"The Da Vinci Code" - Hinderance or Hype?

[mAlice]

Originally Posted by Dondi

It is a flagrant ploy to cause controversy.

I'm sure that was Dan Brown's intention.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...thus the rhetorical question and the validity of Dondis original question. Obviously, any person secure in their faith, whether it be of faith in religion or not, is not going to influenced by ANY movie, even one that claims to be fact, which Da Vinci clearly does not.

Dondi is asking, I take it, about people who are in the process of deciding whether they believe or not. To me, the movie is a self proclaimed fictional work of entertainment and therefore it seems unreasonable to me that anyone in doubt of their faith would choose fiction as a part of educating themselves.

I agree with dustin. Anyone who changes their faith based on this movie is an imbecile.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

We all are, whether to be for good or evil is the question, yes?

True.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Glad to see agreement that the distinction matters. To me, it doesn't reconcile that God would be on anyones side.

The Bible says it, so I believe it.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by aps45819

I don't understand all the concern. Isn't the whole premis of the book/movie that Jesus and Mary Magdaline were married and had kids? What does this have to do with the teachings and/or beliefs of Christianity? I can understand how it would make some religious orders look like they've been involved in a cover up, but how does this challange the basic beliefs?

I have heard that part of the premise is that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not resurrected. That flies in the face of the prime message of salvation of Christianity.

The Bible makes no mention of any marriage of Jesus. Matter of fact, Peter left his family to follow Jesus and the Bible says Peter was married. The other disciples left their loved ones to follow Jesus, too. To imply that Jesus would have His followers leave their loved ones but marry someone is not consistent.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Assume the book is factual for a moment. Assume Arius was right and the Council of Nicea essentially decided his views wouldn't do. All that stuff. How would it play out over the years, defending a given view that has legitimate rivals?

If we say that in defense of a given set of beliefs, a number of rather naughty things have been done over the years to protect it and help it proliferate and that that set of beliefs, way of living, is pretty good, especially compared to other systems, well, that's not all bad in my book.

Violence in the name of good. War for peace. Everything doesn't need to fit in some perfect order and righteousness to work for me. If all of this is what lead to the US of A, well, that's pretty good and it is awful hard to see how it could have happened under any other belief system or religion.

There in lies the problem Larry. Too many people will see "truth" in the book and the movie. Shouldn't but will.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

The Bible makes no mention of any marriage of Jesus.

However, you yourself know that there are several Biblical texts that aren't included in the "official" version.

You also know that, while the Bible may have been written by God, it was edited and translated by man. If it became accepted doctrine that Jesus was married and fathered children, would it change your faith?

[supersurfer]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

I have heard that part of the premise is that Jesus did not die on the cross and was not resurrected. That flies in the face of the prime message of salvation of Christianity.

Have you read the book or are you going on ignorance and assumptions? I don't recall anything in the book suggesting that Jesus wasn't crucified.

The Bible makes no mention of any marriage of Jesus.

It also doesn't mention Jesus going potty, but if he existed, then I'm sure he did.

Matter of fact, Peter left his family to follow Jesus and the Bible says Peter was married. The other disciples left their loved ones to follow Jesus, too.

How very swell of good old Jesus to be breaking up families. Maybe that's why religion is so good at it today.

To imply that Jesus would have His followers leave their loved ones but marry someone is not consistent.

And your point is?

[Funky Brewster]

Originally Posted by supersurfer

Have you read the book or are you going on ignorance and assumptions? I don't recall anything in the book suggesting that Jesus wasn't crucified.

It also doesn't mention Jesus going potty, but if he existed, then I'm sure he did.

How very swell of good old Jesus to be breaking up families. Maybe that's why religion is so good at it today.

And your point is?

Turn or Burn!

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by supersurfer

I don't recall anything in the book suggesting that Jesus wasn't crucified.

I didn't see that in the novel, either. It also wasn't in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar."

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by Tonio

I didn't see that in the novel, either. It also wasn't in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar."

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" Theorized on the subject, and the authors went into further details of the theory in "The Messianic Legacy"

[tirdun]

There is nothing in the DaVinci code that questions either the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus. The book states that after Jesus' execution Mary, pregnant with his child, flees to Europe to avoid Roman authorities who are hunting for the apostles.