In the context of this debate the title assumes Jesus was married: does it make a difference?

What Dan Brown states as fact in his opening page is actually fiction; but he wishes for the reader to accept as fact some stated fiction to understand his claims made in the book. The book, as the movie is a total work of fiction. To uneducated Christians it might seem plausable, but it's time for genuine research not fiction to direct our thoughts.

Since the success of Gibson's Catholic Movie "The passion of the Christ" to Muslim audiences, who deny the death of Christ, it's no wonder the finance for the movie came from Muslim investors to undermine influence made by the Catholic Church. I have no time for the dubious history of the Catholic Church to represent the truth of Christ, but I recognise another power is seeking allegiance here.

The whole theory that there was a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is based on a single decayed fragment of parchment put together by modern scholars on the Gospel of Philip that indicates Mary was a companion of Jesus. However the word used for companion [koinonos] is Greek not Aramaic as Dan Brown claims, and means friend and not spouse. The fragment does not even contain all the words of the original text.

That Philip could write an intelligent theological account of Jesus life and words is questionable when we note Jesus challenge to him only days before his death [John 14: 1 - 11]. Certainly not all the followers of Jesus understood his words but interpreted them from their own understanding - Philip was one.

If in fact Jesus was husband of Mary at least there would have been an allusion made in other writings as we have his contact with the disciples mentioned frequently. The theory is presented to challenge the celibate life of Jesus, that has been upheld by the Catholic Church. As you know I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think I can recognise a theory with an agenda when I read one.

Obviously Philo, the marriage status of Jesus does make a difference to you. You seem to hold to the view that Jesus was not married but you present little evidence for this. Remember the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument? You also seem to hold to the view that you know the identity of the gospel authors. Why do you do this when all the scholars seem to be mystified by their identity? (except perhaps for Luke but whether this was the Paul follower Luke (the doctor) is debatable).
So the answer to the proposal Jesus was married? So What? for you is a major problem. Regardless of who he may have been married to you obviously require your god to be celebate and unmarried.... why? I don't know but I suspect a connection between sex and sin has something to do with it...... thank you very much Saul of Tarsus, your sexual abberations have filtered down the ages.

Pricillian,
Your very assumption that he may have been married is also argued from silence. There is no factual evidence to suggest he was married. That it has become an issue is rather dubious; history has accepted he followed an Essene celibate way of living.

Jesus primary concern on the cross as he asks John to care for Mary his mother indicates his relationship with those women that witnessed his death. [John. 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 19:27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.."

For a mature married man dying to make such a request and not see his primary relationship was that his wife be cared for is rather curious. Next we will have the homosexual lobbists suggesting Jesus was gay because John sees himself loved by Jesus.

As stated before he warns of the impending persecution to befall Jerusalem that would cause deep distress to mothers with children. It would seem improper if he had children to give such warnings, and not make proper provision for them, as his own mother and Joseph had done for him [Matthew 24: 15 - 25].

Philo,
I have never indicated that I assume that Jesus was married. I suspect he may have been but have only the flimsiest evidence to back up that suspicion so I will say that what I am sure of is that I really don't know. Neither do you.
It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem. We have been through this before. You think the gospels are god inspired truth..I think they are Paul inspired propoganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him. Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
As for Jesus/Paul being gay.... I have no idea nor do I really care. Questions of sexual orientation have never occupied my thought processes for long. I do worry about rugby and football players a bit.
It does intrigue me how Christians tend to baulk at the idea of Jesus having sex. It seems OK that he inhabits a human body and we can assume he eats, drinks, goes to the toilet, sleeps, gets born, dies, but is not allowed to indulge in anything involving sex.
Why is this Philo? Is sex sinful?

Priscillian,
What are your research qualifcations and textual evidence to make the following statements:

1: "It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem."
[a] Please give evidence the gospels were inspired by Paul.
[b] Please give evidence of Paul's attitude to Jesus and women that is contary to the teachings of Jesus.

2: "I think they are Paul inspired propoganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him."
[c] Please give evidence the gospels are Pauline inspired propoganda.
[d] From what sourse did Paul write the Gospels?
[e] Why did he give his life for the things he believed?
[f] Why did Paul change religion from Pharisee heirarchy to persecuted follower of Christ?

3: "Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
[g] Did Paul believe in a historical Jesus?

In answer to this question. "Is sex sinful?" God created all things for his purpose. It is his purpose that all species procreate itself. It is his purpose that sex in humans be fulfilled in honourable devoted relationships so that any children have the security of careing parents. Sex only becomes sin outside these principles.

However in the Essene community celibacy was a form of self denial. However note Jesus blessed a wedding in Cana, and told stories of marriage and family. The political / social situation he lived in was far from normal which gave rise to exclusive Jewish communities who opposed strongly the oppression of Rome and the occupation of their sacred land

Philo
I wrote for ages answering your questions but it came to 650 words.
I then tried to cut it down but did not give due respect to your most pertinent and revelent queries (in 350 words or less).
I am therefore stuffed by the system (which basically is the story of my life.)
I will therefore write an article soon that may give my reasons for the outrageous things I often say.
You can then tear me to pieces and throw me to the lions.