not being (currently or past) a christian, i'm lacking in some of the foundational knowledge that makes some of this information make sense, but also to matter to me one way or the other. which is to say that i've got no stake in it being either true or false, but some of it didn't make a lot of sense to me because i wasn't sure what she was talking about. that said, the postulations (that jesus was married to mary magdalen, that mary magdalen wasn't a prostituted woman at all but actually of a respectable family that was worthy of marrying jesus, that his mother mary was neither a virgin nor celibate during her marriage, that there are other children of mary and joseph, that there was a daughter born to mary and jesus) seem utterly believable to me. i was not under the impression that jewish history ever saw jesus as the potential messiah or even of the bloodline of king david, but i can believe this, too. the thing is, though, is that the author used a lot of art in her discussion (which makes sense,) but it seemed to be a bit like i remember english class in high school - where you find meaning in the smallest things that could have been what was intended, or maybe not. she wrote "i conclude," "i am convinced," "i believe" a lot without doing a sufficient job of convincing us. but in her defense, what she's saying is that the meaning and the true history has been erased from record, so to find evidence of it requires some leaps. i'm just not sure, without knowing what some of the meanings of things were, that she did a good enough job to convert someone who has been taught forever about the opposite of this history.