De Vinci Code

[kilkee]

In Brown's book he claims that Jesus married Mary Magdelaine. Is this possible? Have we got it all wrong? And if he did marry Mary Magdelaine, is this good or bad?

[ClearWest]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved. But even if Jesus was married (which is still a possibility in my mind), then I don't think it makes any difference. It doesn't change the doctrine. It doesn't change his teachings. The only thing that it would change is that priests should be allowed to marry--As far as I understand they are not allowed to within the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus never advocated a life of celibacy--he taught that men should not have lustful thoughts, but never said they must remain celibate. In fact, his disciples even taught that men [clergy, I assume] should marry if it would be easier for them to control their passions.

So, to me it is neither good nor bad. But we don't know for sure whether or not it is true.

[uOttawaMan]

I always have found it odd to think that someone like Jesus, who by all accounts was a normal member of jewish society until his later years would have not married.

[KrustyKidd]

I always have found it odd to think that someone like Jesus, who by all accounts was a normal member of jewish society until his later years would have not married.

Point is that he wans't normal. And, was not a normal member of society but rather one who had a 'new' approach to many things that had been ingrained into society and - mankind. For example, travelling around into tribal areas in an age where only organized armies and guarded merchants would go is a rather suicical method of being a hippie so, he must have had something to offer and placate the suspicious people he met, not to mention the clergy whom he would have posed a threat to.

The visions of right and wrong were new, as were how and who to worship. Certainly he would have made many enemies prior to becomming famous yet, came out unscathed until his end. I find it likely he would have had many mistresses but to have a wife, that's baggage and he travelled light, like an idea twinking at the back of your head. You know it's right, but, just so hard to put into words or actions.

[Guest Warwick Green]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved

Right - and all those who make a fuss about it only add to the book's popularity and Brown's bank account.

Read it for what it is worth - a passably decent story but with characters as flat as pancakes. A better title would have been "Inspector Clouseau meets Indiana Jones"

[margrace]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved

Right - and all those who make a fuss about it only add to the book's popularity and Brown's bank account.

Read it for what it is worth - a passably decent story but with characters as flat as pancakes. A better title would have been "Inspector Clouseau meets Indiana Jones"

Mr. Brown cashes in on the popular non fiction theories that are going around today, read Mr. Harper's the"The Pagan Christ".

Its just fiction, a few floating theories and he made a story out of it, can't people get that through their heads.

[scribblet]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved

Right - and all those who make a fuss about it only add to the book's popularity and Brown's bank account.

Read it for what it is worth - a passably decent story but with characters as flat as pancakes. A better title would have been "Inspector Clouseau meets Indiana Jones"

LOL, he must be laughing all the way to the bank these days. I found it a good read, but never once took it to be anything but fiction. I wonder if he really anticipated all the fuss.

[politika]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved. But even if Jesus was married (which is still a possibility in my mind), then I don't think it makes any difference. It doesn't change the doctrine. It doesn't change his teachings. The only thing that it would change is that priests should be allowed to marry--As far as I understand they are not allowed to within the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus never advocated a life of celibacy--he taught that men should not have lustful thoughts, but never said they must remain celibate. In fact, his disciples even taught that men [clergy, I assume] should marry if it would be easier for them to control their passions.

So, to me it is neither good nor bad. But we don't know for sure whether or not it is true.

The da vinci code the book itself is fictional, but facts in their could possibly be true, such as the knights of templar, Priory of Sion and the Mary the Holy Grail itself. It has neither been proven or disproven, just some codes and hints off of da vinci's art work. The reason it is bad for Jesus to be married is because their is not supposed to be a human bloodline of Jesus Christ because Jesus was not of earth or human and humans sin which would mean his off sping would sin. Plus it also says in the bible Jesus does not sin and had no mention a marrage of any kind so it would have been a sin for Jesus to lie and cover up the marrage and if it did not say in the bible he was married than wouldnt that settle it?

That is if you believe what the bible has to say.

[Guest Warwick Green]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved. But even if Jesus was married (which is still a possibility in my mind), then I don't think it makes any difference. It doesn't change the doctrine. It doesn't change his teachings. The only thing that it would change is that priests should be allowed to marry--As far as I understand they are not allowed to within the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus never advocated a life of celibacy--he taught that men should not have lustful thoughts, but never said they must remain celibate. In fact, his disciples even taught that men [clergy, I assume] should marry if it would be easier for them to control their passions.

So, to me it is neither good nor bad. But we don't know for sure whether or not it is true.

The da vinci code the book itself is fictional, but facts in their could possibly be true, such as the knights of templar, Priory of Sion and the Mary the Holy Grail itself. It has neither been proven or disproven, just some codes and hints off of da vinci's art work. The reason it is bad for Jesus to be married is because their is not supposed to be a human bloodline of Jesus Christ because Jesus was not of earth or human and humans sin which would mean his off sping would sin. Plus it also says in the bible Jesus does not sin and had no mention a marrage of any kind so it would have been a sin for Jesus to lie and cover up the marrage and if it did not say in the bible he was married than wouldnt that settle it?

That is if you believe what the bible has to say.

Your points are well taken but it still not explain why there is so much fuss about the book. It does not purport to be a work of theology; it's a novel. A work of fiction.

[politika]

The da vinci code the book itself is fictional, but facts in their could possibly be true, such as the knights of templar, Priory of Sion and the Mary the Holy Grail itself. It has neither been proven or disproven, just some codes and hints off of da vinci's art work. The reason it is bad for Jesus to be married is because their is not supposed to be a human bloodline of Jesus Christ because Jesus was not of earth or human and humans sin which would mean his off sping would sin. Plus it also says in the bible Jesus does not sin and had no mention a marrage of any kind so it would have been a sin for Jesus to lie and cover up the marrage and if it did not say in the bible he was married than wouldnt that settle it?

That is if you believe what the bible has to say.

Your points are well taken but it still not explain why there is so much fuss about the book. It does not purport to be a work of theology; it's a novel. A work of fiction.

Your right, the book itslef is fiction, such as the murder of Sophies grand father and the deaths of the four members of the keepers of the Grail documents by Opes Dei. But the not saying these things are true but the Priory of Sion could have possibly exist and their have been documents found that the Holy Grail could possibly be married to Jesus, but that is all a theory as these documents could have been made by a prankster in the modern day to throw of conspiricy theorists like us.

I have read up all about the Priory on wikopedia it has some interesting stuff on it like the supposed leader of the cult in the 1950's.

I do have a question fo ryou though, they mention about documents hidden in the temple of Solemon were is that fact or fiction written by Brown?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I do have a question fo ryou though, they mention about documents hidden in the temple of Solemon were is that fact or fiction written by Brown?

I have no idea and I couldn't care less. I read the book as entertainment. As Somerset Maugham once said, "Only a fool reads a novel for edification". If I wanted to learn about the Temple of Solomon I would go to a legitimate historical source, not a second-rate novel.

[betsy]

To me, Da Vinci's Code on Jesus/Magdalene is just like The Omen's take on the anti-Christ. This movie is nothing more than another thriller meant for entertainment.

[Guest Warwick Green]

To me, Da Vinci's Code on Jesus/Magdalene is just like The Omen's take on the anti-Christ. This movie is nothing more than another thriller meant for entertainment.

It will have to be if it intends to have broad appeal. If you have watched the ads you see a lot more Indiana Jones than St Augustine.

[newbie]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved.

How does one "disprove fiction"? Sounds like an oxymoron.

[betsy]

and all those who make a fuss about it only add to the book's popularity and Brown's bank account.

The Vatican's been quiet about it.. ...not wanting to add to the publicity, I guess.

However, one alleged priest so far called for a boycott. Now why would he do that...didn't he see from previous experience(s) that this only rouses curiousity even more?

Could this lone alleged priest be in the payroll of the hollywood blitzing and hyping machine?

I'll bet that all this "fussing" is pure part of the grand scheme to sell the movie. All purposefully created and spinned to create a "controversy" that actually doesn't exist.

I bet majority of Christians didn't even give a hoot to disect it....until now, when it had become a good conversational piece. Of course, the copyright lawsuit greased the wheels even more.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Taling of money making schemes. I heard a radio report that the RC Church in France, short on euros, was renting churches out to the Anglicans. When I was a kid that was as likely to happen as the pope dressing in drag.

[No truth]

The Vatican's been quiet about it.. ...not wanting to add to the publicity, I guess.

However, one alleged priest so far called for a boycott. Now why would he do that...didn't he see from previous experience(s) that this only rouses curiousity even more?

Could this lone alleged priest be in the payroll of the hollywood blitzing and hyping machine?

I'll bet that all this "fussing" is pure part of the grand scheme to sell the movie. All purposefully created and spinned to create a "controversy" that actually doesn't exist.

I bet majority of Christians didn't even give a hoot to disect it....until now, when it had become a good conversational piece. Of course, the copyright lawsuit greased the wheels even more.

The Vatican's hardly been "quiet" about it. They set up a website specifically to counter the claims made by this work of fiction, and now one of their Cardinals is saying they should sue the producers of the movie. As Shakespeare (and Mary Tyler Moore) said: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

[Guest Warwick Green]

The Vatican's been quiet about it.. ...not wanting to add to the publicity, I guess.

However, one alleged priest so far called for a boycott. Now why would he do that...didn't he see from previous experience(s) that this only rouses curiousity even more?

Could this lone alleged priest be in the payroll of the hollywood blitzing and hyping machine?

I'll bet that all this "fussing" is pure part of the grand scheme to sell the movie. All purposefully created and spinned to create a "controversy" that actually doesn't exist.

I bet majority of Christians didn't even give a hoot to disect it....until now, when it had become a good conversational piece. Of course, the copyright lawsuit greased the wheels even more.

The Vatican's hardly been "quiet" about it. They set up a website specifically to counter the claims made by this work of fiction, and now one of their Cardinals is saying they should sue the producers of the movie. As Shakespeare (and Mary Tyler Moore) said: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Sue a work of fiction?

On what grounds? That Jesus never actually got married? Does that mean whenever anything of an historical nature is published those with contrary views can sue?

When I was a kid the Roman Catholic Church was an organization which - even if you didn't agree with it - at least was held in respect. Now it is just a parody of itself.

[betsy]

The Vatican's been quiet about it.. ...not wanting to add to the publicity, I guess.

However, one alleged priest so far called for a boycott. Now why would he do that...didn't he see from previous experience(s) that this only rouses curiousity even more?

Could this lone alleged priest be in the payroll of the hollywood blitzing and hyping machine?

I'll bet that all this "fussing" is pure part of the grand scheme to sell the movie. All purposefully created and spinned to create a "controversy" that actually doesn't exist.

I bet majority of Christians didn't even give a hoot to disect it....until now, when it had become a good conversational piece. Of course, the copyright lawsuit greased the wheels even more.

The Vatican's hardly been "quiet" about it. They set up a website specifically to counter the claims made by this work of fiction, and now one of their Cardinals is saying they should sue the producers of the movie. As Shakespeare (and Mary Tyler Moore) said: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

I was relying on a news report from CTV newsnet stating that the Vatican isn't saying anything. Guess they're wrong?

[Liam]

When I was a kid that was as likely to happen as the pope dressing in drag.

The Pope presides over a nation that is almost 100% men, has bodyguards who dress in pantaloons (i.e., the Renaissance version of capri pants), he dresses in a frock and insists that no one wears the same hat he wears, makes people kneel and kiss his ring, has more jewelry and art at his disposal than all the royals in the world combined, and lives in a mansion that would make Versace jealous. That already sounds pretty queeny to me.

[politika]

When I was a kid that was as likely to happen as the pope dressing in drag.

The Pope presides over a nation that is almost 100% men, has bodyguards who dress in pantaloons (i.e., the Renaissance version of capri pants), he dresses in a frock and insists that no one wears the same hat he wears, makes people kneel and kiss his ring, has more jewelry and art at his disposal than all the royals in the world combined, and lives in a mansion that would make Versace jealous. That already sounds pretty queeny to me.

Sounds like some one is jelous

[Liam]

Sounds like some one is jelous

Moi?

[ClearWest]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved.

How does one "disprove fiction"? Sounds like an oxymoron.

*sigh* Let me rephrase that then.

"The DaVinci code has been disproved. It is a work of fiction."

(How's that?)

[Guest Warwick Green]

the DaVinci code is fiction. It has been disproved.

How does one "disprove fiction"? Sounds like an oxymoron.

*sigh* Let me rephrase that then.

"The DaVinci code has been disproved. It is a work of fiction."

(How's that?)

Everybody has known that it's a work of fiction since the day it was first published. What's surprises me is the hysteria coming from people who don't seem to know that and who keep acting as if it was intended to be a legitimate piece of religious history. To attempt to "disprove" fiction seems to be purposeless since it was never intended to be be fact in the first place.

[ClearWest]

Everybody has known that it's a work of fiction since the day it was first published. What's surprises me is the hysteria coming from people who don't seem to know that and who keep acting as if it was intended to be a legitimate piece of religious history. To attempt to "disprove" fiction seems to be purposeless since it was never intended to be be fact in the first place.

Point taken. I was speaking from my own experience (and in reference to the original poster), where I have known people who have taken the DaVinci code to be this big new discovery. Of course, it is not. That's all I was saying. For those of you who already knew the book was fiction, congratulations. Some people think that Dan Brown is claiming that these things are true.