Da Vinci Code

[gevo]

uhummm.. the DAVINCI CODE...thank you....

Well, there is more faith in beleiving conspiracies than there is in reading historical literature. Da Vinci Code bases its whole premise on the fact that what is said and theorized about the Bible and the life of Jesus by thos who appose it is true... and they have "faith" in that.. but this faith is based on conspiracies which barely tie together, and are way to coincedental to fit in. .. that is without the notion of devine intervention, WHICH they do not claim.... thus,, they are screwed

[Anonymouse]

The book is awesome. It's time people stop taking everything the author mentions as an actual and factual history. It was meant to be embellished to add a sense of thrill. And one must admit any book that opens a window to a further research and such heated controversy is far from being classified as "hogwash". It was not advertised as non-fiction; therefore people must stop critiquing as if it was. Most of the screams of outrage are usually resonating from deeply religious individuals which are so territorial when it comes to their faith.

James Bond was light years away from reality, yet I don't remember anyone raising hell because he was a glorified womanizer and led a surreal lifestyle without ever getting caught or severely disfigured. So if one wants an accuracy of history they should take this book as prelude to a particular subject and grab a history textbook afterwards. Same thing goes for the Bible, none of the events which occurred in that book have been confirmed. Some presumptuous conclusions without the backing of facts were presented, nothing have been proven. Plus the book omitted a large portion of human civilization and focused on a certain family tree, it’s time we realize that it’s not a universal guide to life and respect other peoples view. If you cannot prove your faith don’t impose your unfounded theory on others, it goes for both believers and non…

Jesus Christ, lighten up, this isn't about the book as a work of fiction. I've always read books like this, just look at my reading list and I do not need to list that I have already read Holy Blood Holy Grail, or the academic feminist scholarship, The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, which Brown's stuff is based on. Having my strongest interest in conspiracies from Priory of Scion or the Rosicrucians, the Templars and Assassins, or David Icke saying that the Royal Families of today are the shape-shifting reptilian bloodlines that go back to Annunaki, the case here is people who have not read the Bible, never will read it, are not familiar with its content, try to use other speculative sources to make claims that would otherwise seem balderdash. That was the point, otherwise, conspiracies are a healthy thing to read, and do you believe I have not read The Christ Conspiracy, or Rule By Secrecy?

[anileve]

Holy Blood Holy Grail, The Gnostic Gospels, The Christ Conspiracy, or Rule By Secrecy?

FYI all of the above books are classified as nonfiction, unlike Browns books. It's like considering "Jerassic Park" by Michael Crichton an account of a factual occurrence.

The book by itself has been based on an extensive research, no one denies certain embellishments. Stop treating it as if it was a history textbook. It reminds me of my Boss who is a member of Opus Day who had to attend workshops on how to answer overwhelming questions from the public on “The Da Vinci Code”, in order to defend the darn Sect from being harshly scrutinized. It’s interesting how a “hogwash” which is infested with “supposed” fables can shake the foundation of so many beliefs. If you are really secure of your belief system I see no reason why one would be so bothered by the material to the point of outrage and workshops. Something must have been triggered somewhere to create such a commotion. Just for that the book is one sexy baby.

[Anonymouse]

FYI all of the above books are classified as nonfiction, unlike Browns books. It's like considering "Jerassic Park" by Michael Crichton an account of a factual occurrence.

The book by itself has been based on an extensive research, no one denies certain embellishments. Stop treating it as if it was a history textbook. It reminds me of my Boss who is a member of Opus Day who had to attend workshops on how to answer overwhelming questions from the public on “The Da Vinci Code”, in order to defend the darn Sect from being harshly scrutinized. It’s interesting how a “hogwash” which is infested with “supposed” fables can shake the foundation of so many beliefs. If you are really secure of your belief system I see no reason why one would be so bothered by the material to the point of outrage and workshops. Something must have been triggered somewhere to create such a commotion. Just for that the book is one sexy baby.

"Extensive research" yet his book is better described as atrociously researched since he makes a salad out of several sources and meshes them together from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to The Templar Revelation to The Gnostic Gospels. Again, if you are not familiar with the Bible you do not need to be bothered with because of the twisting of his "researched" facts, since only then does this all become visible and out of place. What is so "researched" that he has to be lauded? All you can do is read the sources he uses, and see that he creates a hodge podge out of them. The whole point is for those secularists who rely on this sort of hogwash, to somehow make claims against Jesus or Mary Magdalene, or heed little events like a member of Opus Dei going to workshops as having a conspiratorial twist to it.

[anileve]

"Extensive research" yet his book is better described as atrociously researched since he makes a salad out of several sources and meshes them together from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to The Templar Revelation to The Gnostic Gospels. Again, if you are not familiar with the Bible you do not need to be bothered with because of the twisting of his "researched" facts, since only then does this all become visible and out of place. What is so "researched" that he has to be lauded?

Did you not read my previous post fully?

“FYI all of the above books are classified as nonfiction, unlike Browns books. It's like considering "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton an account of a factual occurrence.”

You cannot compare the books you’ve listed to Brown’s. I am still reading the Bible. The problem with most readers of the Bible is that they breeze right through it without analyzing. Also the fact that the Bible you’ve read is not the original work, unless of course you’ve read it in Hebrew or Aramaic from the original scriptures located in the Vatican, then I bow before your majesty.

Are you familiar with the story of Saddam and Gomorrah?? How do you feel about God condoning the procreation of daughters with their father, and then mentioning other families residing in different villages? Let’s not go into the discrepancies of the Bible, but if you wish I will provide you with many. Now once again, I will not be able to tell you whether all of the material is correct since I have not read the original work. Why do you think the Bible was on a list of forbidden books once? They took advantage of illiteracy to persuade the majority to attend churches for their own interpretation of the text, God forbid someone analyzes.

[MeesterFly]

they have done a lot of research and it has been found that mary magdaline was NOT a prostitute or wh0re. There are many Mary's in the bible. And Mary Magdaline was confused or mixed up with another mary who had washed his feet, who was a wh0re. People automatically assumed it was her, but in fact it was another mary. So basically, Mary Magdaline was wronged for centuries because of a accidental mix up and was marked a ' wh0re, or prostitute' . She was Jesus's biggest fallower and closest confidant. It is said that after Jesus's death, Jesus came to her in the forest, or wherever she was and spoke to her. When she told the rest of the men that jesus came to her, they got pissed off and jealous that he didnt come to him instead. They thought ' shes a woman, why the hell would he appear for her? who is she? why does he come to her and not us ? we are men and more closer to him'

I was watching a very very interesting program on tv about this on Discovery, or was it tlc or the history channel? Anyway, it was very neat hearing her side of things, after many years of confusion. They showed both sides of her story. One from the 'wh0re' perspective and one from the real perspective.

[gevo]

they have done a lot of research and it has been found that mary magdaline was NOT a prostitute or wh0re. There are many Mary's in the bible. And Mary Magdaline was confused or mixed up with another mary who had washed his feet, who was a wh0re. People automatically assumed it was her, but in fact it was another mary. So basically, Mary Magdaline was wronged for centuries because of a accidental mix up and was marked a ' wh0re, or prostitute' . She was Jesus's biggest fallower and closest confidant. It is said that after Jesus's death, Jesus came to her in the forest, or wherever she was and spoke to her. When she told the rest of the men that jesus came to her, they got pissed off and jealous that he didnt come to him instead. They thought ' shes a woman, why the hell would he appear for her? who is she? why does he come to her and not us ? we are men and more closer to him'

I was watching a very very interesting program on tv about this on Discovery, or was it tlc or the history channel? Anyway, it was very neat hearing her side of things, after many years of confusion. They showed both sides of her story. One from the 'wh0re' perspective and one from the real perspective.

And im sure you can point us in the direction of the research which is to prove this?... i shall be waiting

Anileve, there is no discrepency in the story of Saddam and Gommorahh.. what are u talking about.. ???

[Anonymouse]

Did you not read my previous post fully?

“FYI all of the above books are classified as nonfiction, unlike Browns books. It's like considering "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton an account of a factual occurrence.”

You cannot compare the books you’ve listed to Brown’s. I am still reading the Bible. The problem with most readers of the Bible is that they breeze right through it without analyzing. Also the fact that the Bible you’ve read is not the original work, unless of course you’ve read it in Hebrew or Aramaic from the original scriptures located in the Vatican, then I bow before your majesty.

Are you familiar with the story of Saddam and Gomorrah?? How do you feel about God condoning the procreation of daughters with their father, and then mentioning other families residing in different villages? Let’s not go into the discrepancies of the Bible, but if you wish I will provide you with many. Now once again, I will not be able to tell you whether all of the material is correct since I have not read the original work. Why do you think the Bible was on a list of forbidden books once? They took advantage of illiteracy to persuade the majority to attend churches for their own interpretation of the text, God forbid someone analyzes.

Maybe it is you who should read more carefully for the sources I listed is exactly what Brown bases his "research" on. With that said, I rest my case.

[anileve]

Maybe it is you who should read more carefully for the sources I listed is exactly what Brown bases his "research" on. With that said, I rest my case.

No my dear, I read very carefully. You failed to grasp that I was pointing out that although the extensive research was conducted based on non-fiction books (which you have listed), it cannot be judged with an equal measure that those non-fiction books can be. Once again you keep drilling with your "hogwash" label, where I am simply suggesting that this particular book cannot be evaluated on "your scale", it's like squeezing water from a stone. Have you analyzed "The Little Prince" with the same ruthlessness? Or did you retrieve the main idea the author was trying to convey through his work and forgot the surreal constituents?

By the way, Mary Magdalene’s harlot’s image was formed due to a false compilation of various female characters of the Bible, and that's a fact. Regardless how you feel towards the "Modernized Woman's" ambitions, you cannot deny that women played stock characters which served only to expand the family tree. I cannot think of any other women that contributed anything other than that. Even Sarah and Hagar had to share a man, only because Sarah (the wife) couldn't give him children. So he kept both with the blessings of God. Later God decided to give him a child through Sarah. He was plucking both chickens as if they were just machines, and all the while "Biblical God" was stamping applications of approval. Oh my llama, there are so many of this sort. I suggest you do a bit of a research when you read the Bible, it was not meant to be taken so seriously and honestly it should be classified as non-fiction.

If I am wrong about the roles of women in the Bible then please do correct me by presenting another example which will shred this theory to pieces. Although I cannot expect much from a person who thinks that the greatest and the only achievement of a good woman is to be the freaking "incubator". And something tells me that's exactly what I shall get from you.

[Anonymouse]

No my dear, I read very carefully. You failed to grasp that I was pointing out that although the extensive research was conducted based on non-fiction books (which you have listed), it cannot be judged with an equal measure that those non-fiction books can be. Once again you keep drilling with your "hogwash" label, where I am simply suggesting that this particular book cannot be evaluated on "your scale", it's like squeezing water from a stone. Have you analyzed "The Little Prince" with the same ruthlessness? Or did you retrieve the main idea the author was trying to convey through his work and forgot the surreal constituents?

By the way, Mary Magdalene’s harlot’s image was formed due to a false compilation of various female characters of the Bible, and that's a fact. Regardless how you feel towards the "Modernized Woman's" ambitions, you cannot deny that women played stock characters which served only to expand the family tree. I cannot think of any other women that contributed anything other than that. Even Sarah and Hagar had to share a man, only because Sarah (the wife) couldn't give him children. So he kept both with the blessings of God. Later God decided to give him a child through Sarah. He was plucking both chickens as if they were just machines, and all the while "Biblical God" was stamping applications of approval. Oh my llama, there are so many of this sort. I suggest you do a bit of a research when you read the Bible, it was not meant to be taken so seriously and honestly it should be classified as non-fiction.

If I am wrong about the roles of women in the Bible then please do correct me by presenting another example which will shred this theory to pieces. Although I cannot expect much from a person who thinks that the greatest and the only achievement of a good woman is to be the freaking "incubator". And something tells me that's exactly what I shall get from you.

No the Bible is not a egalitarian politically driven book. It doesn't cater to equality and if you are trying to seek political correctness between women and men in the Bible, you are reading the wrong literature.