The Davinci Code

That would be true if someone was following Jesus around with a dictaphone.

 

Sorry, Celt. Maybe I should have said "fact" instead of "truth". The DaVinci Code's main focus is an alleged cover up that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a daughter. They do take one shot at His divine identity during Ian McKellen's monologue, but it happens so fast, if you're not looking for it, you might miss it altogether. His argument, however, was ludicrous. It was the equivalent of arguing "if one plus one equals 2, then four is blue." It was totally disconnected. But I digress.

The question at hand throughout the movie was whether or not Jesus and Mary were married and had a child. The argument there is purely historical fact, not a question of divine doctrine. However, I found even that to be a very poor assertion. In order to have half a chance of being true, the scrolls of the Priory of Sion would have to be revealed and authenticated, and even then, they would have to prove to have more integrity than the canonized Gospels, which would be extremely difficult at best.

If one goes into the movie regarding the Bible and all of Christianity as complete fiction, there really is no difference and it's all just entertainment. But to many believers, the story has taken something with a great deal of historical integrity and played with it just enough to cause doubt for those who have not done their homework.

 

Recordings weren't around until around the mid-twentieth century. Do you want to call into question every significant set of historical documents dated prior to that?

 

Yeah, i picked that up, i think, that was when McKellen just called Jesus a regular man, right? I did get the feeling that this movie was definately targeted towards those who had read the book as the facts were glossed over very quickly in an arguementative fashion too. (Then of course you might want to weigh McKellans words, putting in the dig considering his own personal beliefs.)

But its also supposed to be thru another mans eyes, and an artist at that. Were still talking about paintings drawn long after the fact. Why DaVinci drew John (or is it really Mary) like a woman we'll never know.

And was Mary truly a whore or a woman of ill repute? Id always been led to believe so. Wasnt that why she was gonna be stoned?

I was just pointing out that it's still hearsay. Just because someone wrote something down 200 years later doesnt make it fact, its still word of mouth that got it to that point. Show me where Jesus himself wrote something down.

 

Divine inspiration. End of story.

 

typical response. it's funny, you disagree with me, so you call me profane names. i disagree with you, but don't resort to name calling. i'll pray for you.

 

amen brother.

 

Indeed. His being gay probably equates to a rather dim view of the church as a whole.

As I understand it, most of the figures of that era (early 1500's?) were commonly painted rubenesque and effeminate. Just an artistic style or preference, I suppose.

That was another Mary. Mary Magdalene was the woman Jesus cast seven demons from (Luke 8:2).

Point taken. But even then, it would be difficult to prove. Any supportive evidence would likely be eyewitness accounts, and that is exactly what the Gospels claim to be. So we're back at square one, are we not?

 

You're still a fucking idiot.

 

just got back from watching the movie...

it sucked....