cracking the da vinci code

Hasbeens, I just finished reading the book.

Indeed, it is a thriller written through the lens of a Catholic conspiracy intended to hide that Jesus was married with Mary Magdalene and that they had children.

I found it interesting and fun to read.

As far as Chrisitan doctrine and history, Chuck Colson had it right. Dan Brown takes a lot of literary license to bring it all together.

As far as I'm concerned, thats ok. The author never intended the book to be historically accurate nor a textbook on Christian history. It is labeled fiction for a good reason.

I hope you read it. It's quite fun.

 

Chuck has to sell syndicated radio segments to Christian stations. I thought that was a bit overdone telling folks to throw the book away. Nothing wrong with reading fiction. I posted that radio transcript because of the book description as much as anything. Like Hasbeen I will probably read it. Sounds interesting.

 

I can see where it might be a concern, but I really don't think so. Matthew was fairly educated, and wrote his own account. Paul most definitely had influence over Luke -- Luke dictated both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts from Paul. His gospel account was most likely a collaboration with the other apostles (it's almost a carbon copy of Matthew), but according to the NIV, Luke's gospel was intended as a lead-in to Acts, where Paul truly got involved. There are subtle differences, but the meat and potatoes are constant throughout Matthew, Mark (who dictated Peter's account), and Luke. Another thing to consider is that the writing styles and purposes of Paul's letters are very different than those of the gospels. Each letter had a specific message to a specific group of people. The gospels' intent is to recount the story of Jesus' ministry and message.

Perhaps I've not communicated what I meant clearly. Every person who teaches Christianity adapts it to apply to his or her audience. The beauty (and the danger) of Jesus' message is that it can be adapted to apply to any person, anywhere, at any time. In other words, it is flexible enough to be understood and embraced by everyone, but consistent enough that it doesn't lose its integrity. Of course, that doesn't mean mistakes and/or unfounded modifications don't happen. They have, and they will, as long as people are doing the teaching. That's why it's so important for Christians to study their Bibles and educate themselves on what they believe instead of relying solely on what the church tells them. Everyone needs accountability.

You're right -- Luke wasn't there, and neither was Paul. None of the apostles were, and none of them would know unless Jesus told them, which He likely did. His temptation in the desert was the preamble to His ministry, and likely was included in His early teachings to the apostles.

 

And then there's the book of John.

 

Larry, Can you block me from this thread?

I just started the book and I'm dying to read this. :xyzthumbs

 

If you are getting completely into the book, you'll not want to spend any amound of free time on any message board.

 

I read through His teachings over the weekend, and while all His messages were gender-neutral (disregarding references to "The Father"), His actions spoke loudly about how He felt about women. He did not see them as equal to men in every way, but He treated them with far more dignity and respect than the men of that culture did, or do today -- even women of different races and cultures.

The impression I've gotten from studying the New Testament as a whole is that men and women have different roles, but those roles are balanced. Men are usually assigned to leadership, but Jesus wants them to be 'servant leaders', meaning they put others' needs ahead of their own, while taking full responsibility for their decisions and actions.

Does that answer your question, Nut?

 

Hey has-beens,

If you want to cut by all the 'fictional story', read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's pure research and specualtion, without a thriller movie intertwined.

Like S-nut said, it does get dry.

I didn't read everything else in this thread, but basically it theorizes that Christ had a wife - Mary magdalene, and she bore his children. Mary Magdalene IS the holy grail - her womb being the 'cup'. And since he had kids, there are people alive today that are the direct ancestors of Jesus Christ.

The catholics then covered the whole thing up, and made Magdalene a whore, and so forth.

It is a good read.

 

but if his treatment was so different than those around him, don't you think he'd have made some mention of it? it would seem logical if he thought it was important for him to have at least talked about once or twice.

this means either,
1. he didn't think it was that important
2. he did speak to it, but it was excised for some reason
3. he didn't actually have these views, but they were added in later (that is, his all-loving persona was enhanced by having his actions toward women depicted with the highest regard)

both 2 and 3 require a reworking of the account after the fact. 1 requires a somewhat strange view of what jesus was doing here (if it was to get his message out, it seems strange to leave off some of the message).

 

i never did finish it, but didn't the word "grail" come from the old french word "graal" which means blood? that the "holy grail" was really the holy bloodline -- jesus' bloodline. thus the title of the book.