Jesus family tree?

[Flavius Clemens]

[QUOTE=Kraxis]
On the other hand women in early christianity lost more and more of their position in society, to the point that they lost their soul (it was only in 320 something in Nicea that they got it back in the eyes of the church).
QUOTE]

For what it's worth, I remember a collegue suggesting this to me several years ago, and at the time I checked with an ordained friend (I'm a licensed preacher myself, but only an amateur). After half an hour's digging I've finally found his reply, which he had cross checked with one of his former tutors who had gone on to become professor at Beeson Seminary and Samford University, USA:

His question
> You are needed to settle a question. I recall there was a council (not
> ecumenical ?) that at some point decided women had souls and could be
saved. They thought it was Council of Nicea that had to vote on whether
women were human. Finding where the misunderstanding arose
> would help.
>
> I've checked all I can and turn to you.

and the response

"The business about women is all complete myth. There was never any such council, nor any such problem."

i.e. whatever individual views there may have been it wasn't official doctrine women didn't have souls.

[Kraxis]

Ah... Interesting, nice to learn something new. It did seem strange that women could be in high regard in some of the first christian sects, then fall so completely from grace.
In any case, the position of women did deteriorate quite a lot in christianity. Perhaps not as a doctrinal setting, but one that seems to have been kept alive by all ranks.

Islam on the other hand was trust into a society that was enormously strict towards women. So it was rather liberal, and thus it sort of 'needed' to prove that stance. Today it is felt to be somewhat odd, as Islam in general isn't exactly considered liberal towards women.

[Aenarion]

Just my two cents ...

I believe that what is written in the Da Vinci Code makes perfect sense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the statement of the book and I completely agree with it!

Thanks,
Aenarion

[ajaxfetish]

I think those who take issue with the historicism of The DaVinci Code do so for its lack of evidential support, not its logic. Regardless of whether it makes sense, it is fiction.

Ajax

[Kralizec]

I think those who take issue with the historicism of The DaVinci Code do so for its lack of evidential support, not its logic. Regardless of whether it makes sense, it is fiction.

Ajax

It's much worse then that. For example he claims that at an early point in history, catholicism was affected by Aztec rites (wtf). When he goes on claiming stuff like that it seems like he's not even trying to sound credible.

I liked Angels & Demons, though. After that reading the Da Vinci code was like a rehash of something he had done before, and better.

Brown is pure fiction and should be read as such.

[yesdachi]

Some great info everyone, thanks!

[Pontifex Rex]

There has also been some controversy over the translation of the word *brother*. It is wise to remember that this all occurred 2000 years ago and the writings have been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to whatever vernacular for the masses. They were submitted to scrutiny of dozens of councils and edited any number times and likely have little resemblance to the original texts. Roman Catholics have one view, Greek Orthodox a second and the poor fractured protestants are completely out of the running with various groups claiming A, B, C and others claiming 1, 2, 3.

It is simply a matter of faith and as such cannot be proven or disproved,... there is simply a lack of empirical evidence to support either side of the argument.

Cheers.