theL61 wrote:the history channel has alot of interesting studies of the davinci code
I was watching one the other day called "The Real DaVinci Code". It seemed interesting and it presented some arguements but none of them clear or confirmed (with evidence). The arguement against the DaVinci Code book that really peeved me was when they went to the actual painting on the wall of the Last Supper and interviewed some curator type guy (it was a while ago so my details are sketchy). They asked him if the person on Jesus' right looked like a woman and the curator guy goes "no, that is indeed a man, but since DaVinci was gay he painted him effeminately". Say what? His explanation was so far out there that it made me feel that he was just trying desperately to convince himself that that Jesus could not have been married. They also made no mention of the extra hand in the painting and the hand that is holding a knife (yes, I realize that it was "supper time" but this didn't look like a butter knife to me). How would they have explained those two artifacts? Then the host of the show a bit later says something along the lines of how Dan Brown makes the connection between the Holy Grail and "sangreal". The host himself admits this is a good connection but then he says, "but it's simply wrong". How does he go on to prove that it's wrong? He interviews another "expert" who says that "sangreal" was really a typo and it should have been "sangral". Again....say what? Even if this was a 2000 year old typo, the word "sang" meaning blood is still part of it so the Holy Grail is STILL a reference to Jesus' bloodline. Nice try there! As a whole the show was so far out there that it seemed to me that it was just done by extremely religous people not willing to believe what's put in front of them and consider that Jesus may have been human after all.
I don't think Dan Brown wrote the book to convert anybody away from anything, he just wanted to provoke thought and in that aspect I think he was highly successful. I don't think he point was to say "this is the truth and nothing but the truth" but more like "could this have happened? maybe, and here's the evidence that might support it".
<img src="http://members.rogers.com/sukhumvit/flag.jpg">
well i have a lot to mention.
First, I never went to sunday school, bible school, or got much from the mass itself. I am talking and hour a day of religious education. No it wasnt fun at all but I sure learned a fair share of junk.
TDVC is a novel bases off of another novel. I had a college professior last semester who actaully was a huge believer in TDVC. And he had like 6000 pages of excerpts and research done by the author. Like I say the book was based off yet another book which was asking a question and showing both sides of the same arguement. There has never been any valididty to any of these books. Even TDVC is not a book of facts or research. Its a book showing what possibly could have happened and nothing more. If I could get my hands on these excerpts I would. There is not factual evidence pointing to much at all, except for that Jesus, the apostles, and Mary Magdalin were indeed real people. And Yes Jesus is a person, the catholic church says so, the bible says so. No one is questioning that. Thats why Jesus died. He was mortal, showing that he was as human as all of us. This shows all people that any of us can be with God because he is made of the same thing as us, flesh and blood (Jesus said so himself in the last supper, "take this and eat it, for this is my body" "take this and drink, for this is my blood"). So saying that christians were afraid of Jesus being human... that stament just doesnt work. If there is a christian that is afraid to admit that Jesus is human you can use those same words to prove it.
Let me ask you a question here, what reason do they say the church would hide it if Jesus did marry MM? I am just seeing a hole in your statment that I am trying to understand. Lets say that Jesus did marry her, even if she was a prostitute, could that be another way of Jesus showing how the church accepts all those who repent? Because I remind you that all Catholics called the church the church for one reason. Jesus. Jesus was the first church, he was the house of God on earth, passed on to peter and all priests for the people to continue use of. If Jesus did get married to MM could it be showing that Hell could be won back over if sinners repent? Since you say MM was basically representing that.
Now if you believe that there could somewhere be valididty to TDVC then I dont think there is a problem with that, so long as you are fully aware of the other side of the arguement. I just think its pretty tough to try to disprove half of a religion based on one book. Trying to use TDVC to knock down the bible, the most famous book in history which has been passed on from the exact time of Jesus' life. Some of the people that wrote the bible knew Jesus. Or at least directly passed it on. Now we have someone 2000 years later trying to interpret what was going on at that time. Personaly, I think that in itself must be taken into consideration. Is it possible that books could have been left out or changed? Absolutely, will we ever know? probably not. Does it change the message of the catholic church? NO, not at all. From the time after Jesus a sin has been a sin. Heaven has been heaven. Hell has been hell. Jesus himself could have been a sinner in the begining of life, he could have been one of the worst sinners ever. Yet it would not change the message.
bunch of boy fondlers
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
RRC:
Have you
Actually READ The Da Vinci Code? The original hard cover, and the special edition soft cover has footnotes and a bibliography in the back. I haven't seen the paperback, so I can't say whether or not its referenced.
It's a story, yes, certainly.. but it has been researched thoroughly.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Rollinredcavi wrote:Lets say that Jesus did marry her, even if she was a prostitute, could that be another way of Jesus showing how the church accepts all those who repent?
I
think that you have two different stories mixed into one.
The bible says: MM was a prost. and never Jesus' wife.
Dan Brown says: MM was a regular person and was Jesus' wife who bore his child.
<img src="http://members.rogers.com/sukhumvit/flag.jpg">
Dan Brown said Mary Magdalene was a descendant of the house of Benjamin... Hardly an "ordinary person." Basically she would be equivalent (I may be messing up terms) to a dutchess.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Dan Brown said Mary Magdalene was a descendant of the house of Benjamin... Hardly an "ordinary person." Basically she would be equivalent (I may be messing up terms) to a dutchess.
LOL, I've been misunderstood. By "regular person" I meant "not a prostitute". Thus Jesus' marrying her is not a sign that the church is willing to accept all those who repent (it may, but this is just not a sign of it).
<img src="http://members.rogers.com/sukhumvit/flag.jpg">
Gotcha
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
