The Da Vinci Code, Movie

[airbarrett]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

i've read the book, and i enjoyed the movie. I don't remember everything about the book so there might be some things that were changed in the movie that i didn't notice, but i thought it was very good. i'm a huge tom hanks fan and i thought he did a good job in this movie. overall a good movie and i need to go read angels and demons now.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Conspiracy theorists/rumors have it that every single one of our presidents with the exception of two were/are Free Masons.

If you think hard enough figuring out the two that weren't is pretty easy.

Here's a hint: They've been historically linked for decades.

Awesome. I can't wait for this one. Hopefully he'll change up the style a little bit as DVC was too much like Angels & Demons. I had a couple of deja-vu moments.

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Awesome. I can't wait for this one. Hopefully he'll change up the style a little bit as DVC was too much like Angels & Demons. I had a couple of deja-vu moments.

If you read any of Dan Brown's books, you'll see the same style. It's one of the few things that bug me about his writing.

Each book has the stalking killer, the mysterious puppet master (who turns out to be one of the major characters), and a hero/heroine who slowly develops a love relationship with a minor character (or in the case of Digital Fortress, already has one).

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Yup. And personally, I thought it was better.

I agree...and if they film it, I'm definitely getting in line.

And if you thought the Church took issues with DaVinci....yeesh!

[thenbagamer]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

i saw the movie and i have to say, it dissapointed me. Also, the assassin dude is pretty freaky.

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Believe.....this smells like some......BULL CRAP to me....I read the book and as a beliver in JESUS CHRIST.....I get a huge laugh from this garbage,but hey to each his/her own...for some who are not bible versed ,i can see how you can be persuaded to believe,or buy into some of this crap... .anyways....

Yes...as opposed to a book that is infallable because it says it is. Right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where does Dan Brown dispute the existence of Jesus Christ or contradict what is written in the Bible? Last time I checked, he's simply elaborating on other texts that were also written around the same time.

And as for the "Descriptions of artwork..." disclaimer, what's wrong with it? He is accurately describing them. His interpretation may be up for debate, but not his descriptions. I was one of those people who rushed online to look at a picture of The Last Supper when I got to that part of the novel just to check it out for myself.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

And as for the "Descriptions of artwork..." disclaimer, what's wrong with it? He is accurately describing them. His interpretation may be up for debate, but not his descriptions. I was one of those people who rushed online to look at a picture of The Last Supper when I got to that part of the novel just to check it out for myself.

I did the same thing with most of the pieces of art, not in in DVC, but Angels & Demons as well.

And if you thought the Church took issues with DaVinci....yeesh!

Exactly. After reading Angels & Demons, followed by DVC, I couldn't see where DVC was more controversial than A&D. Of course the Jesus Christ was married/had kids thing, but I thought A&D was more controversial because I felt like it was actually attacking the Church.

[Beantown]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Well...technically in A&D they were attacking the Vatican, lol.

[LetsGoPitt]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Yes, but "they" refers to the second in command of the Catholic Church who manipulated everything in an attempt to become pope himself. I won't go further for the sake of those who haven't read the book, but the Church would NOT approve of a high-level Church offical doing the things that go on in the book.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Exactly why I thought A&D was more controversial.

[SportsTop]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

I don't know if I'd consider Angels & Demons more controversial. In the end it was about protecting the church.....not exposing it.

Nevertheless, it is going to make a much more exciting move.

[triplej96]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Finally a film with meaning! One of my favorite films of the year thus far. It was so deep on so many levels it really made you think I love open minded people and open minded films.

[TexasJedi]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Yes...as opposed to a book that is infallable because it says it is. Right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where does Dan Brown dispute the existence of Jesus Christ or contradict what is written in the Bible? Last time I checked, he's simply elaborating on other texts that were also written around the same time.

And as for the "Descriptions of artwork..." disclaimer, what's wrong with it? He is accurately describing them. His interpretation may be up for debate, but not his descriptions. I was one of those people who rushed online to look at a picture of The Last Supper when I got to that part of the novel just to check it out for myself.

What’s wrong with it is that it is not accurate. It also claims that the secret rituals are accurate as well. Let’s discuss some of the plethora of errors.

Claim: The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1950's.
Fact: It may not seem to be a big deal but they were found by a shepherd boy at Qumran in 1947.

Claim: The Gnostic (Nag Hammadi) are the true gospels and were written in Aramaic and in scroll form.
Facts: None of this is remotely true. These “true” gospels were not even written until near the end of the 2nd century at the earliest. The New Testament as we know it was in existence by the end of the 1st century. These “gospels” arose from Gnostic heretics. They sought to combine Greek philosophy and Christianity and thus they believed that all physical matter was evil. They simply rewrote new gospels to support their heresy. These are not based on eyewitness accounts as are the four Synoptic Gospels we know today. They were written in Coptic, not Aramaic. They were not scrolls at all, but bound books. What is even more funny about all this is the fact that some of these heretical sects did not even believe in marriage since they thought all physical matter was inherently evil. It should also be noted that Paul cites Luke’s gospel in his epistles. He never cites any Gnostic gospel. And then again how could he since they did not exist until more than a century later. Most of the New Testament can be reconstructed from passages quoted in letters early Christians wrote to each other in the 1st and early 2nd centuries.

Claim: The “Gospel” of Philip refers to Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene on the mouth and the Apostles were jealous.
Fact: There is a hole in the manuscript and no one knows what it says. “And the companion of the____Mary Magdalene____her more than____the disciples____kiss her___on her___” (Philip 63:33-36). It should also be noted that this gospel was written in the middle of the 3rd century and cannot possibly be based on eyewitness accounts. Anyway, Paul talks about greeting each other with a holy kiss in Romans 16.

Claim: The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was an invention by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. Also that it was relatively close vote, apparently in reference to the vote on the Nicene Creed which was an answer to Arianism.
Fact: The Apostles were asked by Jesus, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matt.16:13-17) This conversation is also covered in Mark 8 and Luke 9, this is evidence of the harmony between the four gospels. This is a 1st century document and here it is unequivocal that Jesus was thought of as divine. And was not Jesus' claim to be the Son of God the reason the Pharisees wanted him crucified? On the vote, how does he define close? There were only two, a whopping two, out of 318 bishops who did not sign the Creed.

I only covered a couple of his errors. We could still discuss Leonardo himself, and his “Last Supper”. They still have what are believed to be the sketches he used to plan this mural and the person next to Jesus is clearly identified as John, not Mary. And if it were Mary then where is John? He was called by Christ the beloved and entrusted the care of his mother to John, so it would be strange for Leonardo to leave him out. That and Mary, being a woman, would have no breasts in the painting.

Then there is the whole Priori of Zion. This and the so-called Dossier Secrets is a complete 20th century fabrication by a Frenchman with royal aspirations, Pierre Plantard. That is a known fact that Plantard himself had to testify to in a French court in 1994.

Some say this book, more to the point the “facts” it relies on, should be offensive to just Christians. It should be offensive to Jews as well, not necessarily the Jesus/ Mary portion, but this notion of the sacred feminine. It’s claimed that the Shekinah Glory referred to in the Old Testament was actually another female God and Jehovah having some sort of supernatural sex in King Solomon’s temple. What a lie and perversion based on zero evidence.

I do not have a problem with a potboiler novel. I like mysteries as much as anyone. However the problem I do have is with the claims that Brown makes that his premise is based on fact. Yes there is the page in the front of the book, but Brown himself says even more in interviews he has done. He claims to have become a believer in the sacred feminine. Not having read his other novels I will defer to others on here who have said that his writing is formulaic. Nothing wrong with that since not everything can be a masterwork. There are other stories that rely on alternate histories such as Sahara and National Treasure. But these do not besmirch the real people and events, not to mention the beliefs of millions, of known history. As to the question, what’s the harm in Jesus being married. Well this does come down to your position on the historicity and authority of the Bible. You do have to take it with a certain measure of faith, but we are saved by faith. And really we all put our faith in something. The problem with the teaching that Jesus was married is that there is no evidence that he was. It is not the shocking, unprecedented exception that Brown makes it out to be that Jesus was not married. There are other examples. The further problem is that it is an attempt to add something the Bible that is not there. The Bible warns against adding to or taking away from the Word. Believing in this also disputes the notion of Jesus’ resurrection since Jesus basically would have abandoned his “family” and made no provision for his “wife’s” care as he did for his mother.

Dan Brown did not start much of this alternate history. I believe he denies that he used any of the research from the book, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. Laughable since the character in the Da Vinci Code that promotes these theories is named Leigh Teabing. One of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail is Richard Leigh. And another author is Michael Baigent, Teabing is an anagram of Baigent. False teachings about Jesus are not new, Paul warns against certain heresies in his day. Early church fathers, Ireneaus comes to mind, also warn against false teachings not found in the gospels, and refer to the divinity of Jesus as well.

Read the book or see the movie for entertainment if you wish, I’ll wait for DVD. But understand that many, a great many, of the claims that are made are untrue. Now I can’t see why anyone would take an author’s fictional novel’s word over that of the Bible, but it is happening. People should be aware of the inaccuracies and why it is considered offensive to Bible believing Christians.

[jim416]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Thank you TexasJedi.

[aholbert32]

Re: The Da Vinci Code, Movie

Thank you TexasJedi.

Lets lock this up...religious discussions are not permitted on OS. If anyone has a problem, take it up with Sully.