The Da Vinci Code [Archive]

centralmoguy

May 22, 2006, 11:29 AM

I haven't read the book, but I did see the movie yesturday. To put it shortly, it was a completely prepostorous plot and I ate it up. It wasn't the best made movie I have ever seen (especially some of the dialogue), but I think that parts of the story itself (as prepostorous as the overall plot is) raises a lot of interesting questions about the life and the divinity of Jesus. I also think it raises questions about some people's complete blind devotion to the gospels in the bible as opposed to other possible truths of Jesus. God forbid out lord and savior was a sexual being. That is just my take.

centralmoguy

May 22, 2006, 11:30 AM

"God forbid out lord and savior was a sexual being."

I meant to say "our lord and savior". Sorry!!!

Roan's Man

May 22, 2006, 11:40 AM

Preposterous? But of course. "The DaVinci Code" is a work of fiction, a product of the fertile imagination of its author.

WillowTree

May 22, 2006, 1:48 PM

"God forbid out lord and savior was a sexual being."

I meant to say "our lord and savior". Sorry!!!

Freaudian slip much?? LMAO

I happen to believe Jesus was a sexual being. IMO, the churse leads us to believe he could not have been because that would ruin his 'perfect' status. In other words, sex is bad, a sin, etc. Christianity teaches we are created in the image of God and Christ himself, why then would a natural function such as sex be bad and why could Christ not participate?

cassie

May 22, 2006, 7:13 PM

I have read the book but not seen the movie yet. It's a work of fiction. That's my opinion.

smokey

May 22, 2006, 7:43 PM

I have neither read the book or plan to see the movie (at least at theaters) but I am familiar with the plot and all I will say about it is that in Jesus' day and time a 30 something unmarried man would be highly unusual.

usedbear1950

May 22, 2006, 8:03 PM

Imagine the audacity of some people to want to believe that Jesus was at least in some ways human. And after God creating us in his image and likeness.
Preposterous!!!

(can't keep my tongue in my cheek for too long...it's uncomfortable)

ur ever luvin
usedbear

codybear3

May 22, 2006, 8:24 PM

Did not read the book but did see the movie....The popcorn was nicely buttered but the soda had too much ice...It was the same in the last movie I watched but I also ate an almond joy...And its kinda pricey...But you can expect these things when watching a movie... :paw: :paw:

Lorcan

May 22, 2006, 9:39 PM

I think that stuff about the Last Supper was hogwash.

But there was a LOT of truth in that movie. Like how they formed the Bible out of various scriptures. And Mary is NOT a whore, but rather a disciple and an apostle.

I really don't care if he married her. I think Mary should be revered as a disciple.

titeabs

May 22, 2006, 10:00 PM

Freaudian slip much?? LMAO

I happen to believe Jesus was a sexual being. IMO, the churse leads us to believe he could not have been because that would ruin his 'perfect' status. In other words, sex is bad, a sin, etc. Christianity teaches we are created in the image of God and Christ himself, why then would a natural function such as sex be bad and why could Christ not participate?

There is nothing wrong with sex when married, according to the biblical teachings.

Long Duck Dong

May 22, 2006, 11:48 PM

lol its a interesting book and a interesting movie.....lol

but i wouldn't go so far as to call it fiction as a whole

the background of the catholic church and the various arms of it... do make for some interesting reading.....and a in depth search thru the history of the world and religion show some very interesting facts

Iowabiguy

May 23, 2006, 12:25 AM

I read the book and really enjoyed it. I haven't seen the movie yet but hear it is very true to the book.
I have also read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and a few other books that deal with the relationship of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I am not sure how much I believe but it is a fascinating story. In some ways I think that it is as plausible as the stories that were kept for the "Bible."
Everyone knows that for hundreds of years after Jesus died there were many divergent Christian beliefs. It was only after many politically and spiritually motivated councils that most of the heresies were squashed. Unfortunately many of those on the losing end of those debates were not able to express their beliefs openly any longer.
Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has worked hard to keep a stronghold on what is the "true Christianity". Most of us know that "the one true Catholic Church" is but one of many interpretations of Jesus' life.
If the DaVinci Code does nothing else but cause people to think and talk about what they believe then I think it has done its job. If it is a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church then more power to it.

CountryLover

May 23, 2006, 1:02 AM

I read the book and then listened to the book on tape at work. I loved the symbology, and found much of it to make good sense. It explained a lot of things I'd subconciously noticed all along.

I hope to see the movie next weekend. Tom Hanks has always been a favorite of mine anyway.

As for Jesus...I'm perfectly willing to accept that he was fully human, that he had sexual needs and could very well have had a wife. As someone pointed out earlier, it would have been HIGHLY unusual in that culture for a man to reach his 30's without marrying ...in fact he probably wouldn't have been accepted as an adult member of the community, unless he had a wife and family. I don't see how that makes him any less Divine.

That said, The da Vinci Code is a WORK OF FICTION, and I just don't see why the fundies are getting all worked up over it!

The Cheshire Cat

May 23, 2006, 8:30 AM

Personally, as far as conspiracy/mystery stories go-I liked his other book better (Angels and Demons). Cat

tipthebartender

May 23, 2006, 9:10 AM

I read the book a year or so ago and really enjoyed it. I saw the movie this weekend and was a lil disappointed by it. Overall though it was ok. The premises of the story I believe are totally plausible though. Christ may have never sinned but as the story states he was married to Mary Magdelene which there there is no sin for having sex with your wife as far as i can remember. And the thought that the church may be corrupt is totally true. If you think that people with that much power and authority would'nt take advantage of it then you are very naive.

nakedambrosia

May 23, 2006, 9:23 AM

julie

May 23, 2006, 9:45 AM

Read the book and have not seen the film yet. One thing that Dan Brown mentions is that according to ancient Jewish Law celibacy "was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son." (P 245 hard book). Why would Jesus be the exception? There are many mysteries about Jesus's youth; frankly, the information is starkly absent, like it was censured out. One needs to be open minded. The Da Vinci Code will further stimulate historical rseach. Already documents are surfacing such as the Judas Gospel (National Geographic). More will surface which will expose a historical patterns of censorship by the Catholic Church.

Wow!....

fascinating stuff Naked..and Tips comments before you make a lot of sense to me....well, in that they add to my mindblowing confusion about the subjectivity of what was included, distorted and left out of the bible...

i hadnt really considered seeing the film..but now it feels too important not to..

Thanks AP for posting such a thought provoking thread

Julie :female:

Driver 8

May 23, 2006, 10:23 AM

As others have said, the book is fiction. If someone wants to fudge the facts to tell a more exciting story, there's no reason not to.

But it is worth remembering that just because Brown's novel states something as fact doesn't mean it is one. Here's a good, brief discussion of some important points Brown gets wrong (http://www.slate.com/id/2142157/).

Like the saying goes, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts."

nakedambrosia

May 23, 2006, 10:24 AM

Julie, good fiction always draws from a factual base (though Dan Brown does use literary license like with some of what he wrote about the inverted pyramid at the Louvre). I feel that Mary Magdalene was targeted by the Catholic Church and her story was completely twisted by really twisted people who wanted to keep the legend of original sin (Eve being the enticer) alive. Actually, facts show that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute; she was in fact quite wealthy and was from Jewish aristocracy. And there are persistent legends in Southern France about her arriving on its shores-thus, the Black Virgin at St Marie de la Mer, making a distinction between Mary mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. More information will come out of the woodwork soon, and this prospect really terrifies the Catholic Church.

JohnnyV

May 23, 2006, 1:30 PM

I can't pretend to have exact statistics about marriages in the time of Christ, but I do know that it was not so outrageous for a 30-year-old man during the rule of Tiberius to be unmarried. While Christ was raised under Jewish law, the Greek, Roman, and Aramaic traditions were also all important in the milieu of Palestine, and would have impacted Christ as much as Jewish law. Consider, for example, the records we have of St. Paul, who freely cites Hellenic and Roman precedents to get his point across. Some men married late, and some men found themselves in difficult circumstances that made them unappealing as husbands. Because female infants were abandoned at a higher rate than male infants in both Greece and Rome, it was actually sometimes difficult for men without high social standing to find an appropriate wife....

Also, Jewish law is one thing, but the tradition of Jewish prophets is another matter. Remember that of the prophets, for example, Jeremiah is forbidden from marrying altogether, Ezekiel is forbidden from grieving for his wife, and others like Hosea are forced to marry under circumstances that explicitly defy Jewish law (Hosea is told by God to marry a whore, Gomer.)

Just wanted to say that Christ's unmarried nature would not give us automatic grounds to conclude that he must have been married to Mary Magdalene and later had the marriage expunged by church fathers....

J

Chaia

May 23, 2006, 3:15 PM

I've read the book and seen the movie and thoroughly enjoyed the excitement of both. A good escapism story! If it causes some people to think more deeply about their beliefs and perhaps explore them further, then wonderful! I must admit (how many of you did this, too?) that when I read the part about the Last Supper painting, I went online and found a picture of it to see if the person to the right of Jesus really looked like a woman. And as for Jesus being married, as my Jewish mother-in-law says, (with appropriate New Jersey accent) "Why wouldn't a nice Jewish boy be married by 30?"

russ19_127

May 23, 2006, 6:43 PM

oh! oh! oh! me! me! *waves hands in the air*

lol.

i read the book and thought it was really really good (except for the parts which were basically silas' thoughts..i skipped over those as much as my line of reasoning would allow). all in all, it is a well written and entertaining fiction novel. i'm not christian or catholic or anything, really, so i'm not bashing the whole "jesus could have fathered a child" aspect. i don't really have an opinion when it comes to jesus' divinity, but people get way too hyped up over these type of books. lol. it's a good read, but nothing lifealtering for me. :cool:

as for the movie, i thought it was really good as well. i agree, some of the dialogue was a bit sketchy, but it was one of the better movies i've seen in a while (this coming from a guy who watches disney's "the road to el dorado" on a regular basis...heh). and i have to admit, the silas character kinda grew on me...i mean, by the end of the movie he'd become this little puppy-like adorable thing...in an extremely creepy way. lol. i was very sad when he died. :(

innaminka

May 23, 2006, 7:04 PM

I actually found the book far less of a novel than I had anticipated.
Very transparent plot, obvious bad-guy, inept security from all angles, low excitement factor and generally not much better than a B-grade "Yipee".
Tom Clancy writes far better (if slightly more right-wing) thrillers.

As to the underlying assumptions, - most of his points re Jesus and Magdalene, the selectivity of the Bible, the secret ocieties have been around scholarly corridors for yonks - nothing new there.

The movie?? I'll wait till its out on video.

Also, the link supplied to discuss fallacies in Dan Brown's plot was perhaps just as selective with history as Danny was.

Driver 8

May 23, 2006, 7:27 PM

Also, the link supplied to discuss fallacies in Dan Brown's plot was perhaps just as selective with history as Danny was.
Yes, in the same sense that an article that claims that the first president of the United States was George Washington, and one that claims the first president was a Martian, are selective with history. The difference is that one view is better supported by the available facts than the other.

Obviously the continuity of Christian belief is a separate question from the truth of that belief, but that continuity is not nearly as weak - especially on major doctrinal points - as some, such as Brown, woudl have it.

Iowabiguy

May 23, 2006, 11:22 PM

Also, the link supplied to discuss fallacies in Dan Brown's plot was perhaps just as selective with history as Danny was.

I agree.
There has been a great deal of study done on the earliest days of Christianity. So very little is actually known about the real true man that Jesus was. The stories we have were handed down as oral history for years before they were written down. And each of the writers added their own bias and flavor to the basic story to appeal to each writer's particular audience.
For those who are really interested in details of early Christianity I recommend "The Birth of Christianity" by John Dominic Crossan. It is a deep, scholarly look at just how difficult it is to determine what is what in the early Christian writings.

bishaniyah

May 24, 2006, 8:19 AM

I haven't read the book but seen the movie, my dad filled me in on details which the film obviouly didn't have time to touch on. As much as i try to convince myself of its fictional aroma, there is still (i feel) that foul smell of truth behind it. When u look at it the churchs have devine power over the masses and they in turn with the men running them can chop and change peoples beliefs however they see fit. But parts of the film is factual....like the painting of the woman next to jesus or the wars and plots. I mean think about it, if jesus did tell mary (who was later branded a prositute,but really wasn't) to continue his message of peace, love and co-exsitance, do really think in such a male dominated world they would of let her. WOMEN runnin churchs!!!. Here's another thing out of all the sexs on earth ( man and woman) who has been mostly perscecuted?, who has had to fight for equaily?......who to this day is still branded in text ( the bible,) and society as the bringer of evil?...(pandora's box, adam and eve) isn't it funny even though women today have indepenance everything around them is male orinated. Need i remind you nothing is coincedance. Oh and that part about the different symbols for both males and females v=female ^ is male. has anyone really looked at churches latley. But regardless, i don't think you should just disreguard in your face facts. or lies. like jesus being dark skinned as opposed to white in complextion and if jesus was dark so must his other disipoles...or that maybe jesus was just a man who inspired people. like thay say theres nothing stronger in this world then your beliefs.

TinTin

May 24, 2006, 1:22 PM

The book and the film are of course fiction, but that said very well thought out, and if nothing else, will result in loads of debate by those well versed in these things and by those with an axe to grind. I am sure a lot of the Bible is a work of fiction too and was cobbled together by a bunch of disparate people trying to bring cohesion into an obviously disturbed world, and I am absolutely certain that it resulted in persecution as the old pagan order was absorbed into Christianity.
It seems to me the pagans were gifted with a little more sanity in worshipping the Sun and other physical icons, after all they had worked out that these things were neccessary for the sustenance of life and so worth deifying. My belief is that Jesus was an amalgamation of a number of people ( both real and mythological ) and his story was created in order to bring the populace into line and thereby create order. There are lots of instances of mythological "heroes" with similar stories to Jesus, Merlin was said to have been born of a virgin mother for instance, so it is impossible to tell the truth from the mystical.
One line in the film was particularly interesting near the end the character Robert Langdon says " perhaps we are all divine" (or something close) I personally think that is nearer the truth.
Anyway enough of my ramblings, I hope The DaVinci Code brings forth some intelligent debate.

CherryBlossom74

May 25, 2006, 3:46 AM

When we do finally see it, we will remember one thing and one very IMPORTANT thing that is being forgotten:

It's a Story.

As Lex Luthor once said,"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it was only an exciting book, others can read a bibble gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe!"

In other words, just let the fiction epand your thought processes and enjoy what it gives. If you find extra meaning GREAT! If not, no loss. It's a story, no less and certainly not more. Granted it's not on par with the Lord of the Rings, but hey...not everyone can have Orlando Bloom in a leading roll fo rtheir pictures. :flag4:

APMountianMan

May 30, 2006, 3:07 AM

Thanks for all the fine replies. Here's food for thought. The story is about the sacred feminine. It is also about how the church perverted that image. There can be no debate on this fact: the church lied and tried to destroy the image of Mary Magdalena. The question is why? I don’t believe that the church is not as concerned about the "Jesus was married” plot line as it is with the "we lied about Mary" discussion.

Women are not allowed to be priest under Catholic tradition. Why? Because doctrine says that a women cannot teach a man. Wait! What was Mary doing when she proclaimed Jesus as resurrected to the men? Doctrine says that to be an apostle you had to witness Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection. Wait! Mary did all those things, and she unlike the men didn't run away at the crucifixion! By their own rules, Mary was the first apostle.

And whom did Christ choose to appear to first after the resurrection? Mary,

But the church proclaimed her a whore. They did all they could to destroy her role in Christendom, only to recant and proclaim her a saint. Papa, you have some 'splaining to do!

But this is not the heart of the matter. The book asks you what Genesis do you believe. Did God create humans in his image? Is God both male and female: bisexual? Or is God predominately masculine with the feminine as an afterthought?

Methinks, that is what the Da Vinci Code is really asking. And it is why it scares the shit out of the church today.

:cool:

JohnnyV

May 30, 2006, 8:57 AM

nakedambrosia

May 30, 2006, 9:23 AM

AP, you did hit upon a powerful argument relating to the duality of the Creator. Read Shamani Voices by Joan Halifax PH.D. On page 23, she talks about "soft men" among the Siberian peoples-where androgynous shamans are held in high esteem due to their duality thus mirroring the Creator. You see this duality in many other cultures as well. I agree that the Catholic Church is probably very concerned about this message in the Da Vinci Code-which would turn doctrine on its head.

APMountianMan

May 30, 2006, 11:36 PM

APMM,

Since scholiasts figured out that Moses probably didn't write the whole Pentateuch (roughly the 1700s), most Biblical scholars have held that there were at least 4 authors of Genesis, identified by the letters E (Elohist), J (Yahwist), P (priestly redactor), and D (deuteronomist).

To make a long story short, there are two creation stories: one in which God creates Adam and Eve at the same time, on a day that isn't totally certain, and one in which God creates Adam on the sixth day, then later makes Eve from Adam's rib. One is told by J and one is told by E.

Obviously the difference in gender implications is huge.

A good book you can get about this is WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Friedman. It's already almost 20 years old but it's excellent about laying out the editorial problems with the Hebrew. And you can also get the Anchor Bible Commentary volume for Genesis.

J

Yup... I am aware of the different authors of various text. I wasn't really getting into that as much as that the feminine is often overlooked "Wisdom raises HER voice" or purposely omitted.

My point is how doctrine attempts to deny the divine feminine and yet scripture is confirms her. This is what I think really bothers the church about the Da Vinci Code. I don't believe it is the argument of whether or not Jesus was married. I say this because marriage is an institution ordained by God. Why would the church be upset if it were discovered that Jesus was married? One could argue that it would destroy the image of the church as the bride of Christ. OK... that is fair… but doesn't the fact that Christ said that in heaven one doesn't give or receive in marriage also destroy this image?

Again, all this is great distraction from the real issue: in Christ there is neither male nor female, but a new creation. What might this creation be? Maybe it is in the image of God: both male and female, bisexual, a combination of the sacred male and the sacred feminine.

:cool: