The Da Vinci Code

Okay, I haven't seen the movie. I'm thinking, it just won't be as good as the book. It's because I liked the book so much that I'm not real inclined to see the movie, because I think I'll be disappointed.

Interestingly, looking at the critics reviews at Yahoo Movies, one says "If you liked the book, you'll be fine" and another "...can't help but fail to measure up to its literary predecessor". Maybe it depends on the person. Me, I do fear for me it would be the latter.

As for some of the ideas presented by the characters in the book (like I said, I haven't seen the movie, though one hopes that the same ideas are presented in the movie), well, I tend to be an open minded sceptic. I ain't going to assume that because a character in Dan Brown's book says it's so, that it's indeed so. But, unless I know otherwise, I'll keep an open mind.

As for Jesus being married, so far as I know there is no evidence at all that Jesus was celibate. It's a projection, I think. Being used to a celibate priesthood, and, in the absence of any direct reference to Jesus being married or single, it's easy to assume Jesus was single without thinking about it. (And I understand that the celibate priesthood doesn't go back to the beginning of Christianity, but does go back to before the protestant reformation.) And, heck, how many people would assume that Peter was celibate? But, hey, wait, Jesus cured Peter's mother-in-law. And St. Paul in one of his letter mentions Peter being married. So, if in the case of Peter, lack of mention of a wife in the gospels doesn't mean he wasn't married, couldn't it be the same for Jesus? And, from what I've read, not being married would have been rather unusual at the time.

Actually, for me, the fact that St. Paul, when talking about his own celebacy, doesn't ever tell us Jesus was single, well, that definitely seems to suggest that Jesus was likely married. Emulating Jesus is not a reason St. Paul ever gives in support of celibacy.

Okay, Jesus being married but his wife never being mentioned is one thing. And believable. But the idea of Jesus specifically being married to Mary Magdalene is a different situation. If that's so, then you have the case of all 4 gospels mentioning Jesus' wife, but not bothering to mention that she's his wife. I personally find that idea a little odd. On the other hand, I have somewhere read a plausible sounding explanation for that.

As for the idea of the sacred feminine, I think that would be interesting to read more about, but it's not a major interest of mine.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter.