"The Da Vinci Code" - Hinderance or Hype?

[mAlice]

It is a flagrant ploy to cause controversy.

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

 

[2ndAmendment]

...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.

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

True.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[2ndAmendment]

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.

You don't read well, do you?

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.

I did not say or imply that I had read the novel. By your standard, I was going on ignorance or rather hear say.

I see spending my money as a type of voting or endorsement system. I do not vote for or endorse things that I have absolutely no chance of finding any point of agreement. Therefore, I have not read the novel nor will I pay to see the movie.

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

But at the cross, Jesus did tell John to look after His mother. I would surmise that He would have also told John to look after His wife if He had one.

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

Jesus did not break up families. Jesus even healed Peter's mother in law (Matt. 8:14-15).

And your point is?

When Jesus traveled from area to area, His disciples followed Him, shared His experiences, witnessed His miracles, and were subject to the same living conditions Jesus experienced. Consistency, if Jesus had had a wife, He would have had His disciples bring theirs along on the journeys.

 

[2ndAmendment]

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.

Vrai, I am surprised at you to go down this road again. The Bible we have today is essentually the same texts that the early Christian scribes would copy and share as far as meaning is concerned. The reason certain texts have not been made part of the canon is that they are inconsistent with the other texts or were not regarded as Spirit inspired by the early Christians.

If it became accepted doctrine that Jesus was married and fathered children, would it change your faith?

No. You should know me better than that and know that I know the Bible well enough to know false teaching. I am fully aware that there will be many false teachings and they will become more prevalent as the last days get closer and closer. The Bible says it will happen, so it will.

 

[2ndAmendment]

What I see in this thread with the defense of the novel, an acknowledged work of fiction, almost as making it a point of opposition to the Bible, which has never been seen as fiction by Jews or Christians.

That was my point to Larry. Too many people will see The Da Vinci Code, a work of fiction, as a work of fact. Heck, people believed StarTrek was real, and it was obviously fiction.

 

[Pandora]

The Bible is based on history, recorded historical facts, and as much as we argue about the Bible, has anyone disproved the history of the bible? Jesus Christ was a real historical figure; the controversy comes when people debate whether or not he was the Son of God. If you get the history wrong, you get Christianity wrong, so it IS important to know the history ends and fantasy begins in Brown’s book.

The Divinci Code bases that the painting of the last supper shows Mary Magdalene in the place of John The Apostle in His Last Supper painting. Why? Because John was shown with feminine qualities, young, clean-shaven, when, it is a fact that many artists of that time showed young teenage boys this way, and young teenage boys do look this way.

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/davincicode/images/leonardo-last-supper-small.jpg

Leonard’s painting shows the moment when Jesus says “one of you will betray me.” That is Art History 101, and you do see this when you look at the painting. You see Judas, John and Peter gathered together, and later we learn (from the Bible) that Peter abandons Christ and returns, Judas betrays Christ and never returns and John never betrayed Christ. Not that any of that is important, but the fact is, the Bible says that was John, not Mary Magdalene at the last supper.

Dan Brown makes you believe that the Prieuré de Sion or Priory of Sion was a secret society founded in 1099 when in all actually it was created until 1956 and that the documents found were forged and planted there by Pantard and his followers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion

So as far as those secret documents found at the French National Library, those documents were forged and planted there by Pantard and his followers.

Brown does a great job at conveying a story to his readers that SOUNDS intelligent, woven in with some beliefs of people in the past, and he weaves that into facts, yet there are little historical facts in the book. As a matter of fact, it has been said, that if you put a red magic marker line over the poor history in the Divinci Code, the book would bleed to death, but it is fiction so it doesn't have to accurate.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The DaVinci Code was fiction and no threat to the Bible. The only reason that Dan Brown embraced the controversy is because it made him a lot of money.

 

[Larry Gude]

What!?

What I see in this thread with the defense of the novel, an acknowledged work of fiction, almost as making it a point of opposition to the Bible, which has never been seen as fiction by Jews or Christians.

That was my point to Larry. Too many people will see The Da Vinci Code, a work of fiction, as a work of fact. Heck, people believed StarTrek was real, and it was obviously fiction.

...you mean a handheld flip top communicator thingy is not real????

As far as time travel, all you gotta do is see me dressed up for golf and suddenly, it's 1970, in an instant!

 

[mAlice]

Heck, people believed StarTrek was real, and it was obviously fiction.

Really? I've never heard of anyone who thought ST was real?

 

[juggy4805]

StarTrek was not real? Next are you gonna say Santa isn't real also!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Really? I've never heard of anyone who thought ST was real?

You forgot the smilie.

James Doohan said he was asked frequently how the warp drive worked. He would reply, "It's a television show." I remember an interview with William Shatner (I think) where he said someone asked how the sliding doors worked. He told them there was a guy on each door that pulled them open and closed them. I think I remember where Shatner was addressing a Trekkie convention and he lost it and told them all to get a life.

 

[mAlice]

You forgot the smilie.

No I didn't. I wasn't being sarcastic.