*WARNING: HEATED TOPIC ALERT (DaVinci)

[D.A.R.K.[CotC]]

I read the book a while ago, and I just watched the movie last night. Aside from what is in the movie, I thought it was pretty good, almost exactly accurate to the book (minus a couple minor details), and told a better story than the book (in a way).

NOW, A FOREWARNING TO ALL WHO DECIDE TO POST TO THIS TOPIC:


THERE ARE TWO SIDES, EACH SIDE HAS PROOF THAT SUPPORTS AND REFUTES BOTH SIDES. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG IN THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A TIME MACHINE! NOBODY CAN WIN. WHAT I DO ASK IS TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND TOWARDS BOTH SIDES OF THIS "THEORY". SO DON'T CRUCIFY (hahahaha, I made a funny) EACH OTHER!

That being said...

IMHO, the story does bring up some logic sense that is present throughout history (the whole male dominance factor) and it really makes one think a lot... but how can we know for sure? God wasn't the one who wrote the bible, or the new testament, it was a bunch of Roman guys at the council of Nicea (that's how you spell it right?). If people wrote the books, then other people went and "picked and chose" the ones they thought were relevant, how do we know now that the other that got kicked out are lies?

I'm talking of the Gnostic Gospels for those who are lost, which are some 30-40 other books by such people as Peter, Thomas, Phillip, James, Judas, and Mary. You'd think that the most important characters of the new testament (besides Jesus Himself of course) would be able to tell their own story... and yet they aren't. But their stories are nothing like what we're used to reading in the actual "New Testament"...

Since up till now I've been supporting the book, I'll try and refute it just to be even. I did a little while back watch an A&E documentary about the book in which they went around and tried to find the "proof" that Dan Brown claims to exist that supports what he says in his book. They went around and found that the secret organizations mentioned in the book don't really exist, the lists of names with people like Isaac Newton and DaVinci is a fake, and then they found a guy who said he was the Grand Master of the Priory... then later that man said he was just making up that stuff to create publicity... So nothing is of truth in the book I suppose...

The question, or request, that I WOULD LIKE from other here is basically where do you stand? Do you believe what the book tells? Parts of it? None of it? Absolutely hate the book? I just want to see where the public is on this matter because if it weren't a huge topic, the Christian church wouldn't be so vehement in their pursuit to get rid of the ideas that the book is putting into the minds of people.

[Neophyte]

edit: *sigh*

[TooLBlue]

"A Novel"

[Neophyte]

Yes, Tool, that's the best argument that someone can make.

There was no Jack and Rose on the Titanic. But it made for a good work of fiction. Same for this book and film.

But with the weeks of 9/11 banter, I'm going to withdraw any further comments and let things cool down around here before I step into another large and exciting debate.

[SLIDER]

Interesting book!

[Baron[CotC]]

This one time, at "banned camp"

nah just kiddin

[D.A.R.K.[CotC]]

Censorship creates Blindness... I learned that in English

Well, alls good, you guys all have your own oppinions and are entitled to them, and I respect that, but even so those of you who haven't read the book should read it, it's a very well written story, exciting, and fun.

[Baron[CotC]]

Personally I prefer to read ninja turtles comics

[Dataspel]

None of the authors of the 4 gospels are known. Matthew, Luke,
Mark and John are just names that tradition has associated with
them. Similarly, the authors of gospels which are not included
in the Bible are also not known with any certainty. I suppose you
could make an exception for that remarkable document, the
Gospel of Thomas, since he does identify himself in
the very first line: "These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus
spoke, and Judas Thomas the twin recorded". Other than this,
the only author we can absolutely identify is Paul, who thereby
is the author of almost half of the books of the new testament.

The sensationalist aspect of The Da Vinci Code is that Jesus
got married and had children. Well, so what? Was Peter married?
Yes, because there is a reference to the house of his mother-in-law,
but his wife and possible family is otherwise not mentioned at
all. The same could easily be true of Jesus.

More important is the agenda of this book, which is that the
Mediterranean patriarchal culture has tried to erase the feminine
spirit from Christianity. This is an important statement, and imho
is absolutely true.

[SLIDER]

Baron you would be impressed with my Ninja Turtle Shorts then! Wife made me them & a King Size duvet cover with them and a stethoscope cover also!!

[D.A.R.K.[CotC]]

I've got a couple Ninja Turtles movies and cartoons on tapes...

Data, good summary I suppose. The issue of Jesus having children or not is challenging more his Divinity. The idea of Jesus being married and having children is an idea that makes him seem more "mortal" and not so "divine" like the bible makes Jesus out to be. Jesus having a wife would also be somewhat correct for society b/c in those times a man of Jesus' age would be expected, if not obligated, to take a wife and start a family. It a perfect possibility, afterall He was a carpenter.

But you're right. At the end of the movie Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon) does make a statement about the whole idea: So what? Even if Jesus was married and had a child, he could still also have done everything that the bible says he did, so this doesn't really challenge anything at all...

The agenda you outlined about the feminine spirit... I think it goes deeper than that in the book. What the story wanted to outline was the idea that Jesus entrusted the future of the church to his wife, and not Peter. That women were to be the leaders of the church and not men. It went on to try and tie in the witch hunts that happened hundreds of years later as an attempt of the church to silence the women that thought for themselves.

It's all speculation I understand, but you can't help but wonder if something really is going on in the background somewhere...

[TooLBlue]

Personally I prefer to read ninja turtles comics

Certainly more appropriate in some circles


Hey, I didn't know there was a comic book. (inc thread hijack!) I thought it was just a TV show.

[SLIDER]

I personally feel that the book as great a read as it was doesn't portray what the Bible tells us. Again another controversy. My belief is that if Christ was married which i don't believe he was the Bible would have mentioned that. My personal thoughts on it is that the KJV is the purest & closest to what the true word of God was & still is. It states that he will always provide the true word to those seeking it which in my mind means that even though there are alot of simplified & changed versions the KJV will stay around. This only my opinion.

A great site to explain some of the differences between KJV 1611 & more modern versions:

http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/art ... isons.html

And again Peter was left to be in charge of the church according to the Bible.

[Neophyte]

Slider, I think that many people share that thought. That if Jesus was married, then it would be said in the bible. Except there were many gospel's at the time, and they were weeded down to a small handful as more and mode Christians were persecuted for Roman entertainment. It may have said something like that. But something had to be done to make the good word more cohesive and give these Christians a good reason to stand for what they believe in. The rest of the books thrown out were labeled as heresy. Their contents lost at the decision of one man.

Data, when you say that we don't know who the author was... Each book was titled under the author's name. Such as "The gospel of Judas" (which literally means the good news from Judas). And in those stories Judas would tell his account of Jesus. So we have a name, but is it your understanding that it's like "Dr. Sues" and the true author went under another name?

[Dataspel]

Neo said: .

Data, when you say that we don't know who the author was... Each book was titled under the author's name. Such as "The gospel of Judas" (which literally means the good news from Judas). And in those stories Judas would tell his account of Jesus. So we have a name, but is it your understanding that it's like "Dr. Sues" and the true author went under another name?

It's more like this: The earliest new testament writings were of course
by Paul, some 20 years after the crucifixion. Over the next 40
years, we see the first recorded instances of the 4 gospels. For
example, the early church fathers thought that Mark was a follower
of Peter, who transcribed Peter's rememberances of Jesus into Greek,
possibly in some order other than linearly in time. I would guess that
the authors of Matthew and John were actual disciples of Jesus. But
neither names themselves, and John in particular appears to refer
to himself many times as the beloved disciple, but never by name.
And Luke clearly states that he was but a collector of stories about
Jesus.

Regarding the excluded gospels, it was common at that time for
writers to put their own words into other's mouths, or even to
attribute the authorship to someone they admired and studied,
and whose ideas they wanted to further. What better way to
have your voice heard, than if people thought someone famous
and respected had said the words? The simple evidence that we
have multiple gospels attributed to almost every known close
follower of Jesus suggests that this was done at the time.