Da vinci Code

[padawan66]

Hey guys it is good to be back, I heard about this movie so I bought the book which was very interesting and I stumbled upon this trailer any who check it out your self's and see what you think.


:D


http://flash.sonypictures.com/movies/davincicode/website/home.html

[Magell]

Did you seriously hear about the movie first?

I really liked the book but I'm not digging Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. That's probably a result of me not liking Tom Hanks as an actor. Knowing the story of the book it could end up as a good movie and I'll be checking it out when it comes out.

[Jakester]

Wow. Padawan is definitely back. Now we just need x3bringiton (because it is soon to be brung).

This book was moderately entertaining, but could have been condensed a good 15-25%. Lots of crap was there, it seemed, just to make the story longer. And I really hated the one puzzle near the end that none of them could solve. I was screaming the answer at the book. It was so painfully obvious, any third grader should have been able to figure it out, and the fact that no one could, even after rather effortlessly solving so many other really obscure ciphers and puzzles, that the book lost any credibility it may have still had.

[fastcar]

Jakester, are you referring to...?

apple


Yeah, I figured that out and began screaming at the book, too.

[Jakester]

Exactly, Speedy. I fucking hated that.

[fastcar]

I'll still go see it. So far, everything from the trailer I've seen in the book.

Of course, I read it after knowing who was in the movie, so my imagery was slanted.

[ellenora]

Gee... and I thought I was brilliant for figuring out those last few puzzles so quickly. but if everyone did... no wonder I wanted to throw the book against a wall.

I did enjoy it though and look forward to Howard's interpretation of the book.

~elle

[fastcar]

Well, worry no more.


There is only one CODEX in the film. But, it will probably still be the APPLE one

[Jakester]

Dude, people already did that with the frigging book.

[Magell]

What is written in that book is just as probable as what's written in the bible.

[Jakester]

Yes, but a lot of people read the book and already think it is based in fact, or at least has grains (maybe pebbles, even) of fact in it. Sure, some extra people will do the same thing with the movie...So what? Most people are morons.

[fastcar]

Frankly, I do believe that there is some truth in the book. To what degree and regarding what established ideas I'm not sure.

[padawan66]

Ok what do you guys really think what the book is about I would like to know..


http://pierre.aubry.free.fr/affiches/grandes/dogma.jpg

[DaForce]

Uh...money?



I thought that's what all mass-marketed books were about.

[The Sym]

What is written in that book is just as probable as what's written in the bible.


... great statement :hugs:

[Magell]

Frankly, I do believe that there is some truth in the book. To what degree and regarding what established ideas I'm not sure.

I believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and I am willing to believe that the Holy Grail is indeed a copy of the descendants of Jesus through the Merovingian dynasty and on. But I believed that before I read the book.

The book is about telling a good story that interests the readers and makes them want to buy the book which it succeeded at very well.

[Queen Mae]

I believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and I am willing to believe that the Holy Grail is indeed a copy of the descendants of Jesus through the Merovingian dynasty and on. But I believed that before I read the book.




Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

[Magell]

I started off doing research on the Gnostic Gospels and other stuff like that including research on the Cathars which supported that view that Mary was married to Jesus before the Catholic Church killed all of them.

Then I had a class about what the Holy Grail is with a weird teacher where he espoused the idea that the Grail was not a physical cup.

Then my brother read the Da Vinci code and bought Holy Blood, Holy Grail and then another book along the same lines that I can't recall the title of and I read both of those books and they helped solidify that idea to me.

I like the ideas of conspiracy theories and coverups so I really like to rally behind the less popular ideas like this one used to be before The Da Vince Code came out. However this one actually has a lot of solid evidence behind it.

[Queen Mae]

Then my brother read the Da Vinci code and bought Holy Blood, Holy Grail and then another book along the same lines that I can't recall the title of and I read both of those books and they helped solidify that idea to me.


Hmmm... It was probably Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

[Magell]

Hmmm... It was probably Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

Nope, it was The Templar Revelation. Amazon put it on my recommendation page so it jogged my memory. Cool book, with some interesting ideas but the author doesn't organize it very well in my opinion.

[Queen Mae]

I haven't read that one. I'll have to look into it. I do get a little tired of the marketing machine that the Da Vinci Code created, so I'm not really interested in reading anything written after it was published. I think most of the people out there today who write about the Templars are just trying to make money and aren't really interested in history at all - well, Dan Brown isn't interested in history either, actually.

Besides, if you google "templar" "jesus" and "Mary" you can find pretty much everything that's in any of these books.

[fastcar]

I do believe that Jesus was a black man, not a white guy from Oxford.

I don't believe that the bible correctly portrays the life of Jesus. I believe it is a lot of conjecture on behalf of the writers who were writing a good story for the masses per the orders of The Powers That Be.

I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me.


But then again, I believed all this before reading the book.

[Jakester]

I believe in Crystal Light 'cause I believe in me!

[kah]

I actually read Holy Blood, Holy Grail first. It was interesting, but slow reading until about 3/4 of the way through, where they put words to the theory they had been researching. Then, about a year later, I read the DaVinci Code. It was an entertaining synopsis of HB,HG. (Honestly, I can't believe Dan Brown won in court.) I find Baigent's conclusions more believable than the Bible's, but simply, Brown's fictional potrayal of the story made it sellable.

[Queen Mae]

Woah, he won????? I didn't realize a decision had been reached yet - I thought things were still pending!

[syphon2006]

Im about 100 pages away from finishing the book (which i will prolly do today). The book is very entertaining, even though it does go into alot of detail. The book's plot is out there, but the crazy thing is it could almost be believeable. I got the book when it came out in paperback, and i started reading it one week ago today, Im hoping the movie can live up to the book so far. I will see it the weekend it comes out...

Look for this movie to be a hate it or love it, and might earn a few oscar nods later.

[The Sym]

I do believe that Jesus was a black man, not a white guy from Oxford.

I don't believe that the bible correctly portrays the life of Jesus. I believe it is a lot of conjecture on behalf of the writers who were writing a good story for the masses per the orders of The Powers That Be.

I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me.


But then again, I believed all this before reading the book.



That's why I said, research the history of the bible..... what you said is a start down the path of understanding. :hugs:

[kah]

Woah, he won????? I didn't realize a decision had been reached yet - I thought things were still pending!

I could swear they had reached a decision. But maybe I wasn't listening closely enough. I'll go check.

Yep, I was right. CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/07/uk.davinci.court/index.html) says so.

[sickness]

I could swear they had reached a decision. But maybe I wasn't listening closely enough. I'll go check.

Yep, I was right. CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/07/uk.davinci.court/index.html) says so.

Not only that, the judge has hidden a secret code in his decision.

[Jakester]

Sicky isn't lying. I heard it.

[padawan66]

The Da Vinci Code Doesn't Make Women Look Like Whores
But The Bible Does In That Case
The Book Is More Realistic..... Because Jesus Was Married And Conceived A Child Which Is Also Mentioned In The Book "the Blood Line Of Jesus"

Mmmmmmkay

[sickness]

Dude. Put down the spleef. Also, punctuation and grammar are your friend.

[padawan66]

Chill out son

[neglet]

Dude. Put down the spleef. Also, punctuation and grammar are your friend.

Technically they are your friends, but I hate to nitpick when someone else is doing the grammar spanking. Thanks for the effort, Sicks.:hugs:

[sickness]

I stand corrected. However, I will point out that my message was sufficiently clear despite the error.

[Jakester]

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what point padawan was trying to make.

[padawan66]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/images2/purplehairfreak1.jpg

[sickness]

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what point padawan was trying to make.

Exactly!

[Magell]

I haven't been able to decipher any of his posts on this board. I really tried to understand that one but when he had a comma and a period at the end of the sentence I was really confused.

[Sgt. Awesome]

I think he called woman whores... and something about Jesus knocking some girl up... not sure though. And then posted what looks like a giant picture of a baby George Bush drinking blood...

[syphon2006]

Eldarion have you actually read the book? It's a book about fiction it's been on the fiction best seller list for almost four years now. Calm down about the book man...

[Sgt. Awesome]

I haven't read it either myself... even though it sounds right up my alley. Interesting and heathenous! I just finished Asamov's "The Gods Themselves"... but that's a different forum.


The idea that Leonardo hid a code to say that the Roman Catholic church is evil or whatever in his work... it's a BIT far-fetched, but makes a good story. A good enough one that people, mostly wack-jobs, will interpret it as facts and boycott it.

[sickness]

Sorry. I just don't like how some people are talking about The DaVinci Code book like its in the least bit true. Yes, I know its a work of fiction. I have no interest in reading it. I have friends who have read it and told me about it.

I have yet to hear one person refer to DaVinci Code as anywhere near factual.

[Jakester]

Yeah...starting with Dan Brown.

[Son of Gilbert]

Eldarion how can you even comment on something that you haven't read yet? And I bet that if your friends are as narrowed mind as you, then I am sure that they never gave the book a fair shot. Read the book and jugde for yourself, stop being guided like a sheep.

[Trazalca]

I have copies of Demons & Angels, and The DaVinci Code (with the
added pictures/illustrations within) gathering dust on my bookshelf,
and have yet to read them. I'm gonna have to read TDC so I can jump in
with comments on this thread! But from what I've read online so far,
it just seems more heat for the Catholic religion to gripe about.
I mean, just how many movies have there been in the last 30 years
that have put the Catholic church in a negative light?
What's so funny is that, if there ever was a horror or murder mystery
that needed to involve a religion, you almost always want to go Catholic
(with voodoo religions being a close second, if the history of film has anything to anything to reveal).
It's so cliche to include Catholicism or some shade of it in the writing of such storylines,
it's almost done out of instinct at this point.

I'm not necessarily defending the Catholics, but with so many denominations to choose from,
it seems kinda of predictable. I guess the Episcopalian, Methodist and Lutheran churches
aren't so nearly as intrigueing. :ohwell:

[kah]

~irritated sigh~ You know, it's one thing to only have facts for one side of an argument. At least you can argue your viewpoint. It's another thing all together to have facts for neither. If you don't know what you are talking about, then you shouldn't be talking. Nothing bothers me more than having a debate with someone who heard something and decided they were against it.

[kah]

What's wrong with watching a 60 minutes episode on the subject? 60 Minutes is supposed to be a news show. Can't we make conclusions based on the evidence presented by it? Sure, I haven't read the book. In fact, I understand the book is a good read. But when a fiction book is lifted up as having some truth in it isn't wise to question the authors 'facts' or is that being 'closed minded'. :rolleyes:

The problem is not making conclusions based on a news program. By the way, who ever said the news was factual? The problem is coming in here and saying, "I haven't read TDC, but I am against it because some people think it is fact according to 60 minutes." Problem 1. I don't know if you are aware, but I'll repeat it for the 10th time in this thread- the DaVinci Code is FICTION!! Problem 2. You haven't read the book, therefore have no right to comment on what's in it. Problem 3. You aren't one of the people who believe what is in the book is true, so you can't argue for or against them, because you don't know what they are thinking. Problem 4. Your information comes from a so-called "news" show. 60 Minutes is entertainment first, news second. Besides, you have to think of the news like the weather. You can only trust the weatherman 50 %. He/she works with all the facts they are presented, but every day, hour, minute brings new facts for them to consider. Add to that, if you live just 20 miles away from the area the weather is intended for, your "perception" may be completely different. Kind of like the "rain only on one side of a street" phenomenom.

[DaForce]

I like pie.

[kah]

Do you remember when the Blair Witch Project was coming out? There were countless "documentaries" made so people would believe that the movie was real, and the subject was real. Dan Brown saying anything in his book is real is #1 to build hype for the movie. All the news programs and books dedicated to supporting or disproving the "theories" in the DVC are free publicity for him. Let the guy have his success, and stop worrying about what other people are thinking. Worry about what you are thinking. What does it matter if some people believe it is true? Are they hurting you in some fashion by doing so? Are they hurting anyone else with their beliefs? Just accept that the DVC is a fictional movie based on a fiction novel, and leave it at that.

[kah]

Thank you.

[Son of Gilbert]

Did you ever stop to think that just MAY BE someone at 60 minutes is a member of the Priory and since it's a secret that they are trying to debunk Brown. Really read the book and make up your own mind instead of being force feed everything that isn't LOTR from your narrowed minded friends and the all to truthful news media.

[fastcar]

Sorry. I just don't like how some people are talking about The DaVinci Code book like its in the least bit true. Yes, I know its a work of fiction. I have no interest in reading it. I have friends who have read it and told me about it.



So is the bible......





just saying, that's all.

[Jakester]

Erm...SoG...WHAT?!

Space Tycoon is the resident conspiracy theorist around here. There ain't room for another, so don't start.

LotR? Good movies -- hated the books.

Media=truthful? You been smokin' too much.

[Queen Mae]

Kah, I just love you so much sometimes.

(and other times I just love you... except when I'm jealous of you going to see NIN)

[Metuzalem]

So is the bible......





just saying, that's all.
ARGH!!! Beat me to it :wink:

[The Sym]

Un-informed.......

[Son of Gilbert]

I think you missed the sarcasm of the that last sentence there Jake.

[Queen Mae]

Oh come on, we all know that Leslie Stahl is the Priory's president!

[Trazalca]

*Traz reaches for the tongs, grabs a log, and throws it in the fire*

Catholic Scholars Brace for 'Da Vinci'
By ARIEL DAVID, Associated Press Writer

Roman Catholic scholars gathered Thursday to explore whether the soon-to-be-released film version of "The Da Vinci Code" will spread hostile sentiment against the church or provide an opportunity to draw people closer to religion.

Scholars including members of Opus Dei — the conservative religious order depicted as a murderous, power-hungry sect in the best-selling Dan Brown novel — were participating at the forum on the potential effects of the movie, set for release May 17-19 around the world.

"The movie will reach more people, so in that sense it will be a bit of a step forward for the book's ideas," said the Rev. John Wauck, a professor at Opus Dei's University of Santa Croce in Rome.

Brown's novel has Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having children, and it puts the church and Opus Dei at the center of a conspiracy to cover up the supposed secret. The author has claimed that while his story is fictional, it's rooted in historical fact — a position that's drawn a torrent of criticism from religious and historical scholars. The book also targets Opus Dei for its purported political and economic power as well is its use of "corporal mortification," the voluntary punishing of one's body as spiritual discipline.

Several high-ranking prelates are members of Opus Dei, an order which was particularly favored by the late Pope John Paul II. "As a book, 'The Da Vinci Code' doesn't merit serious attention," Wauck told The Associated Press in a telephone interview before the conference.

"However, as a phenomenon it demands serious attention, because a book that sells 40 million copies is not just a book, it tells us something about our society and the world we live in," Wauck said. The novel's success is a sign that there is "tremendous religious ignorance" but that readers also have a thirst for history, art, symbolism and a more spiritual life, Wauck said, indicating that the movie might draw some people closer to Catholicism.

"If you find what you see there attractive you will probably enjoy a Catholic Mass," he said. "I've seen people who have come back to their faith after reading `The Da Vinci Code.'" Opening the forum, Wauck contended that the novel hasn't emptied churches.

"The impact of `The Da Vinci Code' on religious attendance has been virtually nil," Wauck said. "Dan Brown is not convincing people of the falsity of Christianity," at least not on the level of the masses. While a Vatican has called for a boycott of the film, Opus Dei has not. It is among those, however, asking Sony Corp to issue a disclaimer with the film that would clarify that it is a work of fantasy.

Sony Pictures Entertainment has declined to reveal whether the film would bear a disclaimer but has said the work is not a religious one and is not meant to criticize any group.

Great. Now the Vatican is calling a boycott.
There goes the box office receipts! :smirk: :rolleyes:

[padawan66]

Wow

I'm going to church first thing in the morning well maybe if I remember.
Say would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?


http://www.avforums.com/dvdreviews/images/Mallrats/Mallrats10thR1_3.jpg



BONG!!!

[Sgt. Awesome]

On the note of the Bible being a work of fiction... that's completly true. The old testament was written as fables by the Babalonians. Childrens stories. Adam and Eve were characters.

Also if you belive the Adam and Eve being the parents of us all... we'd be inbread within four generations, our entire population legally retarded and misshapen.

Also, Cane found a village, of people...

Anyway... I'm REALLY anti-bible and I should have this argument with my seventh-gen preachers son friend before I bring it up here...




Da Vinci code, good book. Fiction section.

Movie, might see it, if my theatre gets it, if not I ain't paying, I'll catch it on DVD.

[kah]

Also if you belive the Adam and Eve being the parents of us all... we'd be inbread within four generations, our entire population legally retarded and misshapen.



Well, there's two ways to look at the inbreeding issue...

Consanguineous Mating

Consanguineous mating , or inbreeding, is the sexual union of closely related individuals, such as brothers, sisters, or cousins. It is an extreme form of positive assortative mating since close relatives usually are genetically more similar than are unrelated people who share a few traits. When siblings mate together, it is in effect positive assortative mating for many genetic traits. Half of the alleles of brothers and sisters are likely to be shared. If they mate together, their children would be expected to have a quarter of those alleles in common. Therefore, when consanguineous mating occurs, the result is significantly less genetic diversity among the descendants than if the parents had mated with someone who was not closely related but was like them in terms of selected traits such as skin color or stature.

It has long been assumed by the general public that children of inbred parents inevitably have a high probability of inheriting mental retardation and other serious genetic defects. This is not necessarily true. If a harmful allele is present in a family, it will show up at a higher than normal rate among inbred children. If inbreeding continues to be the common mating pattern in a family line, it is likely that homozygosity will increase in frequency and the family will experience a progressive rise in the genetic load of the deleterious allele. On the other hand, if the allele is not present in the family line, inbred offspring are not likely to have a higher than normal risk of inheriting a mutation for it. Inbreeding also could potentially increase the odds of a child inheriting desirable traits. If the family genetic line has alleles that contribute to advantageous characteristics, such as intelligence, health, or what their culture defines as beauty, they are more likely to show up in children resulting from inbreeding if the parents have these characteristics. Consanguineous mating also may be an advantage for women who are Rh negative because it would increase the chances that their children would be Rh negative. As a consequence, there would be a lower risk of erythroblastosis fetalis in the children


Or there's this possibility...

Human mating rarely is as consistently positive assortative as is the case with purebred domesticated animals. As a consequence, inbreeding depression is rarely a problem except for some reproductively isolated small societies and subcultures. The Old Order Amish are an example. This relatively small population centered in Pennsylvania and Ohio has been self-isolated by their religious beliefs and lifestyle for nearly three centuries. They mostly select mates from within their own communities, which results in positive assortative effects on their gene pool. The Amish population has a comparatively high frequency of Ellis-van Creveld syndrome , which is a genetically inherited disorder characterized by dwarfism, extra fingers, and malformations of the arms, wrists, and heart. The majority of the known cases in the world of this rare syndrome have been found among the Amish, and 7% of them carry the responsible recessive autosomal allele.


Read the rest here (http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_8.htm).

Just thought I'd throw a new argument in. :smirk:

[kah]

Kah, I just love you so much sometimes.

(and other times I just love you... except when I'm jealous of you going to see NIN)

Thanks! I just couldn't take it anymore.

[ellenora]

The book did not contain anything really "new" as far as its mythology was concerned. All of its "revelations" were things I'd heard about and read about in college... more years ago than I can to admit.

What the novel did was make these "theories" accessible to those who don't read or dissect scholarly or pseudo-scholoarly works. ;)

~elle

[omicron]

http://www.arete-eci.com/~alanus/jeez.jpg

Omi

[Scotia]

Couldn't agree more with that statement!
Dude, I think Omi was directing that statement at you.

[omicron]

Nah not at anyone in particular, just to the general religion arguing that occasionally pops up around here :)

Omi

[ellenora]

Now why would anyone argue about religion?

*evil* :D

~elle

[Sgt. Awesome]

Because we can argue about religion and make ourselves look smart and you shallow. This is looking more like a lounge topic then a movie forum topic...


MOVIES ARE GOOD


That should throw the mods off our trail.


REALLY OFF TOPIC: Ellenora, that books is awesome, just finished it (The Gods Themselves)

Yes... MOVIES

[Jakester]

Hey, as long as your opinion isn't stupid, then welcome to it.
The Last Temptation of Christ? Much ado about nothing.

Look, if people are stupid enough to be swayed that The Da Vinci Code is based in fact, then they're probably also the stupid people who think that dinosaurs co-existed with humans and not millions of years before. If those kinds of people piss you off that much, change your name to Jim Jones and offer them some free Kool-Aid.

[The Sym]

So are you saying that everyone here has right to their opinions/beliefs but me? Wow!


NO! That's not it Eldarion.... it's that damn staring.... what the hell are you looking at anyway? :smirk:


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d176/Zeringetti/Luke.jpg

[ellenora]

I read that Asimov book ages ago and always thought it was the best thing he ever wrote. I once read that he thought so too. The quote came to mind recently while I was posting elsewhere, so I looked it up to see where it came from before Asimov used it and have adopted it for my sig.

Back to the current discussion... cannot allow this to go off subject too far... ;) ... I enjoyed reading the book, but it was shallow and predictable. I hope the movie will be more.

[Metuzalem]

Hey, as long as your opinion isn't stupid, then welcome to it.
The Last Temptation of Christ? Much ado about nothing.

I've been meaning to ask that. What was the big deal about that film? I'm not trying to be flippant just to try and get a rise out of people. I genuinely dont' know what all the fuss is about regarding The Last Temptation of Christ. Can someone please explain to me why it is deemed so offensive?

[Jakester]

I think it was the fact that it portrayed Jesus as wanting to bang Mary Magdeline.

The bible goes to great lengths to point out that Christ was entirely human, so it would stand to reason that he would have "manly" needs and desires.

However, it also states that Christ was the only person completely without sin, and, according to the bible, thinking lustful thoughts is as sinful as acting upon them. Hence the wild protests.

[sickness]

What everyone who goes with that line of thinking fails to acknowledge, Jakester, is that...

...he was being tempted by Satan with a wonderful life where he has a wife and child and he's free of the agony and humiliation he had suffered / was suffering at the time... and he turned it down to do what he was sent to do.

[Jakester]

Okay. I haven't seen the flick. That's an even cooler temptation. I dig. I even now don't get what the fuss was aboot.

[Sgt. Awesome]

So are you saying that everyone here has right to their opinions/beliefs but me? Wow!

No, I'm saying it's easy to pick apart and get a rise out of people who do have religious beliefs. Not you in particular.

But yes, I want to go see Da Vinci code (most likely on DVD) for a movie not because I hate Jesus. People who love Jesus should go see it as well because it's a good movie. If you can point out valid reasons on why the book/movie sucks, using textual or film analysis then feel free. If your only point against it is it makes Jesus look bad and the church look evil then I don't respect your opinion about said book.

[Jakester]

But...does it make my ass look fat?

[Sgt. Awesome]

And saying that Jesus cured lepers and the bind is pretty unrealistic for me.



Jake... if you take the book out of your pants then your butt will look smaller... and less square.

[Sgt. Awesome]

Because there is no scientificly plausable for someone to have leprosy to suddenly lose it or for someone who is blind to gain the ability to see once again.

I'm an athiest (obvious, no?) who requires scientific proof for anything and everything.

Some guy who happened to be named Jesus shacking up with a girl and having a kid, happens every day. Ok... well maybe not the guy named Jesus bit... but it's far more likely then a cure for blindness or leprosy.



And if I'm completly off course,

put a thick book in the rear of your pants, it'll make your butt look bigger and more square.

[Jakester]

I never know if people around here are surprised to know that I'm NOT an athiest (or a Satanist), but I definitely take the stories in the bible with a whole frigging box of kosher salt. The only reason you don't see David Copperfield (can't believe the old queen was married to Claudia Schiffer) doesn't walk on water or turn water into wine is because the old religious biddies that make up a large part of his audience would freak out.

But really, this topic is about the mediocrity that is The Da Vinci Code and not whether Jesus ever banged Mary M. (although she was uber hot in The Passion, so I think that he probably would've.

[ellenora]

It comes down to faith. Some have it and some don't. I do... and I believe that all things are possible rather than require that the only things possible are those which can be verified.

When I was confirmed, St. Thomas (he of great doubt) happened to become my patron saint as I was confirmed on his feast day. Here was a man who knew Christ, and yet doubted the story of the resurrection until he met the risen Lord face to face. He then believed. He required proof.

The world will always be divided among those who believe and those who don't. I have been surprised on more than one occasion by friends and colleagues in the scientific community whom I thought would demand viable proof, stating that the more they learned, the more certain they became in the power of miracles.

And don't worry... just because you don't believe in God... doesn't mean God doesn't believe in you. :wink:

~elle

[Metuzalem]

It comes down to faith. Some have it and some don't. I do... and I believe that all things are possible rather than require that the only things possible are those which can be verified.

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's possible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did the nasty? Possibly having a kid? I think it's possible, but I sincerely hope the Christ bloodline dies on the cross. Think about it. Imagine he did father a child. Imagine that child's descendants walk the Earth today. Imagine the media circus if they ever prove someone is the descendant of Christ. Imagine if that someone was a Hitler figure. Scary thought no?

[The Sym]

Does anyone know the thesis behind the second coming of Jesus?

[ellenora]

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's possible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did the nasty? Possibly having a kid? I think it's possible, but I sincerely hope the Christ bloodline dies on the cross. Think about it. Imagine he did father a child. Imagine that child's descendants walk the Earth today. Imagine the media circus if they ever prove someone is the descendant of Christ. Imagine if that someone was a Hitler figure. Scary thought no?
I do indeed think it is possible. Indeed, for Jesus to have been unmarried in his society at that time is far more radical than for him to have been married. Was it Mary Magdalene? Possibly... but probably not. She is mentioned 7 times in the Gospels and the collective picture of her is of a woman healed by Christ, possibly a widow, whose fortune helped feed and shelter the disciples and Christ during his ministry. The legends that she gave birth to a daughter named Sara in Egypt after Christ died, are apochryphal and unproven. The stories indicate that Sara died as a child, at any rate.

There is even an apocryphal gospel supposedly written by Mary Magdalene... little more than a fragment... and unauthenticated. I've read it. It offers little additional information not found in the canonical gospels, and is so badly damaged that it tells only a fragment of the story.

[fastcar]

I just have one HUMONGOUS problem with the movie. It's the fact that all the different groups have started lashing out

I'm an albino and albino's are always portrayed as evil so down with the movie."

Guess what lady, Foul Play, Leathal Weapon all had Albino black guys, should have bitched 30 years ago.

Not only that. Where the hell were the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and this albino sonafabitch when the book was published? You know where they were? Waiting.

They didn't give a crap then, because the amount of money and publicity they can get is exponentially greater for bashing the big Ron Howard/Tom Hanks block buster movie than the book. Nobody cares about the book. Only a small amount of the population care to read the book. The movie plays to the masses.








Fastcar's still pissed at The Daughters of Revolution because they didn't boycott National Treasure because it depicts our forefathers as belonging to a secret society.

[ellenora]

You've hit the nail on the head. The same groups always wait until money can be made from attacking something, be it a book, a film, or a line of music (My Sweet Lord comes to mind). Sometimes, as they well know, they will receive a payoff rather than the publicity and have to face their court cases eventually going up in smoke. How much publicity can help or hurt an artistic endeavor is part of the equation of failure or success.

~elle

[Jakester]

It might not have been mentioned because it was normal and expected for a man to be married. It probably would only have been mentioned if he had not been married, which would have been extremely unusual and, consequently, worth mentioning. How much mention is made of his siblings? Were his apostles only children? They must have been because there isn't mention of any of thier siblings. Were they all celibate and unmarried? Did they have parents? I guess they didn't have parents because there was no mention of them in the bible.

Sheesh. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. Furthermore, just because something is claimed to have happened doesn't mean it did.

[DaForce]

"The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence!"


Ah...one of my favorite Sam L. Jackson lines from the Boondocks.

[fastcar]

So far from what I know a lot of the book is in the movie. They do change some of the clues, some of the order, and the dialogue is also expanded upon, but watching the trailers I've recognized all the scenes.....

[sickness]

I know most here disagree with me and that is your choice. We all have to make a choice about Jesus and whether or not to become His followers. I know where I am going to spend eternity. Do you?

[steps off of my soapbox] Okay lets get back on topic and talk about the movie... :)

Well, if Christians are right, I'm going to hell for being agnostic. If so, all I can say is there will be a hell of a lot of nice people there.

[Jakester]

Er...and all those nice Jews with the beards. Hmm...I wonder if Hell for Hitler is where the Jews get to gas him for all eternity.

[kah]

If Jesus had been married and had children there would of been some mention of His ancestors. Jesus was (and still is) a unquie figure in history. If He wasn't such a unique figure there wouldn't be so many churches claiming to be followers of Him 2000 years later all over the world even in places like China where you can be killed for being a Christian. So if he had children we would of known about it for sure. There are so many writings about Jesus, and His church someone would of mentioned his wife and children. To say they wouldn't written about this is being unreasonable. And true Christianity is a reasonable faith (whether you believe or not).

I know most here disagree with me and that is your choice. We all have to make a choice about Jesus and whether or not to become His followers. I know where I am going to spend eternity. Do you? God still loves you and longs for a relationship with you.

[steps off of my soapbox] Okay lets get back on topic and talk about the movie... :)

You have to remember that the Bible was not written as it happened, and that it has been consolidated and edited for a couple thousand years. Just because something is not there now, does not mean it wasn't written. It may not have made the final cut. Also, ditto Jakester.

[Jakester]

Yeah...you want me.

Hey, getting this thread back on topic: Kahlan, what say you and I go to the theater and totally ignore DaVinci Code? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

[kah]

Hmmmm, let me think about that.....




































Um, how 'bout no?

[neglet]

Wow, Jake, you should be flattered. I don't think anyone's ever had to "think about it" before turning you down before! You da man!

[omicron]

keep trying big guy, you're getting closer to actual acceptance by a female. :)

I, on the other hand, am moving in the entire opposite direction :(

Omi

[Metuzalem]

You're moving closer to actual acceptance by a male? :dunno:

[omicron]

nah more of the 'total disdain' from women :ohwell:

Omi

[Queen Mae]

There is a reasonable and logical reason why Jesus' wife and children would be kept out of the history - and it doesn't involve misogyny. When the Romans killed a man, they killed his entire male line and then assimilated his female line. They did this to avoid any revenge from the offspring. If Jesus and Mary M. were married and she was carrying his child it makes sense that she would have fled the area where Jesus was killed. She would have been trying to avoid the persecution of her child.

What I will never understand is why some Christians are offended by the possibility of Jesus being in a loving relationship with a woman but aren't offended by Lot having sex with his daughters.

If He wasn't such a unique figure there wouldn't be so many churches claiming to be followers of Him 2000 years later all over the world even in places like China where you can be killed for being a Christian.

People in Tibet die for their belief in an impersonal god of cause and effect based on the teachings of Buddha. People in the Middle East die trying to keep the message of Mohammed alive. If Jesus was unique because people still die for him, then Buddha and Mohammed are unique as well.

Although, I thought that Christians, today, believed that Jesus was unique because he was born of a virgin. If he had sex with Mary M. and produced children, those children would not be born of a virgin and thus would not hinder Jesus' uniqueness.

Your arguement against this possibility does not hold water. If Christianity is a religion of reasonable faith then it should be easy for you to see how it is possible that Jesus had a child. Note that I said possible, not fact. It is not a fact that he had children and not a fact that he didn't.

[RAS1980]

I think this book/movie is a load of crap. I can't believe people will be naive enough to actually believe the book is truth without looking into the facts. But I guess people will believe all kinds of b.s. so I shouldn't be surprised.:dunno:
How could any reasonable person believe that with the help of Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene clandestinely traveled to Gaul (Modern day France) took asylum with the Jewish people, and then gave birth to a girl? The journey from ancient Palestine (modern day Israel) to Gaul (modern day France) would take MANY years, not nine months. That's utter garbage. Any person with the slighest bit of common sense could figure that much out. :angry :angry :angry Why would Mary Magdalene want to seek out sanctuary in France, of all places, anyhow? :dunno:

[RAS1980]

There is a reasonable and logical reason why Jesus' wife and children would be kept out of the history - and it doesn't involve misogyny. When the Romans killed a man, they killed his entire male line and then assimilated his female line. They did this to avoid any revenge from the offspring. If Jesus and Mary M. were married and she was carrying his child it makes sense that she would have fled the area where Jesus was killed. She would have been trying to avoid the persecution of her child.

What I will never understand is why some Christians are offended by the possibility of Jesus being in a loving relationship with a woman but aren't offended by Lot having sex with his daughters.



People in Tibet die for their belief in an impersonal god of cause and effect based on the teachings of Buddha. People in the Middle East die trying to keep the message of Mohammed alive. If Jesus was unique because people still die for him, then Buddha and Mohammed are unique as well.

Although, I thought that Christians, today, believed that Jesus was unique because he was born of a virgin. If he had sex with Mary M. and produced children, those children would not be born of a virgin and thus would not hinder Jesus' uniqueness.

Your arguement against this possibility does not hold water. If Christianity is a religion of reasonable faith then it should be easy for you to see how it is possible that Jesus had a child. Note that I said possible, not fact. It is not a fact that he had children and not a fact that he didn't.

Actually, it doesn't make perfect sense for Jesus to have spawned children. Wouldn't Jesus' grandchildren be only 1/4th descendents of 'God'? Wouldn't the Godliness be diluted through the spawning of further generations? :dunno:

[RAS1980]

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's possible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did the nasty? Possibly having a kid? I think it's possible, but I sincerely hope the Christ bloodline dies on the cross. Think about it. Imagine he did father a child. Imagine that child's descendants walk the Earth today. Imagine the media circus if they ever prove someone is the descendant of Christ. Imagine if that someone was a Hitler figure. Scary thought no?

Fascinating theory. :D :)

[Queen Mae]

Actually, it doesn't make perfect sense for Jesus to have spawned children. Wouldn't Jesus' grandchildren be only 1/4th descendents of 'God'? Wouldn't the Godliness be diluted through the spawning of further generations? :dunno:

In theory, sure. What's your point?

I don't see how that affects whether or not he fathered children.

[RAS1980]

In theory, sure. What's your point?

I don't see how that affects whether or not he fathered children.
:dunno: I just truly doubt that Jesus spawned any children. :ohwell:

[Queen Mae]

I doubt it too, but my doubts can't be substituted for evidence. Although I doubt it I still have to entertain the possibility that he did because I have no evidence either way.

[Jakester]

Yeah...no girl would want to bang the son of god. I mean, we all know that chicks aren't into guys with power.

[fastcar]

How could any reasonable person believe that with the help of Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene clandestinely traveled to Gaul (Modern day France) took asylum with the Jewish people, and then gave birth to a girl? The journey from ancient Palestine (modern day Israel) to Gaul (modern day France) would take MANY years, not nine months. That's utter garbage. Any person with the slighest bit of common sense could figure that much out. :angry :angry :angry Why would Mary Magdalene want to seek out sanctuary in France, of all places, anyhow? :dunno:


Yeah, it would, and according to certain theories, M.M. showed up in a boat with a daughter named Sara.


My biggest thing is everyone can see that the bible has been embellished. We all know that there are certain events that cannot have happened the way they were written. Yet, when it comes to a logical deduction that a man and a woman had a relationship and produced a child in a time where birth control was non existent, everybody cries shenanigans.

[Metuzalem]

Yeah...no girl would want to bang the son of god. I mean, we all know that chicks aren't into guys with power.

Too right man, look at John Prescott. No actually, on second thoughts, DON'T. He's freaky looking.

[kah]

Yeah, it would, and according to certain theories, M.M. showed up in a boat with a daughter named Sara.


My biggest thing is everyone can see that the bible has been embellished. We all know that there are certain events that cannot have happened the way they were written. Yet, when it comes to a logical deduction that a man and a woman had a relationship and produced a child in a time where birth control was non existent, everybody cries shenanigans.


Where are you getting your facts?? It is well known that birth control was practiced in ancient times.

Contraception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception)

History of Birth Control (http://birthcontrol.ttcdreams.com/history.html)

[fastcar]

Which is why Job only had 10 children.


I meant the condom, the shot, the patch, and the pill.

[RAS1980]

Yeah, it would, and according to certain theories, M.M. showed up in a boat with a daughter named Sara.


My biggest thing is everyone can see that the bible has been embellished. We all know that there are certain events that cannot have happened the way they were written. Yet, when it comes to a logical deduction that a man and a woman had a relationship and produced a child in a time where birth control was non existent, everybody cries shenanigans.

What "certain theories" are you referring to? Would you mind giving me the names of authors that espoused such theories? You are aware that a theory can be disproven at any point in time, correct? :) How do you know birth control was non-existent during Jesus' time? Apparently you've never heard of coitus interruptus huh. . .LOL :)

[RAS1980]

Where are you getting your facts?? It is well known that birth control was practiced in ancient times.

Contraception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception)

History of Birth Control (http://birthcontrol.ttcdreams.com/history.html)
He has no facts to back up what he's saying. . .he's just giving his opinions, which are sadly uninformed :)

[RAS1980]

P.S. Contraception is hardly a "modern" invention. Birth control has been in existence well before Christ was conceived into the terresterial! Scrolls excavated in Egypt, dating back to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced during the Roman Empire. One method of contraception was for the man to wear wool, which would sufficently absorb sperm:) Condoms were also frequently fashioned out of animal skins:) Good try though:)

[RAS1980]

Yeah...no girl would want to bang the son of god. I mean, we all know that chicks aren't into guys with power.
Of course there were women who lusted after Jesus, I wouldn't deny that simple and natural fact! :smirks: If Jesus was supposed to be a prophet of sorts, then wouldn't he want to set an outstanding example for his disciples by remaining celibate? I have no idea. Maybe Jesus did have orgies back then. . . .ok just kidding. :dunno: :jump2:

[Jakester]

Hmmm...you're almost amusing. I'll mock you later.

[RAS1980]

Hmmm...you're almost amusing. I'll mock you later.
You do that, I'm sure it makes you feel like a bigger person. :rolleyes:

[Queen Mae]

Of course there were women who lusted after Jesus, I wouldn't deny that simple and natural fact! :smirks: If Jesus was supposed to be a prophet of sorts, then wouldn't he want to set an outstanding example for his disciples by remaining celibate? I have no idea. Maybe Jesus did have orgies back then. . . .ok just kidding. :dunno: :jump2:

Why would being celibate be an outstanding example? What's wrong with sex? What makes two people expressing their love for one another dirty?

[RAS1980]

Why would being celibate be an outstanding example? What's wrong with sex? What makes two people expressing their love for one another dirty?
That's totally immaterial and irrelevant. My point is that if Jesus fathered a child, *I* personally believe would have made him more human and less God-like, although many devout believers in Christ would disagree with me :). Besides, there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or ever had a child. :dunno: Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I don't claim to be right. :)

[RAS1980]

That's totally immaterial and irrelevant. My point is that if Jesus fathered a child, *I* personally believe would have made him more human and less God-like, although many devout believers in Christ would disagree with me :). Besides, there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or ever had a child. :dunno: Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I don't claim to be right. :)

Again. . .everything I post is just my opinion. Nobody on here has to agree with me. :)

[Jakester]

We don't? Wow. That's mighty generous of you; you know, letting us have our own opinions and all.

BTW, Mae's got that whole mythology and religion major things going on. She at least sounds like she knows of what she speaks.

Oh, btw, there's no evidence in the Bible that Jesus wiped his bum. Guess he never did.

[kah]

Gross! Now I am thinking about Jesus healing the leper and walking on water, but his butt is sealed over with dried poo while he does it. Way to go, Jake.

[fastcar]

He has no facts to back up what he's saying. . .he's just giving his opinions, which are sadly uninformed :)


Well, ok fine, so birth control has been around as long as forever.... BFD.

Using Kah's example of wikipedia, it was frowned upon.

Among traditional interpretations of the Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah), active prevention of pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy) is in violation of the commandment "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis) 1:22). Some Rabbinic authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi) further consider the possibility (generally not accepted) that a union that by definition cannot lead to pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy) would amount to "spilling seed", the sin of Onan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) (Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis) 38:9).

So, I guess IN MY OPINION, it's not that there was no birth control, but it was a bad idea. So, it is more logical to think that IF there were a union between the Big J and MM it would have produced a child.


There is a legend that Saint Sarah was actually the daughter.

But it is more widely accepted that she was a servant to Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah)



I'm sorry I worded that wrong. But again, that's my opinion.

Psalms 93 and 104 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_104), and Ecclesiastes 1:5 speak of the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the earth.

Galileo was declared a heretic for the heliocentric idea.
After all, the BIBLE stated that the Earth was the center of everything because that is where the church was you can't make the church revolve around anything. Pope Urban VIII told him not to advocate the heliocentric idea but to display arguments for and against. Yet, was the Bible, accurate?

Years ago, if someone said the world was round, you'd be thought of as a fool. And even though most people in Columbus' times accepted that the Earth was indeed round, most would argue to the exact measurements. Were they right?

I know that there is no proof that a union existed. I know that there is more accepted to believe things they way they are. But until someone shows me proof positive that it is "this way" and can never be somewhat "that way" I will question it.



That is my opinion and do not force anyone to accept or defend it.

[KingVoyeur]

'Da Vinci Code' meets with catcalls
Film inspires protest -- and negative reviews

The long-awaited movie version of Dan Brown's best-seller "The Da Vinci Code" is entering the world to disapproval.

The opening salvos have come from journalists and movie critics, who screened the film Tuesday night, where it opened the 59th Cannes Film Festival. More trouble is coming from Christian groups in several countries, who are angry with the film's mix of fact and fiction involving Jesus Christ and Roman Catholicism.

At Cannes, one scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience, and when the credits rolled, there was no applause, only a few catcalls and hisses. Things were no better Stateside, where the film screened for critics in New York.

The Hollywood Reporter headlined its review, " 'Da Vinci Code' an unwieldy, bloated puzzle."

"No chemistry exists between the hero and heroine, and motivation remains a troubling sore point," wrote reviewer Kirk Honeycutt, panning Tom Hanks' "remote, even wooden performance." Only co-star Ian McKellen managed to avoid criticism.

Time magazine's Richard Corliss also takes digs at Hanks and director Ron Howard. The latter "seems propelled more out of duty than love for the project," Corliss wrote, while Hanks "seems to sleepwalk through the part."

Full story @ CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/da.vinci/index.html)

I'm still gonna check it out.

[RAS1980]

We don't? Wow. That's mighty generous of you; you know, letting us have our own opinions and all.

BTW, Mae's got that whole mythology and religion major things going on. She at least sounds like she knows of what she speaks.

Oh, btw, there's no evidence in the Bible that Jesus wiped his bum. Guess he never did.

Yeah, you don't. Wow, wow, wow. You sure are condescending and snide. If only I could be as sarcastic as you. BTW, I have read different articles and books about Biblical interpretations. Every author seems to have their own viewpoint. :)

[fastcar]

Time magazine's Richard Corliss also takes digs at Hanks, Corliss wrote, Hanks "seems to sleepwalk through the part."

Which is funny, because in the book he is portrayed a little sleepily. Having been drug from his hotel room late at night to go to the Louvre.

I'm still going to go see it despite everyone's reviews. It just seems sort of a fun romp with a weak ending. Kind of like National Treasure.

[kah]

Full story @ CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/da.vinci/index.html)

I'm still gonna check it out.

:eek: That is the worst thing I could possibly hear. Forty million books were sold! And who knows how many people the owners of those books loaned them to? You just can't fuck with a story so many people know. I hope it's not bad, I really do.

[KingVoyeur]

:eek: That is the worst thing I could possibly hear. Forty million books were sold! And who knows how many people the owners of those books loaned them to? You just can't fuck with a story so many people know. I hope it's not bad, I really do.

I went and read the whole Time review (which you can read by clicking Time Review (http://time.blogs.com/movies/2006/05/the_da_vinci_co.html)), and the CNN article did kind of a selective choosing of what to include from it. The Time reviewer does say that the film has flaws, but he also says that the film is "doggedly faithful to Brown's plot."

He also says:

The movie goes further. Beneath the chases and crashes, the chalices and cilices, it denies Jesus’ divinity. As Teabing (perhaps not the most trustworthy authority) says in the movie, “The Greatest Story Ever Told is a lie!” And further still: the film challenges the belligerence that too often adheres to religious believers, the wars and atrocities perpetrated in His name. “Who is God, who is man?” asks Sophie. “How many have been murdered over this question?” I’m not taking sides on that issue. But for a mainstream, $125 million summer movie to raise it, let alone suggest a negative answer, in a cultural environment already politicized and polarized by religious debate, takes big steel balls. I didn’t know Opie had ’em.

So maybe there’s one more Da Vinci Code movie mystery yet to be unraveled. Will the mass movie audience take to a thriller that appears to attack the fundamental beliefs of what, our leaders keep telling us, is an actively Christian country? If Howard’s movie marches through that storm, it will become a phenomenon as impressive as the book’s gigantic sales: the first secular-humanist hit.

I enjoyed the book, and I've been waiting too long and been subjected to too much buildup to be scared away by some preliminary reviews and angry protestors. I'll make my own decisions.

[Jakester]

You sure are condescending and snide. If only I could be as sarcastic as you.
It's a natural talent, Baby. But maybe if you practice hard and say your prayers at night, maybe you can learn as well.


Incidentally, I saw those early reviews, too. Unfortunately, it's kind of what I expected. I'm sure it'll look good (I like Opie, and the cast), but, while the book was an easy, summer beach-trash type read, I thought too much of it was tedious and plodding, as if certain "dangerous situation" and plot twists existed simply because they made the book longer.

[Queen Mae]

I couldn't put the book down when I read it but I have a feeling that the film will bore me to tears. The suspense was what kept me reading and since I already know what's going to happen I hardly see the point in seeing the movie.

Then again, I already know what's going to happen in X3 and I'm still going to waste 9 dollars to see it.

[Jakester]

Yeah...well...I can't help you there. I'm sure Huge Jack-man shirtless will do wonders for the chick demographic, but I can't really find a good reason to go see this. I mean, not even Alba could get me into the theater for Fantastic Four.

[DaForce]

My money's going to a good movie this weekend....Over the Hedge.


Hanks teamed up with director Opie Cunningham (Ron Howard for you philistines) just doesn't work for me. Apollo 13? Boring. Probably one of the most boring movies I've seen, so a 'thriller' with these two will probably wind up just as dull.