The Da Vinci Code

Post Reply New Topic

Has anyone read this novel? i have and although he wrote this I think some of the content within the book could be true. I believe some of it could be true, and in any religion beif is what makes it true, if no one believed in a god we'd forget in generations to come that any of them existed.

I know that they have done research into mary magdalen and fouinf that it was the early church that called her a prostitute and she wasn't one herself.

Also the fact that Jesus was unmarried was so unusual at his age in those times that surely if he hadn't have had a wife it would have been down in lots of records.

I think the early church covered up a lot of things and pushed women down into second place. Jesus said that both man and woman was equal because we were created in the image of god so why have men been put into higher roles than us?

Though I think that if man was really were created in the image of a god that he would have a goddess consort to create woman in the image of, because otherwise we'd all be the same and asexual.

But this is just my opinion I'd welcome others views. (please use constructive critism).

And please tell me what you thought of The Da Vinci Code novel.

I like Dan Browns writing, it is rare to find educational theological and entertaining writing all in the same book.

Some of the statements are historically inaccurate but not Dan's fault.
The Priory of Scion is a bunch of names the church came up with that were literally a bunch of names.

When it comes to The Da Vinci Code I believe even though Jesus was unmarried He was a man that care and shared with us (humans) in the end.

Mary of Magdalene was a Woman a prostitute maybe not if some took her as a threat they should be ashamed then. For what she saw if they were threaten they should be ashamed too. What does it matter in the end if Jesus was married or not.

Yes both Man and Woman are Equal before God in the end. That is what matters in the end to God in the end. There is no favorites at all between Man or Woman that is Life is it not. Nobody is Superior to each-other in the end at all in the end.

The book is nothing shows nothing it has been nothing it makes nothing if We want it to be something it will then be something.

That is My take on it.

The question the book promotes is if Jesus had children.

Yeah I know though does it matter if Jesus was married or had children would that really change anything not really.

It's largely based on, or plagiarizes a '70's book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's quite a page turner (highly readable) but very far fetched and not a work of serious scholarship.

I think people will always try to cast Jesus in their own image, the gays will claim he was gay, the married/childed will claim he was like them etc etc etc. Apparently people feel it condones or justifies their life if they feel Jesus was like them. He was like us all, but I find these attempts to repaint his portrait unconvincing.

You said it. So far in history we've had Jesus the Gentile, Jesus the Hippie, Jesus the Nazi, Jesus the Homosexual, Jesus the Guru, Jesus the Magician, Jesus the Rabbi, and Jesus the Myth.

The Da Vinci Code is just that: a work of fiction. I am not offended or even phased by it; I just find a little surprising how it's become the center of attention and controversy for so long. I think Dan Brown's 15 minutes of fame are long up.

Personally, I don't believe Jesus was married, not because I find the idea blasphemous (there are some poor fools who are offended at the mere notion that he could have had, or conceived of having sexual intercourse), but because there are hints in the gospels that this wasn't so. It ties in well with his general philosophy of self-abnegation. Jesus was a rogue preacher more than a rabbi. To the jewish world, it would have been both nerdy and disastrous for an adult male to be unmarried. Jesus was essentially teaching everyone that union with god came not from adherence to the ritual sacraments (in this case of matrimony), but somewhere else.

Many women seem convinced that it's simply because he didn't find the right lady. I find it admirable because he shows that he didn't need a relationship with anyone other than God to be self-actualized.

Mary Magdeline was not only not a prostitute (this wasn't even in the original gospels anyway), but played an important role in the origins of Christianity, was close to Jesus, and was later turned into a harlot by people trying to downplay her significance. That much I grant. But I don't think she was Jesus' wife.

Last edited by Thagomizer on 24 Feb 2006, 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

was Mary the first female Saint?

I think Dan Brown spent too much time describing symbolism and he came off like he was saying "look what I learned in college!" Did we really need all those paragraphs about the golden ratio? It took him like, four pages to explain why a five-pointed star is significant to femininity.

[edit]: And no, Mary isn't in The Last Supper. Stop looking.

Who was the first female Saint?

I don't see how that's relevant to my comment.

Then your comment is not relevent to mine, sure.

According to the Catholic Bible she is a saint
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm

Oh, get over yourself, I wasn't even talking to you. Besides, the painting is of Jesus and his apostles. Was Mary an apostle? I do believe she was not.

the da vinci code was a very good book, but in my opinion thats all it was a book, it didn't pan out if you thought about it the terms of real life, even with the best of plans i don't think that something like that could have ever been hidden

baby

The book is proven bunk. recycled heresy and urban legends. plus the merovigians had no middle eastern dna(they did tests)

Whether she was an apostle or not, she's in the painting....

http://gim.gupshup.org/gal/H/da-vinci-last-supper-copy19605_5815974.JPG

http://images.google.com/images?q=the+last+supper&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images




One could say the same thing about the bible, and pretty much everything Christianity has taught--proven bunk. Refresh my memory, though: what relevence does the Merovingian's lack of middle eastern DNA have, and how does this (as well as other mysterious things that you failed to mention) prove that everything in the book is false?