Christianity

By Sara James

What if everything you think you know about Jesus is wrong? Author Michael Baigent makes controversial assertions in his new book. Michael Baigent is investigating a grisly crime. He’s tracking down leads, digging for clues, and trying to shed new light on a cold case— a case that is 2,000 years old. And this isn’t just any case: It is perhaps, the most well known story in history—the crucifixion of Jesus. Sara James, Dateline correspondent: You believe that much of what we think we know about Jesus is a lie?Michael Baigent, author: It’s a lie. It’s an obvious lie.

Hard to imagine? Author Michael Baigent has captured readers’ imaginations before with a provocative non-fiction work in which he claimed Jesus was married. Some of the same ideas appear in “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown. In fact, he sued Brown’s publisher for copyright infringement. Brown and his publisher strongly deny they did anything wrong. A decision is pending in the case. Now, Baigent has a new book, “The Jesus Papers,” with an even more controversial premise which challenges the conventional story about Jesus.

James: So basically, you’re asking anybody who is a Christian to question their fundamental beliefs?Baigent: Absolutely. James: Some might call your position heresy. Baigent: I should hope they would. While he considers himself an investigator bent on exposing the truth, scholars say the tale he weaves is fiction— fantasy, rather than fact. Elaine Pagels, religious scholar, Princeton University: It’s imaginative to say the least. Craig Evans, evangelical New Testament scholar at Acadia Divinity College: It’s voodoo scholarship, it shouldn’t be taken credibly. It’s criticism Baigent has heard before, back in 1982, when he and two co-authors wrote “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.” The book’s popularity has soared since the “Da Vinci Code.” Thanks to that book and the soon-to-be released movie, devoted fans around the world can recite a key story line— that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not only married but had a child, and the descendants live on to this day...

Arthur Maricle

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." {Revelation 17:6} Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation...

She was with him to the end, and beyond. As Jesus hangs in agony on the cross, his life ebbing, Mary Magdalene is there, beside his mother, Mary, watching. The Passion has been tumultuous and frightening, and crucifixion is slow, but still she stays.Finally the hour comes. "It is finished," Jesus says, and bows his head. His body is bound in linen, carried to a garden, buried in a tomb. Before dawn on the day after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene rises to anoint Christ's body and makes her way to the grave. It is empty. The Lord is gone; she is confused, and terrified.She races back to tell the others, returning with them so they can see for themselves. The male disciples come andgo again, unsure what to think; Mary, paralyzed, stays in the garden, in tears. Then comes a voice, and a question.

"Woman, why are you weeping?" she hears from behind her. "Whom do you seek?" She turns and, thinking she sees the gardener, answers, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Then, in a recognizable voice, Jesus says, "Mary." Crying "Rabboni," she leaps up in joy to embrace her teacher. "Do not touch me," Jesus says, distancing himself from her, "for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Her words to the disciples are simple and few, yet transform the world: "I have seenthe Lord." I have seen the Lord: such is the story of the Resurrection, as told in the Gospel of John. With it begins the history of Christianity, and with it ends the New Testament history of Mary Magdalene. Peter and Paul form the new church, Stephen dies a martyr's death, John the Divine envisions the End Times. But Mary Magdalene—a critical figure in his earthly circle—is neither seen nor heard from again. Yet the Magdalene—that part of her name derives from Magdala, her hometown—lives on in another tradition that can be found in an obscure second-century text. Dubbed "The Gospel of Mary," it depicts Mary as a leader of Jesus' followers in the days after his resurrection. Written by Christians some 90 years after Jesus' death, Mary's is a "Gnostic gospel"; the Gnostics, a significant force in the earlyyears of Christian......

Scotland is a wonderful and unique place. Its majestic mountains and dramatic seascapes thrill the heart and capture the imagination. However, the imaginations of some have attributed unique wonders to this land that those in the mainstream would shy away from. For instance, did you know that Jesus Christ was Scottish? And Pontius Pilate? And King Arthur? And, no, I am not referring to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, which has its denouement in Scotland. We Scots are not a boastful race. Reticence is spoon-fed to Scottish bairns along with their morning porridge. Which makes our propensity to make outrageous claims for our country somewhat bewildering. So let's take a look at some of themore fantastic suggestions.

You have two choices: Take everything you read with a pinch of salt (on second thought, make it a barrel) or suspend disbelief and go with it. (All these theories have been graded with a probability factor between one and ten. This is purely an invention of scotsman.com, and we welcome any comments from people who disagree with our rating.) King Arthur was a Scot King Arthur (if he existed and wasn’t a composite of every heroic early medieval Lord), traditionally hailed from Cornwall or Wales. Didn’t he? Well, perhaps not. It could be that England’s saviour, who lies sleeping ready to wake in times of need, was actually a Scot. Decide for yourself, with a look at the evidence: Placenames: From Edinburgh's Arthur’s Seat and Stirling's Round Table toFalkirk’s Arthur’s Oven, hills, wells, waterfalls and valleys are named after Arthur. This must surely point to his being a Scot? Battles: Nennius, the 8th century historian, called Arthur the "Duke of Battles", and specifies 13 fights where he appeared. There is a body of evidence that suggests that these battles took place in the north. The only properly documented battle occurred in Celidon, a Scottish wood. Supporting cast: Sir Lancelot may have been a Pictish warrior, the son of the King of the Lothians. Equally, Gareth and Gawain, Knights of the Round Table, could have been the sons of the Earl of Orkney. Perthshire has a number of connections to Guinevere, or Guanhamara, a Pictish Queen. Language: In the early part of the first millennium after the birth of Christ (of which more later), Edinburgh and the borders spoke P-Celtic, like theWelsh......