+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: The Da Vinci Code (/showthread.php?tid=3796)
The Da Vinci Code - Weltall - 24th May 2006
Anyone seen it yet?
I won't. I read as far as the first chapter before my absurd-o-meter kicked in and I closed the book forever. Just in that one chapter I determined that Dan Brown is a bad writer, and I had too many other books to read to waste time on that shit.
So, no movie based on shitty book. And, there's a damn Da Vinci Code videogame now.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 24th May 2006
There were people protesting, PROTESTING about this outside the theater when I went to see... over the hedge... Y-yeah... I know... Their reasoning? It's BLASPHAMY!
Big deal. National Treasure was a made up conspiracy theory too, but I don't see the government getting all up in arms about it. Enjoy it for what it is, or don't in the case of it having bad writing, but don't get upset at it's accuracy because it's a work of fiction. Get upset at poor logic or plot holes if anything.
The Da Vinci Code - Great Rumbler - 24th May 2006
If I want to read about conspiracy theories and such, I'll read this instead:
![[Image: ailluminatusabol1x.jpg]](http://www.american-buddha.com/ailluminatusabol1x.jpg)
Da Vinci Code isn't really the type of book I read anyway, though.
The Da Vinci Code - Weltall - 24th May 2006
Dark Jaguar Wrote:There were people protesting, PROTESTING about this outside the theater when I went to see... over the hedge... Y-yeah... I know... Their reasoning? It's BLASPHAMY!I dunno about the religious content or historical accuracy, so I guess you're being general.
Big deal. National Treasure was a made up conspiracy theory too, but I don't see the government getting all up in arms about it. Enjoy it for what it is, or don't in the case of it having bad writing, but don't get upset at it's accuracy because it's a work of fiction. Get upset at poor logic or plot holes if anything.
What turned me off is the dying curator of the Louvre deciding to write a cryptogram with his own blood instead of, you know, calling the cops.
The Da Vinci Code - Geno - 24th May 2006
I never read the book nor have I seen the movie. I suppose I should see what all the hype is about though... seriously, after two years of this phenomenon, I hardly know jack shit about the book or the movie.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 24th May 2006
Ryan Wrote:I dunno about the religious content or historical accuracy, so I guess you're being general.
What turned me off is the dying curator of the Louvre deciding to write a cryptogram with his own blood instead of, you know, calling the cops.
The history makes pretty much ALL the stuff pretty much inaccurate or at least unsubstatiated, though it does paint a certain religious sect in the Catholic church in a bad light (a "hunting down people to maintain the secret" bad light).
However, I've heard as much myself. I can't see any reason for him to have written out huge cryptic messages rather than the actual information (the killer should have erased anything the guy tried to write if he was going to erase the facts as they stood), and yes, writing it all in blood while he bled to death instead of calling for help would be the better decision.
At any rate, the thing that gets me is the people that believe the conspiracy to be real, which shouldn't I suppose... Another hilarity? The pope being shocked people would all believe a bunch of nonsense in some book.
The Da Vinci Code - Fittisize - 24th May 2006
Geno Wrote:I never read the book nor have I seen the movie. I suppose I should see what all the hype is about though... seriously, after two years of this phenomenon, I hardly know jack shit about the book or the movie.
That's exactly why I saw it. I didn't quite know what to expect heading in, but I certainly wasn't blown away. It was interesting...I suppose. Not a terrible movie, but far from great.
I've never seen so many elements of history twisted and changed in a single movie. No asshole, that's not Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus.
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 25th May 2006
The movie was horrible, but the book was good. Yeah it's not well-written, but I found it to be interesting and pretty engrossing.
Ryan Wrote:What turned me off is the dying curator of the Louvre deciding to write a cryptogram with his own blood instead of, you know, calling the cops.
The reason he writes a cryptogram is because he has a secret that he can't let just anyone know about, and it was the reason he was killed. The cryptogram is meant for his granddaughter to figure out, and it serves it's purpose.
Anyway, there are a lot of things that point to Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus, but that's just as easy to prove as anything from Biblical times. All of the stuff in the book about secret societies and the church covering up the truth about Magdalene is hard to swallow, though.
The Da Vinci Code - Geno - 25th May 2006
So, is the movie worth my time? I might also borrow my mom's copy of the book if it's any good.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 25th May 2006
DMiller Wrote:The movie was horrible, but the book was good. Yeah it's not well-written, but I found it to be interesting and pretty engrossing.
The reason he writes a cryptogram is because he has a secret that he can't let just anyone know about, and it was the reason he was killed. The cryptogram is meant for his granddaughter to figure out, and it serves it's purpose.
Anyway, there are a lot of things that point to Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus, but that's just as easy to prove as anything from Biblical times. All of the stuff in the book about secret societies and the church covering up the truth about Magdalene is hard to swallow, though.
What did you see that on the "History Channel"? There's about as much evidence to that as the truth about Santa's second wife, or Frodo and Sam having a gay love affair, which is to say, it's hard to say there's even any evidence Jesus existed from a historical perspective.
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 25th May 2006
There's plenty of evidence Jesus existed. There are letters, books, and other historical documents talking about him that are as much evidence as you can get to prove someone existed 2000 years ago. It doesn't prove he was God on Earth, but there is certainly a lot of evidence that he existed.
As for Mary Magdalene being Jesus' wife, I've read a few books talking about the possibility including Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which The Da Vinci Code is based on. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is not a really good historical resource since the author makes a lot of suppositions, but while I don't buy the conspiracy theories brought up in the book talking about the Priory of Sion, the author does bring up some good reasons why Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have been married. First off, Mary appears in the Bible more than any other woman. She also seemed to play the role of a "weeping widow" during the crucifixion. It was also pretty rare in the 1st century for a Jewish male to be unmarried, especially a rabbi like Jesus. There is also the story of the wedding at Cana in the gospel of John when Jesus turns the water into wine. Why would Mary (his mother) be telling Jesus that they are out of wine? Jesus hadn't performed a miracle at this point so she couldn't have expected him to do what he did. It might matter to Jesus, though, if he was, in fact, the groom. There is actually a mention of the head servant calling the bridegroom aside and telling him that he "saved the best wine for last" and most people believe he is talking to Jesus about this. If so, then why would he be referred to as the bridegroom? They are very tenuous reasons to think that Jesus was married, but it is just as strange to think he wouldn't have been married given the times. It is impossible to prove anything from 2000 years ago, but it is fun to try and guess.
Geno Wrote:So, is the movie worth my time? I might also borrow my mom's copy of the book if it's any good.
Don't waste your time on the movie. If you're interested in the story read the book. It's a pretty quick and easy read.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 25th May 2006
Quote:There's plenty of evidence Jesus existed. There are letters, books, and other historical documents talking about him that are as much evidence as you can get to prove someone existed 2000 years ago. It doesn't prove he was God on Earth, but there is certainly a lot of evidence that he existed.
Wow really? Could you provide links to some of it, because I'm quite interested as you might imagine.
(By the way, age is irrelevent if the evidence is around. Anything can be established if there's enough evidence. There seems to be a large amount of evidence that there WAS a 2000 years ago, for example.)
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 25th May 2006
Well, the four gospels of the New Testament were all written independently by different people a few decades after Jesus' death, though they can't be considered unbiased sources. The Koran also mentions Jesus, and he is an important prophet of God according to Islam. The Jewish Torah also mentions Jesus' life, mainly by stating reasons why he wasn't the Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in the 50s also mention Jesus quite extensively, and those were actually written much closer to Jesus' death than the books of the Bible.
Anyway, apart from religious texts the only accepted reference to Jesus is a testimony by Josephus Flavius. It was originally considered a forgery since it sounded too Christian and Flavius was suppose to be a Jew, but new research has pretty much confirmed it is authentic. You can read about it here.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 25th May 2006
Interesting. I'll look into more of it later.
The Da Vinci Code - Geno - 26th May 2006
DMiller Wrote:Don't waste your time on the movie. If you're interested in the story read the book. It's a pretty quick and easy read.Got it. I shall ask my mom if I could borrow her copy of the book tonight.
The Da Vinci Code - Weltall - 26th May 2006
Tell me, Derek: How many more silly, contrived plot devices would I encounter if I were to continue reading?
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 27th May 2006
The whole book is a silly, contrived plot, but it's fun. If you take it too seriously you won't enjoy it.
The Da Vinci Code - lazyfatbum - 27th May 2006
I was actually just reading up on this and apparently it's all very true though just more dramatized. the cults either exist or did exist or are rumored to be in hiding protected by the catholic sects, the methods to which the cults live and work are all potrayed realistically though extreme. Such as self induced torture which is practiced in several sects of the catholic church like wearing the metal spikes on your legs or neck and the more pain you feel the closer to jesus you become (hence why the character in the book of the agnus dai wears it so tightly that it causes him to bleed) The rampant sexism and bizarre behavior is all word for word an actuality.
The mentions of da vinci's secrets and puzzles are actually true, in so far as to say he was a stanely kubrick of sorts making puzzles in the art for people to figure out without coming out and saying what could possibly get him killed either by the governments of the time or by the masses.
though rediculous logically, the thought of people lighting themselves on fire, eating human flesh, beating yourself or your loved ones in the name of God or a prophet is all very real. there are extremists in any group and the catholic sects are notorious for extremist behavior that even goes against what the bible teaches. so far, i haven't found an all out lie yet, there are scenarios where a cult is mentioned that existed hundreds of years ago and are still in practice today though in reality if those cults are in practice it is very well hidden and believed to be disbanded.
the gospel of john mentions that jesuus had brothers and sisters, and that later he married a woman named mary and had several children with her. The catholic church removed much of this from the bible and even turned mary in to a prostitute to explain her sexuality with jesus (the fondling and open mouth kissing) when the reality is that she wasn't a hooker and that the catholics have removed such mention of the christ's family because it made him less 'god-like'.
I haven't read the book at too much length yet, but rthgsnba, what do you think is so bad about the writing? I mean outlandish though mostly factual plots a side.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Lord Neo - 28th May 2006
I liked the book. I read it as a fictional book, like it is. I don't understand how people can have such a problem with it. It is a fictional novel. One of the main arguments I've heard against the book is "oh it's presented as fact". Every fictional novel I"ve ever read presents the events that occur in the book as fact. That's how works of fiction work. Lots of the book wasn't believable, but that doens't really wreck it, other things were believable, I don't know much about hte Bible, but it really wouldn't surprise me if Jesus had been married to someone. It could just be something that was left out because whether he was married or not doesn't really have a major impact on his teachings, same with whether he had a bunch of siblings etc.
I don't want to see the movie because I liked the book, but I hate Tom Hanks and I don't want him runining the book for me.
The Da Vinci Code - Darunia - 30th May 2006
...a videogame, Weltall...? Oh my. That merits a call to the Stupid Police.
The Da Vinci Code - etoven - 30th May 2006
Darunia Wrote:...a videogame, Weltall...? Oh my. That merits a call to the Stupid Police.
I called the stupid police and got forwarded to a Taco Bell.
The Da Vinci Code - Laser Link - 6th June 2006
The first thing to note is none of these ideas Brown implies are new discoveries. The idea that there is secret knowlege buried within Christianity has been around since, well, the beginning of Christianity. Paul even addresses it in his letter to the Colossians (around 60 AD). It's just an attempt to deny that Jesus is God by creating something else so secret and special that not everyone can know about it.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mary and Jesus were married.
The gospel of Thomas says that "Jesus kissed Mary on the..." and that is where the text ends. We don't know what it said. Feel free to speculate whatever your mind desires and to base conspiracy theories on this alone. (This is not even a true gospel because it has a lot of gnostic teachings and disagrees with the themes of the 4 Gsopels in the Bible today, which were written by actual eye witnesses of Jesus life (Mathew and John) or close companions and followers (Luke and Mark who may have been followers of Jesus, and who were also missionaries with Paul).
The gospel of Phillip (another Gnostic gospel written long after Jesus' time) calls Mary a close companion of Jesus. Brown claims this means she was his wife, because in Aramaic that term was synonomous with spouse. The problem is that Phillip wasn't written in Aramaic, but in Coptic, which used the term companion to mean friend.
Phillip also records that the other disciples were jealous of Mary and asked Jesus "Why do you love her so much more than us?" If they were married, wouldn't that be a dumb question to ask? Remember- these are gospels that Christians don't consider accurate, so I don't think it likely they went doctoring that text to "hide the truth".
Nowhere in John does it say Jesus was married. Yes, he had several brothers an sisters, including James and Jude who wrote books in the New Testament.
The Bible does not teach that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That is a combination of two stories that was first "connected" by Pope Gregory the Great in a sermon about 500 years after the Gospels were written, and has since then become "common knowlege". The Bible refers to Mary Magdalene as a woman who Jesus cast 7 demons out of (Luke 8:2). She was at Jesus death, along with several other woman (including Jesus mother and James' and John's mother). She was also one of the first to see him resurected. Mathew 28:1 says "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb (the "other Mary" was probably Lazarus' and Martha's sister who washed Jesus' feet with perfume).
The Priory of Sion, the secret society which guarded the secret of Jesus and Mary Magdalene for a thousand years, is not that old. The Priory of Scion was created in 1956 by a Frenchman. FYI, it is now 2006. I think that is 50 years, not 1000. This was debunked and shown on national television by 60 Minutes.
The idea that Jeus was elevated to diety somewhere around the 4th Centry AD is crap. Jesus himself claimed to be God by saying "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). This is a direct reference to Exodus 3, when Moses asks for God's name, and the Lord responds "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " This is the meaning of Yahweh, the name used most in the Bible to refer to God, the most sacred name in Judaism, actually considered so sacred that they wouldn't even speak it aloud. When Jesus said "I am", he was claiming to be God, which is why in the very next verse the religious leaders tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy. There are plenty of other references in the Bible to this if you want them.
The reason there are 4 Gospels in the Bible and the many others are discounted is not because they spread ideas that Christians want to cover up. It is because those 4 can be accurately and historically shown to have been written by who claimed to write them and written in the early days of the church. By 180 AD at least 22 of the 27 books in the New Testament were considered canonical (meaning true and inspired by God). That is 150 years before the Council at Nicea.
So while these other documents do exist (Gospels of Thomas, Phillip, Judas to name a few), none of them were written anywhere close to Jesus time (Meaning at best it was information that had been passed on orally for hundres of years, and at worst made up to push some agenda), and they certainly were not written by the Thomas, Phillip, and Judas they claim to be written by. They also all contain really strange and twisted stories that don't mesh with anything else written about Jesus, like how as a child he used his powers to kill other children who were annoying him.
So yes, you can study them and base theories on them, and that is great if you just want to make up your own ideas. But there is no more truth in them than if I were to write my own Gospel and talk about how Jesus told me that Satan looks like a giant pig with a yellow triangle of power but you can overcome his evil by eating the magic red mushrooms and getting really big. I call it the Gospel of Shiggy.
The truth is that Jesus honored and respected women far more than anybody else in that time and culture. And instead of recognizing that, we somehow create the idea that Christians are anti-women and the church wanted to deprive Mary of her true power and position. There is no factual basis for this at all.
You guys, if you research this just a little on your own you will find that what I just wrote is all true. Just google da vinci code mary magdalene or any of those other terms and check out what comes up. Every site I found talked about how there is no fact to any of this stuff- and most of those were not Christian websites. This is news sites like 60 Minutes and Time and National Geographic. I really didn't find a single site that claimed all this stuff was true- they all marveled at how inaccurate it all is.
References:
Citizen Magazine (Focus on the Family)
National Geographic
History in the Movies This was the best at debunking this stuff, and it's a site devoted to judging how historically accurate movies are
60 Minutes Same as linked to above
You will note that only one of those sites is a Christian site. I don't care if people enjoy the movie as a fun tale of fiction like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix. The scary thing is when people start trying to tell you that there are rings of power and you can re-write the code of the universe- and other people start to believe it. Especially on an issue as important as eternity and the truth about God. At least study things for yourself and find out what truth is, because it doesn't matter what I think or you think or what we want to think. All that really matters is what is true.
*clicks "Post Quick Reply" after 2 hours of research and typing...*
The Da Vinci Code - A Black Falcon - 6th June 2006
Quote:*clicks "Post Quick Reply" after 2 hours of research and typing...*
I've had posts I spent an hour on ... vanish... before, it's never a pleasant experience...
Oh, and while the Gnostics were certainly pushed aside by mainline Christianity, that doesn't mean that their ideas are all wrong...
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 6th June 2006
A Black Falcon Wrote:Oh, and while the Gnostics were certainly pushed aside by mainline Christianity, that doesn't mean that their ideas are all wrong...
Exactly. Do people dismiss "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" because it was written several centuries after the events it describes? Of course not. It is considered one of the best sources on the collapse of the Roman Empire even though it is based almost entirely on second-hand information. While we can't say that the Gnostic gospels are all accurate we certainly can't dismiss them because they aren't first-hand accounts. It is also difficult to take the four gospels of the New Testament at face value as the writers are obviously biased in their love of Jesus. This isn't to say the Gnostic gospels can be believed or the New Testament is biased, just that everything written about a time period 2000 years ago should be taken with a grain of salt.
The Da Vinci Code - A Black Falcon - 6th June 2006
Gnostic texts were surpressed, which is why their reemergence over the past 50 years or so has been interesting... the Gospel of Thomas, the Gopel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary... heavily Gnostic... (oh yeah, and in reality, the Gospels were written by other people later, not the people in the title, to the best of my knowledge... both those Gnostic Gospels and the ones in the Bible. I don't think any of them were written down (at least in the form we know for sure!) during the lifetimes of the people in their titles...)
Not sure about that though, I'd have to look into it.
Anyway, Gnostics would probably say that their idea of Jesus (focusing on him as a teacher and such, and not on the resurrection-and-afterlife stuff) was closer to what he actually was, but who knows. It's not like there's an impartial account.
The Da Vinci Code - The Former DMiller - 6th June 2006
A Black Falcon Wrote:(oh yeah, and in reality, the Gospels were written by other people later, not the people in the title, to the best of my knowledge... both those Gnostic Gospels and the ones in the Bible. I don't think any of them were written down (at least in the form we know for sure!) during the lifetimes of the people in their titles...)
I thought the same thing, but I didn't want to say anything since LL did 2 hours of research. That's pretty intimidating :) I was pretty sure the gospels of the New Testament were all written by people who weren't witnesses to Jesus, but wrote based on accounts from Matthew and John, and two followers of Jesus who may or may not have been named Luke and Mark.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 6th June 2006
You can always do your own research. Just look up the info, go where the evidence leads, and see what you get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels
Here's as good a place as any to start.
The Da Vinci Code - A Black Falcon - 6th June 2006
Quote:I thought the same thing, but I didn't want to say anything since LL did 2 hours of research. That's pretty intimidating I was pretty sure the gospels of the New Testament were all written by people who weren't witnesses to Jesus, but wrote based on accounts from Matthew and John, and two followers of Jesus who may or may not have been named Luke and Mark.
I know I've read that they Biblical Gospels were written well after Jesus died (100 years? 200? I don't remember), but... well... to people who believe as strongly as LL...
Quote:and two followers of Jesus who may or may not have been named Luke and Mark.
Well none of them had those exact names because these are just Anglicized versions, of course... :)
The Da Vinci Code - Laser Link - 7th June 2006
ABF, please don't imply that I am a fool who doesn't understand logic or critical thinking because I am a Christian. I really think that degrades the discussion. If I am a fool, please prove it to me.
You will always find people who argue that these books weren't written by Mathew or John, because that helps to question the credibility of the what they wrote. And there are many people who don't like what they wrote. The facts are, as the wikipedia articles document, that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that these accounts of Jesus were actually written by who they are named after. There is very little to none that suggests Thomas and Phillip actually wrote those.
Again, you will discover that the 4 Gospels in the Bible were unanimously held by Christians to be far above the others in accuracy as early as 140 AD. I think that carries weight because these were people who had heard the first and second hand stories of Jesus life and could compare that with what these written works contained.
I'm not saying that the Gnostic gospels contain no truth. And I won't argue that often history can be best seen by people who have much larger scale to view from, say several hundred years. This aids in sorting out not just what happened, but how events caused chain reations and influenced history for long periods of time. But we are not talking about a history book, we are talking about a biography.
The point of a biography is not to simply describe what a person did in an orderly chronological list. Who would care? The point of a biography is to help you understand a person, so see not just what they did, but why. To help you learn their heart and motives that were behind their actions. That is why it is essential that a biography is written by someone who has a good knowlege of who they are writing about, and first hand knowlege would be ideal.
The Gospels tell the life of Jesus. They don't just list what he did. They talk about why. They talk about his motives. The goal is not to help you know about him, it is to help you know him. And that is the core of Christianity.
When I wasn't too serious about my beliefs, I didn't really care if what I had been taught was right or wrong. It wasn't a big enough deal to me to spend the time to learn the truth. Oh, I'd argue about it but I didn't have any ground to stand on. I didn't know the Bible very well and I could only repeat whatever I had been taught. Over the last 3 years or so I have decided to live for God, and that has brought on a desire to actually know Jesus. I don't want to settle for half-truths and confusion. Now I spend a lot of time studying the Bible and other sources to learn as much as I can about who Jesus was, what he did, and why. Jesus didn't ask people to "believe" or "accept" him, he said that we need to follow him.
See, I think you are mixing up passion for fanboy reactions. You are assuming that since I have so much invested in my beliefs that I am willing to compromise truth in order to protect my beliefs. Actually, because I place such a high value on God I am highly concerned with finding the truth.
I would argue that I am much more interested in studying this than ABF, because he doesn't even believe there is any importance to it. His only goal is to try to tweak people like me! :) But that doesn't provide enough incentive to really study hard and find truth. He is content to take what he hears that he likes from professors or friends or other sources and believe that. ABF, I am not intending to belittle you at all. I wouldn't spend effort investigating something I thought didn't hold any value- that would be a huge waste of time! But is what I said false?
I didn't do all that research on the Da Vinci code to make a post here arguing with everyone. I wanted to study it myself, and you just got the brain dump of it all.
The Da Vinci Code - Dark Jaguar - 7th June 2006
Oh nos, my Da Vinci a splode!