Da Vinci Code

[Sip]

this should be moved to the more humorous section of the forum yes, he was a man, but he was the son of God..that's right you don't believe in God..ahhh never mind then...case closed.

What case?

Edit: Jesus died for YOUR sins. That means he was a man. He was capable of love. How dare you insinuate that Jesus wasn't capable of love? And don't tell me he was a pig like the rest of the men on this earth

[Siggie]

What case?

Edit: Jesus died for YOUR sins. That means he was a man. He was capable of love. How dare you insinuate that Jesus wasn't capable of love? And don't tell me he was a pig like the rest of the men on this earth

Don't bother Seapahn.

[hyebruin]

What case?

Edit: Jesus died for YOUR sins. That means he was a man. He was capable of love. How dare you insinuate that Jesus wasn't capable of love? And don't tell me he was a pig like the rest of the men on this earth

hahaha! men ARE pigs and liers and masters of deception, emotional manipulators, and total bull sh*ters NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT! (not just for the most part, but almost 100% of the time!!!) however!!!!!! i strongly doubt that your definition of 'love' and mine are the same! and he didn't die just for MY sins..he died for the sins of ALL of us!!

[anileve]

hahaha! men ARE pigs and liers and masters of deception, emotional manipulators, and total bull sh*ters NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT! (not just for the most part, but almost 100% of the time!!!)

Poor Ghandi and Buddha are turning in their graves. Bruin for some reason I always imagine you yelling and throwing your hands in the air, could it be because of your capitalization and the numerous exclamation marks?

By the way I don’t understand what is so obscene about love and suffering. Are they not a part of life, wouldn’t we be more like machines if those didn’t exist? Besides didn’t Jesus teach love, or did he only teach that the purest form of love, which can only be of plutonic nature? If he did encourage every form of love as a sense of divinity then what is so wrong about him fostering romantic feelings or engaging in a romantic love with his “soul mate”. From a Christian point of view, is it not love that separates us from evil?

[Siggie]

hahaha! men ARE pigs and liers and masters of deception, emotional manipulators, and total bull sh*ters NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT! (not just for the most part, but almost 100% of the time!!!) however!!!!!! i strongly doubt that your definition of 'love' and mine are the same! and he didn't die just for MY sins..he died for the sins of ALL of us!!

With that attitude I can't imagine why you wouldn't have found a nice guy.

[hyebruin]

With that attitude I can't imagine why you wouldn't have found a nice guy.

you better stick with shrinking your students, dear ...some of you girls are so full of b.s. i am truely astonished sometimes!! it's like you bury your pretty lil heads in the sand and refuse to see what's going on around you..fine! YOU may have a "nice b/f" or whatever...but for every nice guy there's countless jerks and liars and users...it's funny how the only time people disagree in this matter is on this forum! i mean really when i talk to friends and acquaintances offline we can all relate and there's always people who bring up some 'real life' examples, i even heard of a case recently which is more than your classic 'jerk case' and possible criminal charges could be brought against the guy! are you all in a fariy dream world? do you even live in l.a.? wake up!!! it's not all pink and roses...sheeeeeshhhh

[Anonymouse]

I think having a spell check option on this site would not be too bad.

Also, there was a special on ABC a while back about this ... and one of their theories is that the Christian church has been systematically underplaying the role women have had in the development of the Christian faith ... basically the men took over and shut the women up and threw them aside as those beneath men. It may well have been that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's most devout follower and deciple yet she has been portrayed as a prostitute, a low life, etc etc

I actually think it was very likely there was a woman in Jesus's life and she was right at his feet when he was taking his last breath on the cross. It's just a shame that the church has chosen not to acknowledge the importance of women in the faith and to not allow them to become equal participants as the men

Gevo you are assuming that everything in the book is supposed to be fact. Are you also going to complain now that Langdon or whatever his name is a fabrication?

Why is it so hard to believe that cleaning up an old painting could help make the feminine features of "Mary Magdalene" clearer?

I don't think it's above the church at all to have made her a xxxxx.
The church is not above lies and corruption and that's never been a secret.

And PLEASE proofread your posts. Don't just get upset that people point out your poor typing. It's annoying to read. As a courtesy to the other posters would it be too much to ask to just reread it?

This book is by far one of the worst reads evar. It is full of nonsensical and non-factual crap that Brown made up. Glaring is his misunderstanding of the Bible and Mary Magdalene. There are 3 "characters" involved in this mentioned in the Bible, Mary Magdalene, the anonymous penitent woman and Mary of Bethany. In the Catholic church, the 3 were fused into St. Mary Magdalene during Gregory the Great. In the orthodox east the 3 remained separate.

What is unfounded is Brown's spurious and unfounded "facts" that Mary Magdalene was somehow a priestess or Jesus' wife, or his successor, or some other hokum, and now it is regurgitated that the Church is trying to "suppress" this information to "disempower" the new Modern Woman™. What Brown bases this on are the gnostic gospels, hardly an authority, since they were rejected from canon because they lacked apostolic authorship and were full of nonsense. What more can the Church do to honor this woman than to grant her a Saint status? Some people need to be reading the Bible instead of cheap crap like The Da Vinci Code. Relying on your political agendas and anti-Christian bias is the worst ally in these discussions.

[gevo]

I Gevo I would suggest typing your longer posts in Word first to eliminate the most basic common mistakes. That’s what I do, since I am not really a good speller.

Yes mamm .. i will take that into consideration.. thanks ...

[gevo]

The sole purpose of me reading this literature is to recognize and understand where the author is coming from the claims he makes, and how FALSE they are.

SIggie, i think you should calm down, I am taking (not in reality, but for sarcastic debate reasons) the book as literal.. cause after all that is where it is filed in "Barnes and Noble" and "Borders",, in the "non-fiction" section.. so others who have no clue what they are reading.. may take it as factual information..

For me another basic fundamental error i see is that as these people use Da Vincis paintings to find secret hidden messages **i have yet to udnerstand why this info would be hidden at all, even though it is claimed the church is 'supressing' it** they are relying on a perverted mans knowledge of Christs life? Da Vinci lived over a thousand years after Christs death, why would his knowledge be more important than the devine text itself? this shows me a very simple explanation why Peter on the right hand side of Jesus in 'The Last Supper' was actually a feminine figure, a lady almost, who is claimed to be Mary Magdalene, and is on the right hand of christ because she was the most loved of his desciples, PLUS his wife and mother to a child... HAHHAHAHA.. sry i had to laugh for a second ... now.. remember, Da Vinci was a xxx (he was gay) and this does not surprise me at all.. he was also documented to be a prankster, the Sistine chappell was repainted over a hundred years after Da Vinci's death as more perverted hidden themes were found within.. *not a major repainting*.. anywho.. its getting late.. much to discuss.. now i have to reread this for you guys and revise my spelling errors .. haha
Oh and also, it is claimed in this non-fiction book that the geneolegy of christ has been traced to two names.. HAHAHA.. that is impossible.. and fixed.. and noted from the very text which were found to not be in concordance with the Bible as it were,, and this information was "found" as aposed to the rest of the Bible which was put together in full.. etc.. too many mistakes in his theoretical way of thinking. he cant write a solid book, and he tries to de-bunk one... that author i mean.. Mr. Dan Brown

[loseyourname]

SIggie, i think you should calm down, I am taking (not in reality, but for sarcastic debate reasons) the book as literal.. cause after all that is where it is filed in "Barnes and Noble" and "Borders",, in the "non-fiction" section.. so others who have no clue what they are reading.. may take it as factual information..

Perhaps this is done as a practical joke in honor of all those people who take the bible itself as non-fiction.