Emm, the DaVinci Code?

While (in Christian Gnosticism) there are several sayings- most of which come from the Pistis Sophia and one gospel according to Mary Magdalane (Marcion of Rome is actually the likely author, who was a student of the perhaps the most well known (sic notorious) Gnostic of the time Valentineus. (He wrote several "books" that came to be known as the Gnostic
cannon- prior to the find in Nag Hammandi, all that was really known of him came from his adversaries (i.e. The traditionalist church- (St.) Iraneus really-really did not care for him. For what little nice might have been said of him, he did take credit for his own works; and he was respected enough (at the time) to at least have his arguments heard as the Christian Church was still forming. (Very few of the Gnostics, before or since, got that kind of love. Even Plotinus didn't seem to like them, though actually I believe he was trying to clearly differentiate and keep them a distinct and separate entity from the Neo-Platonists schools.)

As for whether Christ was married or not, I really couldn't say. (Nor would I, personally, care one way or the other- It doens't add nor diminish much from his character/personage in my own thoughts.) As for what the book by Mr. Brown further speculates- I would be highly criticial/cynical of that- even in that what he wrote might be to some lesser degree factual. That they might have had a child, not impossible at all. That some Frat boys got together at a much later period and figured out a family tree- so very unlikely. (It might be interesting to note that the gentleman primarily responsible for that particular point of view had sort of scratched his own name into the family, and thought that he might make a right hand and dandy candidate for prime minister. (I believe he was something like a mail clerk prior to that. In my prior line of work, if someone had made such a claim- We might be doing a few other tests than DNA, and checking it off the symptomologies of the DSM for what is commonly referred to as a Napoleonic Complex.)

Secret societies were hardly unfashionable among both the intellectual and political sets of any age and time; and they each had their own secret handshakes- so to speak. Some, such as the Roscrucians and the Freemasons were more wide-spread and enduring, and even more made claim to be. (Personally, I always thought of this something akin to Fred Flinstone's Water-Buffalos for the more priviledged.)

It is true that great minds were involved in such groups, it was quite advantageous. There were others that sort of were given honorary membership after the fact (and post-mortem) to strengthen the particular views of these groups- Isaac Newton, indeed, studied such esoterica later in his life. His membership in the Freemasons possible, but also questionable. In as to what may have come from casual contact (those individuals who he associated with on another basis)- No more than I would blindly accept anything would I accept that a mind such as DaVinci's could be anything more than made curious by the ideas of these various groups. That it may have been, in some other way, advantageous for him- Well, it doesn't really go beyond the maybe. That his name was included upon some little known roster (that in many-several cases reads near-like a who's who through-out the ages) My B.S. meter starts to spike and wobble. The Freemasons, the Golden Dawn and the modern day Roscrucians have similar lists- As well the Scientologists of our own day and age, whom deliberately farm for these folk. Quite honestly, while I do think that Travolta and Cruise are fine actors- I could really care less if they opted to worship the grapefruit-goddess, and make Anita Bryant the high priestess. Their opinions in that particular arena hold no weight, and don't validate the ideas one iota for me. To be honest, the Scientologists go on my own personal list of very creepy people; not in as for what the beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard may/may not have been so much as their methods of recruitment.

However ...

Very little of what I said is just a blind or wholesale rejection of any and/or every part of what has been passed down via these groups. Many of the ideas therein are far older than the clicks that espoused them. I was raised Roman Catholic (Lets' just say that I highly doubt the Pope would like to include me on his friends and family list at this point and time, and leave it at that.) I read from various texts, some of which are currently considered more sacred than others- to which I neither categorize nor distinguish one from the next. (i.e. This is more divinely-inspired, and that is on God's poo-poo list.) I have learned a great many things from each and every one these books (sacred or not) that I have read; not near so much about God/Heaven or any of what may have been prior to recorded history; as mankind and civilizations/thought old and new ...

Wending my way (ever so gradually & meanderingly) back to the subject- Unless the gospel writers prone embellish, I know that at least two of the four mentioned Jesus' opinion /high-regard of children. That he may have had an ordinary and human curiosity of what one of his own might be like; that he might have appeased that curiosity ... In the long of the short of it does little to change one minutae fo what came/becomes of Christianity. (Save perhaps to land Mr. Brown & company on various Cardinals' poo-poo list, not sure if I am aware that the new Pope has issued (officially or unoffically) his personal point of view or not.)

As an artist and inventor, as well as great mind- I could really care less whether Lenardo DaVinci worshipped the grapefruit goddess, and made a prophecy that a high priestess of citrus would later come to hawk orange juice ... His ideas and paintings are something that are well founded (as well as well grounded) in as something that we all have prospered and can actually find some use

... No more than it would really matter whether Jesus was married and had a/a brood of children. From what vague history I do know of Mary Magdalen's A.D. days, she seemed to have other things on her mind- Which history neither includes nor precludes that she had any children, Christ's or otherwise. Her own establishment/support of a new Christian church in Gaul- and her involvement therein seem more likely to me. In that fact alone, by any standard, it makes her a very successful disciple- Seconded to Peter only in that what his own workings (along with the works of the others) would endure & eventually become- And Paul, as much through his letters as the several churchs which he would lend his hand to help establish. (Point might be made that Mary M. didn't really have any helpers, and what became of her own church would be open to debate.)

At the end of the day, the possiblity of Jesus' progeny and lineage- being so cryptic and unknown, leaving it unverifiable- changes nothing. If someone were to later came claiming to be his descendant, many-times removed; lets' just say I shall be a tad skeptical and leave it at that. However, if the point is that Christ wasn't a misogynist/chavenist/utterly devoted to the patriarchial folkways, and didn't exclude women from the "holy" professions and office- I'd go for that. Whether he factually was or wasn't married to her and they did/didn't have a child; doesn't really figure in to my own opinions there. Then again- we come back to the who really cares what I think; and whether I espouse a belief in a grapefruit goddess and whatever I may think of Anita Bryant ... (*smirks* Just playin', mostly leastwise- Only note-worthy point being that what I thunked, at the end of the day, don't really matter all that much. For the record, my own opinion of Mr. Brown's book, though hardly for the same reasonings as the Roman Catholics, is on my poo-poo list as well. It puts me to mind of Edgar Allan Poe's write- "Diddling". A subtly humorous little bit about doodling with words, which he most obviously considered and idle-wile fascination; but otherwise, an utter and complete waste of time- Apologies for giving away the punchline if you haven't read it.)

Well, thanks for this as well Alicia; for putting up with my long winded yadda as well as sharing your own views. I have much enjoyed, and would enjoy continuing through- or hearing some other takes on the subject ...

I might suggest, if you can find the time, reading "Thunder- Perfect Mind"- Which is an interesting & wonderful little snippet of prosey found among the writing jars near a town called Nag Hammadi; and beyond a shadow or a doubt, though her name is never given- was indeed written by a woman.

Or more books?!?!

Peace,
Po