posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:33 PM
I'm not religious, nor do I follow moral or ethical behaviour as stipulated by religious dogma and doctrine. I'm not saying that I am not moral or
ethical, just that I follow mine own empathetic intuition, which I suppose for similarity (which I uncovered during my schooling and self-reading, was
to all intents and purposes quite like Paine's dictum...'The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.' I am
secular, but I feel it is inescapable that overlaps with certain theological morals and ethics do occur. I state this just to give an idea of my
Did the 'Biblical' Jesus exist? I can neither refute that He didn't nor prove that He did, and I accept that neither can anyone else. I'd like to
know how DNA analysis was made without actual cells of the Biblical Jesus surviving to this day ready for when a tomb such as this was unearthed?
However, what seems to be being promulgated by Cameron is the Agnostic view of Jesus, that He and Mary Magdelene were man and wife and that they had a
child (thus lending a distant credence to the bloodline theory). If this is accepted to be proof beyond all/reasonable doubt, then it may prove
shattering and catastrophic for Christians around the world.
I doubt that this will ever be accepted. In fact, if the Biblical Jesus were to appear today, I doubt He would be accepted as such without Him having
to prove his identity to a disbelieving humanity, and this would be a repeat of history (if indeed it was historical fact in the first place?). I see
this as further muddying of the waters, creating more obsfucation, and all simply for profit.