 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
A MESSIANIC BLOODLINE? Based on Dr. Ledwith's article in When I began this series of three articles on the relationship of Jesus to women, I had not realized that the movie Bloodline would be released half way through. I have not yet seen the film* but I have researched everything available on it thoroughly and am concerned to see some indications that the documentation claimed to be part of the discoveries on which the movie is based appears to be fraudulent. By that I mean I cannot see how they could have been written by a person whose native language was French, much less by an educated man such as the Abbe of Rennes-le-Chateau, Bérenger Saunière. That being said, the courage of the movie makers in undertaking a work such as this has to be recognized. If there were ever shark-infested waters in relation to the reality and significance of Jesus, this is it, for it touches on many issues that have been for centuries, not just matters of acute sensitivity, but of absolute taboo. As a result, the potential for controversy is of course almost incalculable, depending on the degree of credence that may be attached to whatever findings may emerge. For millions of believers, any findings that might possibly come from an investigation such as this will inevitably conflict with the picture of Jesus that they have always taken for granted, and, as they see it, will conflict to its detriment. Precisely for those reasons
Nothing is needed more than some clarity on the controversial discussion of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. If as a result of this investigation evidence to vindicate the existence of some special personal relationship between them were to appear, many would react with horror, and yet many others would feel it sets Jesus in a much better light. Whatever about that, undoubtedly establishing such a relationship, would do a great deal to redress the subjugation and inferiority in which all the religions, east and west, have held women for so long. Initially I was somewhat surprised that the movie was made before the tomb could be fully investigated, but perhaps it was felt the investigation might be stopped prematurely and that tactically it was best to get something provisional into the public arena. The truth of course, is rather that Jesus is much more than he was ever cracked up to be throughout most of Christian history. This is where the real problem lies, as I am concerned that that perspective might be lost sight of by the Rennes-le-Chateau investigation. If it just tries to correct the conventional picture of Jesus as the dying and resurrected savior, and highlights his relationship to Mary Magdalene, then the true picture of what Jesus was really all about will have been ignored. What Jesus really was about is far more fundamental even than whether he rose from the dead, or any relationship he may or may not have had with Mary Magdalene.
If a scientific archeological investigation of this site were to be undertaken, and some finds were made of a body or bodies therein that proved to be of ancient near-eastern provenance, there would still remain of course the enormous difficulties of being able to definitively connect these remains with either Jesus or Mary Magdalene. But to play the Devil’s Advocate for a while, let’s assume that eventually the Rennes-le-Chateau investigation would be able to surmount all of these major difficulties, and that it were to be scientifically credible that the body of Jesus were in this tomb, then where would that leave us? Obviously we would have to say in that case that what all of those Christians down the centuries believed about Jesus was not true, because for them he is God’s only begotten Son, sent down here by God the Father, to suffer and die for our sins so as to appease God’s anger against us. "And on the third day God raised him from the dead to vindicate him." If his body is in some tomb in the south of France, (or in one of the several other places elsewhere that also claim it), then the Resurrection on the first Easter morning did not happen, and there would be severe knock-on destructive effects for several other major Christian doctrines as well. In short, in the phrase I used above, Jesus would no longer be all he was cracked up to be, or as the catch-phrase would be likely to express it: “He was not divine.” To make such a statement would of course reveals two things: So, even on the Church’s own terms, whether Jesus rose or did not rise from the dead does not have anything to do with his divinity, only with what action God the Father deemed appropriate or not. So if the body of Jesus were to be found in some grave somewhere is this a disaster for the reality of Jesus? By no means. Presumably what Jesus was before he ever took on that human body is still alive and well in dimensions beyond this physical one and is not in any way affected by what might be left in a grave somewhere. And with all due respect to St. Paul, our faith in Jesus would not therefore be in vain, and the same holds true for us and our bodies. If we realized that we also are alive and well in some other dimension after we lay off the physical form, such as the phenomenon of orbs shows us, then we would have been spared all those bizarre attempts to explain how our own bodies would be resurrected at a stage called “The Last Day” or some other time, in order to imitate the resurrection of Jesus. We know our bodies in the normal renewal processes of cellular growth are totally replaced over the course of approximately every seven year period in our lives, so that during an average lifetime we have had maybe ten or more bodies. With which body are we to be resurrected; the first, the last, or with all ten? Not to mention that awkward fact that if tragically I lost a limb in World War II, Korea, Vietnam or Iraq, and it was atomized in some explosion there, how is it going to be reunited with me perhaps countless centuries afterwards in North America at the resurrection of my body? The logistics for whoever would have to take care of such things in the higher dimensions would be enormous, to be outdone in difficulty only by the amount of mental gymnastics on our part needed to accommodate the bizarre explanations we have invented to bolster up such beliefs. Perhaps we should begin to suspect something has gone wrong when we are faced with such a paraphernalia of explanations that are byzantine in their complexity and that are increasingly incredible to thinking people today. Maybe it’s an indication that the whole matter became so complex only because we made a serious error in understanding what actually happened, and now we all find ourselves involved in an exercise that basically amounts to trying to square the circle. It’s time to cut the Gordian Knot.
*As of July 1, 2008, Dr. Ledwith has since seen the film, Bloodline and met and spoken with the Director and Producer. ©2008 MastersConnection, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
|
In short, to return to our main question and where all this relates to Jesus himself, the touchstone of the divinity of Jesus is not whether he resurrected on not on the first Easter Day, and neither did the church’s doctrinal teaching ever maintain that it was. The Rennes-le-Chateau investigation would do well to clarify its thoughts on that position, and the Christian tradition would also do well to perform a reality check on what its own official beliefs actually are on this matter.
