, that Jesus takes us to be his bride. Therefore, I see significant theological difficulties with the idea that Jesus could have been married. I think it makes a difference, though I do think other issues loom larger in the book.
One of those issues is Dan Brown's portrayal of how the church views sex. In his conversations with his Harvard classes, his explanation of the Mona Lisa secret to the convicts, his (or is it Teabing's) exposition of how paganism has always had the yin and yang, the male and female energy, and how the sacred feminine has always been worshipped in pagan cultures; and finally his comments on how the church has taken a good thing such as sex and called it ugly all provide background to the basement scene I referred to earlier. Therefore, I don't think it's obscure or isolated, but the centerpiece of a lot of buildup, and is followed by propping and philosophizing to make evil look good. So, portraying the church as repressing sex is one of several emotional entry gates to the book.
My concern is that the occult sex scene not be unchallenged as an expression of evil. As it is, Dan Brown is paving the way for goddess worship, even more unrestrained sex, and other forms of perversion to make their way from the fringes toward the center of our society. We have to be clear in our response, maintaining the evil of evil, and the good of truth.
Matt Cummings

07/06/06 9:05 AM
byniggle said...

Thanks (I think!) for the comment.

So how do I begin?

Well, please let me backtrack a bit by saying that the purpose of my post was not to address the question "Was Jesus Married?" but "why is this question important?"

(for example In the 3rd paragraph I mentioned:
"while some of you may take issue with the assumptions behind why it is important, the purpose of this post will be to explain why the question is important in the first place.")

So the idea was not to present a conclusive arguement this post, but to help people understand why the question has received so much attention in the first place. In line with the idea that "it's helpful to understand someone even if you don't agree with them", this post was meant to help people understand why someone would care about the question at all.

Does this make sense?

To change gears a bit here, I was really taken aback by the number of apparent insults included in your post.I am not saying this in order to have a confrontation with you (I'd r e a l l y prefer to avoid that!) I've seen enough comments and rants by Christians on blogs to understand why someone might develop the belief that most Christians are narrow minded, condescending and perhaps even stupid, but I'm hoping that if you hang around here long enough you'll find that the folks who work on this site are looking for a real dialogue and and that they understand that disagreement does not mean that you condemn someone and stop talking.

So, this being said, If you are still up for a conversation, I count at least 5 issues around which I'd love to have a chat with you (and whoever else wants to join in):

• How do we know what Jesus' "prime directive" was?
• What's with the christian doctrine of God being a trinity
• The legacy of war and persecution in the name of Christ
• Why is so much attention given to Jesus' death
• Why do christians say that "belief" in Jesus alone is sufficient to be saved?

If these are things you'd still like to talk about (or others I have missed) — let's. I don't expect that we will agree with all that each other says but I bet we'll both learn something.

What do you think?

07/06/06 3:41 PM
big brother said...

Not there
Why is my comment not here?  Because I don't agree?

10/05/06 12:56 AM
I think for myself said...

Belief without proof

The truth is the bible is not the word of God.  The bible is a story made up by men who had a very serious belief system and a needed to convince others they were doing God's work.  This continues in our churches today.  I believe, I do Gods work,  so you MUST believe what I tell you to believe...or you will not go to heaven.

The DaVinci Code is a story which proposes an alternative possibility about Jesus.  At the end of the movie it suggests that this alternative view is no more right or wrong than what the church tells us we MUST believe.  The line in the movie..."the only thing that matters is what you believe" is a major statement.  Perhaps it is THE statement because it is the ultimate truth...there is no proof or truth.  There is only belief and it is an individual and personal choice to believe what you want to, not what you are told to.

There is no proof.  Only belief.  God, whatever that means to you, gave us the ability to think for ourselves so we would not be (mis) led by others.  Jesus led by example to show man that there is a better way to live and that heaven is possible right here on earth by doing the right thing, loving others and doing good versus evil.  Perhaps that is all there is.  If so, it is good enough for me because earth is heavenly if you allow it to be.



10/05/06 1:14 AM

Post a Comment

<< Home


Historical Term
Nag Hammadi papyri, The - Collection of more than forty Gnostic documents, unearthed in the mid-1940s near Nag Hammadi in U...

[more terms]

Newsletter Signup

Latest News
10/31 Questions and Answers From Our Experts >>
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May

Contact | Site Map | Search

Da Vinci Code Truth

  : This website is a response to Sony Pictures movie "The Da Vinci Code"
  based on Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code