The Phenomena Guide to the Da Vinci Code Guides

Please someone tell me, what the hell does it matter if Jesus had a wife and offspring?
How in any way does that change who he was and what he did? Is it some how less believable that he walked on water and rose from the dead, if he had sex and had a kid? Would this dystroy your faith in him? What's the big friggin deal?

It changes absolutely nothing about his teachings, but it does discredit the institution of organized christian religions that are based on lies. Some people refuse to believe that they have been deceived.

The Catholic church doesn't want Jesus to have been married or had children. If that was the case, why would it be wrong for a priest to have a wife and children? Maybe the Catholic church (and yes, I am...used to be...Catholic) should change their stance on priests being married; then they'd leave the kids alone.

Sadly, considering the number of married adults who sexually abuse their children, I don't think wessmith's idea is the solution to the Catholic church's apparently ongoing sexual abuse problem.

Anyway this whole idea of Single priest with no right to intime realtionship appeared pretty late compare with the birth of the institution, so this whole idea is frigging stupid and was once again a money making machine( all good return to the church) sale in the idea of ultimate sacrifice toward the GOD and the people they were SUPPOSED to help.

Anyway the greatest thing in life IS aswell as the ultimate sacrifice is to have kids. No they didn't had the right to have some , but they were pretty damn good to order women to have more and more, constantly knowing that the familly couldn't afford it. But then again it was either this or the way of hell. Oh and don't forget your contribution on Sunday.............


Sorry folks i cleared my heart there.

In 1900-1960 the church has done pretty bad here in Quebec......Pretty minor compare with the crime against humanity they commit througout its existance.

Us poor simple folk don't want our Gods humanized. Jesus is supposed to stay up there on the screen... er... cross where he belongs.

If you liked "The Da Vinci Code", you should check out "The Templar Legacy" by Steve Berry for another (not as exciting, but better written) look at the "man Jesus".

If Jesus had a wife or a child is not really the issue. He could have and as westend mentions, "It changes absolutely nothing about his teachings." Nor is it that people don't want God to be humanized since Jesus is shown to be fully human throughout the Gospels. Truth is the issue. According to all the historial documents (New Testament and extra-Biblical material from around his life time and shortly thereafter AD30-100), a wife and child is never mentioned. Now, that doesn't have to precude a family, but then again there isn't one shred of evidence that he did have one. And, according to the story, Jesus and Mary left for France. Yet, according to every historical document from that time, Jesus died on the cross. What is at issue is the truth of the Gospels. Books like "The Da Vinci Code" are fine as fiction. The problem comes when they want to act like they are telling the truth. The truth is they are pure speculation. They can't be backed up by a single shred of evidence. Think about it, not even the Romans or the Jews who investigated and wrote about Jesus ever say he was married, had a child, or that he moved to France. None of them say anything about being married or having a child. They all say he died on the cross. The institution of organized christian religions are not discredited because they are not based upon a lie. The church is based on the only historial documents we have. I like what barsoom says, "Some people refuse to believe that they have been deceived." However, I doubt we'd agree about who's been deceived.

On the question of "Who cares whether Jesus got married and had kids, or not?" I can give a resounding "Not me." At least not the way this book presented it.

For all that might have been merely indifferent if not for America’s apparent love affair with this book.

First of all, the reason I read (and, hopefully, some of you will laugh) was as required reading in a Graduate English class. When I bought it the girl at the register said “This is a great book.” with a reverence usually reserved for ‘Hamlet’ or the Bible, or something written by James Joyce.

Reading it I remember thinking: This is a great book? I could think of few stories from college workshops were less compelling than this. It is absolutely nothing more than a paint-by-numbers detective story (complete with the "detective sleeping with the murder victims daughter) given a false sense of importance by tacking a controversial hook on it, delivered with all the subtlety of a tabloid o headline . Then putting up a haze of ‘symbology’ jargon in hopes that no one will no one will the creative vacuum behind the hook.

And if this were given credit for being nothing more than the pulp piece it is, that would be fine. But people act like this is a new classic, and it just doesn’t have the chops. I wouldn’t even call it truly controversial, since the controversy never rises above being device to jump start the action, and to boost sales.

And its not the obligatory clichés or even the hook itself that aggravates, my real problem with this book as a work of fiction is what isn't there. Like a real effort to explore the themes implicit in the “hook” in question.

While the story uses religion it does not explore the nature of faith with any depth. New ideas are presented, but the frightening nature new ideas seem to always be someone else’s problem never that of the protagonist, so we don’t get that journey.

While the idea of what it would be like to be the child of Jesus Chri

Christ could have its own fascuinations that isn't really erxplored here either.

For contrast look at way Philip K. Dick's 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' and 'The Man from High Castle' explore the themes of ideology and the authenticity of paper history and memory in a far more profound sense than this work.

'Dune' stands out as another treatment of the theme of organized religion whose examination its Messianic figure while less direct is again far more thought provoking.

While ‘The DaVinci’ code just throws its best ideas down on a slab a lets them rot.

It may have entertainment, and maybe it presents some interesting ideas. But I think we should expect from a story in any medium that tries to address topics like religion and cultural bias.

I should say in fairness that the assignment in question had more academic merit than one might think. But it only underlined the art history issue could had been reviewed in more academic treatment than this book provided.