passion of christ

A girlfriend of mine emailed me to say that
I should go see the "Passion of the Christ" and
that the "DaVinci Code" was bunk.

I haven't see "The Passion" yet. For a woman
who loves violent movies, I'm actually a little
squeamish about seeing it. There is a major
difference between big explosions and big
guns and the systematic torture and murder
of a good man.

I'm not religious. If asked what religion I am,
I usually say I'm spiritual but not religious.
From what I can see, religions are a major
divider of mankind. We each have our gods
and our beliefs and then we go out and kill
on behalf of those gods and those beliefs.

I loved the "DaVinci Code," not just because
it was an enjoyable read, but it introduced me
to historical context for many of my intuitive
doubts about religious scriptures that dictate
most people's beliefs.

Since reading it, I've read "The Woman with
the Alabaster Jar" by Margaret Starbird and
am reading another of her books, "The Goddess
in the Gospels."

Here is what I wrote in response to my
girlfriend who denounced the "DaVinci Code."

...

Here is my interpretation based on additional
research I've been doing. I'd be interested in
hearing your thoughts and also Mark's. This
whole thing is so fascinating to me.

What I've learned so far:

All the book is really saying (religion-wise) is that
Christ was actually married to Mary Magdalene
but that this information was distorted over
centuries by politicians and clerics to
control the masses and by doing so, the world
lost a strong and positive woman from our
religious history.

There is so much historical documentation,
much of which the Church tried to suppress
over centuries, that supports this claim.

I've been reading some wonderful books from
a female theologian who thought all of this
stuff was bunk (she read one of the earlier
books that DaVinci Code drew information from:
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail." ) Her books are "The Woman
with the Alabaster Jar" and "The Goddess in the
Gospels."

As a strong woman, wouldn't you want to know
that Christ actually revered his wife, Mary Magdalene,
and wanted her (not the Apostles) to assume his role
as teacher after he was crucified? At that time, in
Christ's teachings, women had an equal and important
part in early religion and society. But then men
decided that the power should NOT go to a woman
and proceeded to vilify her instead, proclaiming
CENTURIES later that she was a prostitute
and that Christ had been celibate?

Based on Jewish religion, specifically the
Jewish religion of Christ's time, Jewish
men must be married by a certain age.
Christ, being a practicing Jew at the
time of his teachings and travels, would
most certainly have been married. All historical
references point to Mary Magdalene being
his wife.

Also, the Bible itself makes several references
to Christ's siblings - his blood sister and brothers
who were Mary and Joseph's physical children.
The existence of these siblings was also
diminished over time but their names are
still found in several passages in the Bible.

There was no "evidence" or belief that Mary,
Christ's mother, was a virgin until centuries
after Christ's death. The Church and men in
high political positions at the time decided to create
a mythical Virgin and virgin birth as another
way to make religion somewhat mystical
and untouchable, mostly because they wanted
to be the only conduit to God.

Wouldn't it make more sense that Mary and
Joseph had children, Christ included, and
that she was a good, strong woman and a good
mother as opposed to an unattainable,
mythical figure?

And if you do even more indepth historical
research - to ancient times way before Christ
was born - you'll find myths and legends that
are almost identical to the Bible's telling
of Christ, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

Most prominently, is the Egyptian myth of Isis and
Osiris and their son Horus.

The Christian religion is a combination of many
ancient myths and religious rituals and rites
including Paganism - all carefully selected and
woven together by clerics and politicans.
I believe a lot of this happened in the 4th century A.D.
and there is documentation on some of the
meetings where these history-altering
decisions were made.

I truly believe our world would be a much
better place if we honored the women who
surrounded Christ in the realistic and
courageous way they lived, as equals to their
men, beloved and revered by their men
and with notable places in society.

Imagine if we grew up knowing that Christ and
Mary were equal, loving partners - this
could have a tremendous impact on how women
are treated in our society - everything from
equality of pay for equal work to lessening the
threat of violence against women, especially
domestic violence.

Ripping out the sacred feminine from our
religious history has done everyone - men and
women - an incredible disservice and created
an imbalance in our world, our hearts and
our souls.

Comments

[Jerry]

Mediagirl:
Your friend is right. I think you SHOULD see The Passion. But not necessarily for the reasons she suggests. See my blog on the point:
http://madeleines.typepad.com/
madelines/2004/03/
does_this_theea.html
Moreover, I think you're spot on with your comments about the slow but inexorable removal of the Feminine from the Catholic Church.

[Vince Chesney]

If Christ's brothers and sisters (more likely his cousins also given these titles at that time in Jewish culture) were mentioned in the Bible, why wouldn't Christ's wife be mentioned? Women of that time were referenced by their husband's name. In other words Mary Magdalla would have been Mary wife of Jesus. There are several references to other married women in the Bible and they are titled with 'wife of' whenever named.
There are so many religious and art 'facts' that Dan Brown gets wrong, his book cannot be considered more than 'Indiana Jones' or 'National Treasure' level material. He's found a way to make some money by exploiting and twisting historical stories and presenting them to the ever-hungry American masses for consumption. And now his book deal becomes a movie deal. He's living the American dream! And all he had to do was make up fiction and claim it as fact. Good for you Danny, good for you!