The Da Vinci Code

no way am I watching the movie and giving money to that slimeball. Sadly, most people who debate the truth of the book have never done the research on it, and thus are completely clueless.

99% of the book is complete bull

what sort of an opportunity?

the problem is that so many people believe everything they read, whether it’s in the fiction or non-fiction section. they pick up a cool adventure book that says Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they instantly think it’s true. They never question it. now authors like Dan Brown can write whatever crap they want and it gets swallowed up…

and yes, I have read the book cover to cover, so I’m not going off what I read on a web site or anything

The book is fantastic, I personally like Angels and Demons more but this book is great too. Hmm..Whether or not you are a catholic, you should read the book, accepting certain things is secondary.

I can’t believe how you hadn’t read it so long. Me recommends Angels and Demons first.

And BTW, your layout is rocker!!

First off, that’s really neat about Boston - my friend Phil went this weekend as well. How ironic.

As the Da Vinci code, I absolutely loved it and really changed my way of thinking after reading the book. One main point for me is that the Catholic church really does try to hide things - women being first.

I think that anyone can prove or disprove a theory; there’s no concrete truth one way or another.

Stacie…sigh.

The book is a novel. There is virtually nothing in that book that is true. Anything that you started believing after reading that book is completely untrue.

The catholic church is not hiding anything. The Priory of Sion has not existed for hundreds of years. Opus Dei is not out to get anyone, though they do exist.

I think that anyone can prove or disprove a theory; there’s no concrete truth one way or another.

That’s rediculous

In this case, I think that I am fairly correct. No one can prove that Jesus was married and no one can disprove that he wasn’t. There are many theories surrounding the two thoughts. And in many cases, Jesus is based in faith.

When I got to college I took a religion class where the priest taught us different ways to read the bible. I had no idea that Adam and Eve were parables and not real people. From there on in, I took bible readings with a grain of salt.

Have you ever wondered how women went from being worshiped to being almost nothing? The Church. The Church just loves having power. Did you know that women of the Revolutionary War have been written out of history - many facts we have about women in the war comes from journals and letters? Why? Men of the church.

I think that Da Vinci Code was a great thing - it got people to think and question.

. No one can prove that Jesus was married and no one can disprove that he wasn’t.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was married, and there is plenty that he was. There’s not a scholar alive in his right mind that would tell you that there’s evidence he was married.

When I got to college I took a religion class where the priest taught us different ways to read the bible. I had no idea that Adam and Eve were parables and not real people. From there on in, I took bible readings with a grain of salt.

You know why you had no idea? Because it’s not true. There is nothing to back up that assumption, other than lack of human faith in the Bible. A weak case to toss aside stuff as figurative metaphor

Have you ever wondered how women went from being worshiped to being almost nothing? The Church. The Church just loves having power. Did you know that women of the Revolutionary War have been written out of history - many facts we have about women in the war comes from journals and letters? Why? Men of the church.

I think that Da Vinci Code was a great thing - it got people to think and question.

To be honest, that’s a load of garbage. I repeat, the Da Vinci Code is pure fiction. Anything you gained from reading it is also pure fiction…

You are right - there is no proof that he was married and plenty of proof that he was. Thats clear.

Why is it that someone questions the Church and it’s all garbage. Why would people get so upset over this “novel”?

“On November 3, ABC News devoted an hour of programming in a special Primetime with Elizabeth Vargas to investigate the “factual” claims of the book. The conclusion of investigative reporter Vargas, “What we found is that some of the claims the book makes are simply not credible and some of the claims have been made before. But there are some surprising truths behind the story of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Leonardo Da Vinci.” (Primetime, airdate 11/03/03)”http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d50aa.html

I think that this is a very good article to read.

Let me clarify something - I don’t think that anything Dan Brown wrote changed my religion or I’ll take anything from the book as fact. All it did was made me think differently and a bit more about the Church. I do believe that the church has covered up things that we’ll never know the truth to and that’s very sad.

Why is it that someone questions the Church and it’s all garbage. Why would people get so upset over this “novel”?

Christians are getting upset over it because it is such a piece of garbage, but people are actually believing it. That’s why

All it did was made me think differently and a bit more about the Church. I do believe that the church has covered up things that we’ll never know the truth to and that’s very sad.

What sort of things are they “hiding”. I’d be surprised if you have any backing for that.

For instance, the church selectively deciding which books to be a part of the bible? completely false.

Prove that the Church isn’t hiding anything. Prove that these “stories” that are 100s of years old that have been translated from languages no longer used and stories told from person to person are correct. Prove that documents haven’t been lost, mistranslated, or hidden.

Prove that the Church isn’t hiding anything.

Au contraire. The church is not hiding anything, and never has. It’s up to you to prove that it is, and I’m betting you can’t.

Prove that these “stories” that are 100s of years old that have been translated from languages no longer used and stories told from person to person are correct.

There is no need to. The Bible as repeatedly been proven to be historically accurate. These secondary documents that Dan Brown claims were kept out of the Bible because of the secrets they held were in fact written hundreds of years after the fact, unlike the Bible. They also contain no factual information that can verrified, unlike the Bible. If you ever take the time to read any of them you’ll be stunned at how high on pot the authors sound

i grew up in a very Opus Dei environment. the way the book portrays ‘the work’ — well i wish we were that cool.

never in my 25 years have i heard of an albino assassin. maybe its because they’re that good :P

as to watching the movie — yeah why not? :) im very convinced about my faith as a catholic so to me its entertainment with an open mind. in fact it would even cause problems if i didnt see the movie. people would say, “so you didnt see it because youre boycotting it since youre opus dei!??!”

:)

Wow. and the flames devoured the blog… just joking.

I’m fascinated by the da Vinci Code and the discussions around it. And I was not planning on adding fuel on the fires, but here’s a few thoughts :

- Yes, the Da Vinci Code is fiction. It was, however, largely ‘inspired’ (debate rages over whether it was actually lifted) by a book by three historians : ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’. Whether their research is accurate or not, I can’t say. But the book is based on their research and Dan Brown’s.

- There are countless books, most of them having been written and printed way before the Da Vinci Code even was an idea in Dan Brown’s mind, about Mary Madgalene and her role in Jesus’s life. It is a theory. Not necessarily the truth, but not just Dan Brown’s imagination either.

- History is a very fascinating thing. My belief is that it is a foolish man who can assert he knows what truly happened when he wasn’t there himself. What history remembers is whatever the strongest enforced in many occurrences.

- Doesn’t the Vatican have a repository of countless books that are judged too dangerous (to the Church) to be public? or is that just another theory?

- People will believe anything. Some even believe the Bible word for word and call it faith. Faith is beautiful and in no way would I want to ever insult it. But it’s been proven that the Bible’s very text has sometimes been altered to fit the ideas of some who had enough power to do it.
That said, thank heavens that people are able to believe in whatever they want - even if it’s stupid to others.

As for the movie, I don’t know yet. I like the da Vinci Code because it made me want to read more about the theories mentionned. I’m not convinced I want to see it on screen. I guess it will depend whether it’s a rainy day when it comes out.

Yes, the Da Vinci Code is fiction. It was, however, largely ‘inspired’ (debate rages over whether it was actually lifted) by a book by three historians : ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’. Whether their research is accurate or not, I can’t say. But the book is based on their research and Dan Brown’s.

That’s interesting, I honestly had no idea, actually. But still, who did the research doesn’t have any effect on the fact that just about all of the claims made in the book are completely bogus.

There are countless books, most of them having been written and printed way before the Da Vinci Code even was an idea in Dan Brown’s mind, about Mary Madgalene and her role in Jesus’s life. It is a theory. Not necessarily the truth, but not just Dan Brown’s imagination either.

Yes, it has been a theory for a while, and there are many who subscribe to it, but the same can be said about UFOs in Maine.

History is a very fascinating thing. My belief is that it is a foolish man who can assert he knows what truly happened when he wasn’t there himself.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Here’s why:

A large part of the new testament was written shortly after the life of Jesus (after he ascended). The books were written by followers of Jesus who spent three years of their life following him everywhere he went.

The books that Dan Brown based his claims off of were written hundreds of years later. While they have names such as “The gosple of Thomas” and “The gosple of Judas” they were not in fact written by those people, but were given those names so that the people that wrote them would be seen with a bit more credibility.

So, people that lived with Jesus and wrote down accounts that all match up not long after he left earth say one thing, and people over a hundred years later who were just random people who never saw Jesus say another that is totally contradictory- which one do you believe?

To be totally honest, I don’t know that I believe either, or that I care enough to think too hard about it. So I’m not going to get into that. Sorry :)

My point was, though, that I’m not ready to consider any written account, especially one that was translated from another language, as the absolute truth. Because works are often tampered with. And also, because it reflects the view of the writer and that’s subjective.

Yes, I suppose I’d naturally be more inclined to believe an account from someone who lived with Jesus rather than from someone else - but what is the proof that this account was accurately transcribed or translated? That it was not edited/modified as the years went by, to suit the ideas someone who had enough power wanted to propagate?

This discussion prompted me to do a little research on those topics. It seems the authors of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail book didn’t actually believe what they wrote to be true. I think the research is there to make things appear believable. I’m chagrined that they presented it as serious historical work in that case. That’s where Dan brown is more intelligent - and yes maybe more sneaky. Because he can argue that it’s just fiction when people come with arguments that the theories he talks about cannot be true.

I’ll leave you with a link to a great, factual article about the theories in the Da Vinci Code :
The Da Vinci Crock

Jesse, I think that you are missing the point. Did you ever play the phone game where you whisper a secret in someone’s ear and after 10 people, the last person says something different than the first person? Now try saying it in different languages.

I’m sorry - I should be more clear. No, my faith in Jesus didn’t change. In fact, the book and some of my prior classes made Jesus seem more human, adding to my emotions during Easter. Sometimes, I think that the church is more crooked than anyone can imagine.

The “facts” in Brown’s book may not be correct, but it was effective in getting people to think in a different way - especially about the honesty of the Church.

but what is the proof that this account was accurately transcribed or translated? That it was not edited/modified as the years went by, to suit the ideas someone who had enough power wanted to propagate?

Because there have been countless translations of the Bible from the original text, and all of them have been virtually identical. Hundreds of expert scholars and translators working over hundreds of years don’t colaborate and decide how they want things translated.

Did you ever play the phone game where you whisper a secret in someone’s ear and after 10 people, the last person says something different than the first person? Now try saying it in different languages.

Fun game, faulty analogy. As I said, the Bible has only been translated once- From Greek/Hebrew/other languages into English. Hundreds of scholars over the years have translated the Bible. All of the translations are virtually the same.

Jesse, I have to speak up here and say that you’re wrong on a couple of things.

First, the Church did choose which books to put in the Bible and which to take out. They did this based on what was considered truth and what was heresy and it was a necessity of the editing of the book.

Second, the Bible was not written in Hebrew. Parts of it were written in Aramaic but most of it was written in Greek. In many cases, but not all, the Greek was translated to Latin, which was then translated to English.

Third, there is consensus that most of the books of the new testament were written within 2-3 generations after Jesus’s death, not 2-3 years. That being said, the books included in the Bible are more relaible than the Gnostic gospels of Judas and Thomas.

I’m not trying to shut you down, but you need to get your facts on target so you can better defend the Church. I am a member of the faith and a devout Catholic myself, but you have to acknowledge the truth before you can defend the spiritual.

I read an article the other day saying why people liked the DVC so much. It was because to the average reader, non-fiction is more readable than fiction BUT with the DVC it made people feel like they were learning - i.e., best of both worlds. How much of the DVC is actually accurate is debatable, but there’s no question that the book itself grips peoples attention (even if its literary merit has been heavily criticised).

1) St. John, 2 chap., verses 2-8. “And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, draweth out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.” Now at a Jewish wedding the guests cannot give orders. By Hebrew law and courtesy only the groom, the grooms mother, and the governer can give orders. The servants should have ignored Jesus’s mother and Jesus. The groom should have been asked to allow them to do this and He would order the servants. For Jesus to do this before he became a well known miracle worker would have been unheard of. As well it is unlikely that Mary would have heard of the lack of wine before anyone else, again it would go against custom. But if Jesus was the groom and it was his wedding than this would have been perfectly alright. And throughout the entire chapter the groom is only asked by the governer why he hid the best wine until the end and to give it to the guests. So Jesus could be the groom at this wedding. It doesn’t prove it but it definitely opens up the possibility. Jesus might not have been mentioned specifically as the groom because later when people wrote about Jesus they wanted him to appear pure and unmarried. But since they needed to show Jesus miracle they had to leave this part in. But they left it ambigous enough that no one would really question it.

2) Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. By Hebrew law only married men may be teachers. So depending on how closely Jesus followed Hebrew law this could be a sign that Jesus was married. As for teaching people about religion again he would have to be married by Hebrew law. The moment any Jews heard Jesus wasn’t married but was trying to teach them they’d all leave. UPDATE: I have found out through a response on this post and my own sources found out that to be a Rabbi a man has to be married. So while Jesus would not HAVE to be married, it would be considered bad form for Jesus to teach children. Now people have stated that Jesus didn’t follow all the laws, and quite rightly stated that people were uncomfortable at FIRST with this. Now we can take this as meaning Jesus was never married and people just stopped caring. Or we can think that at first people were uncomfortable but something Jesus did shortly afterwards made them allow Jesus to continue teaching to the children. This could have been marriage. So we have a question mark here. Did the Jewish people just decide to ignore law and tradition for Jesus, a possibility. Or did Jesus get married and people didn’t have a problem anymore. Like so much with the bible and religion in general it comes down to faith.

3) The most critical part comes about after Jesus is crucified and it shows us who Jesus may have been married to. St. Mark, Chap. 16, verse 1. “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” Now by Hebrew law the ONLY women who can anoint a man are family members. For Mary Magdalene to even attempt to anoint Jesus would be unthinkable under Hebrew law, unless she was married to Jesus. So it seems much more likely through this one verse that Jesus and Mary were married.

Now I know the bible doesn’t come right out and say Jesus was married. But if Jesus was known to be married would he be seen as pure as he is made out to be? It is very likely that Jesus was not acknowledged as being married because the writers of Jesus did not want it known. As many christians say the people who wrote about Jesus saw it from different perspectives and some were nowhere near Jesus when Jesus lived. So after the fact it would be easy to leave out certain parts that did not match up with what they wanted. And until some writing from Jesus or his disciples is allowed to come out of the vatican vaults there is always the possibility that some parts of Jesus life was left out by the known writers who were not close to Jesus.