The Da Vinci Code

[Dragonfire]

Anyone planning on seeing this movie? Also anyone read the book? Comments on both welcome... good conversation anticipated

STRICT REQUEST!

Because of the controversial nature of the movie and book on religion and beliefs, especially Christianity, I request that all replies on this thread stay civilized, tolerant, and mature.

[Chris]

I'm going to see it as soon as I can find the time. I haven't read the book, but that won't stop me from seeing the movie. I'm actually very excited about this movie! It looks so exciting. So yes, I'll be seeing it soon enough.

[~SapphireStar~]

Enjoyed the book, hated the ending, dislike Ron Howard, adore Sir Ian Mckellen and Tom Hanks. So its a yes from me. Pity I have a presentation on the opening day, but Im determined to see it that night. Cant wait, hope Howard has done a good job.

[Shiny]

What is this movie about? I heard the book is really interesting.

[Kirobaito]

I'll see it at some point. I read the book, and it was exciting, even if someone who's done little research on the subject like myself could easily point out the inaccuracies of Dan Brown's history. I still have a hard time getting past the title. Who the hell is Da Vinci? But I didn't like the way it was written, and as far as storyline goes, it was interesting, even if false.

[hardboiled]

It was one of the fastest reads ever! I read it in a week. An absolutely interesting, cliff hanger, on the edge of your seat book! Like my New York Times book review?

Anyhow, the movie looks ok... I wish they got Harrison Ford for the lead part, but they got Audrey Tatou, famous for her role in "Amelie." This'll be her 1st American movie so that's cool... otherwise I'm sure the movie will be dissapointing compared to the book.

[xX.Silver.Wings.Xx]

Who the hell is Da Vinci?
OMG!! :eek: OMG!! :eek: OMG!!! :eek: You're kiddin', right!?
He was a pacifist yet invented advanced weapons (for the time), painted the Mona Lisa (among others), developed the basis for the helicopter and was an accomplished scientist and inventor.

I haven't seen the film or read the book but anything that challenges the church is of interest to me. (Absolutely no insult is meant by this.)
I definately want to see the film.

[Ya Boy Alex]

What is this movie about? I heard the book is really interesting.
The movie and book are both about a Harvard Proffesor and a French Police Officer slowly uncovering a web of lies about Christianity and it's very existance.

[TheAbominatrix]

Though I find the subject matter intensely interesting (and have been reading about all sides of it), I couldnt believe just how awfully the book was written. Really, it reminded me of a Goosebumps book, especially the constant cliff-hangers at the end of chapters.

That being said, the movie could be decent. I'll see it if I get the opportunity, but I wont pay for it.

[Kirobaito]

Who the hell is Da Vinci?
OMG!! :eek: OMG!! :eek: OMG!!! :eek: You're kiddin', right!?
He was a pacifist yet invented advanced weapons (for the time), painted the Mona Lisa (among others), developed the basis for the helicopter and was an accomplished scientist and inventor.

I haven't seen the film or read the book but anything that challenges the church is of interest to me. (Absolutely no insult is meant by this.)
I definately want to see the film.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that was Leonardo, who had no surname. Da Vinci is not a last name. Anybody who has done any research on him knows that. Da Vinci means "of Vinci." That's like calling Jesus "of Nazareth."

[FallenAngel411]

I am looking forward to finally seeing this movie. The book is quite interesting, though it should be taken with a few grains of salt. I personally read more for the theories and factoids rather than actually caring in whose hands the "Holy Grail" would fall. And I like Tom Hanks.

[Lychon]

The book was great and the movie will be phenomenal. Enough fundamentalism, just go and see the movie. DO IT NOW!!! LIKE A BERSERKER!!!!

-LYCHON!!

P.S. Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, they had children, and the descendants of those children should be the ones controlling the Catholic Church, not the apostolic succession of popes. This means that Catholic doctrine is all wrong and has to be reworked in aggreement with the bloodline descendants of Jesus Christ (because blood descendants take precedence over apostolic succession...duh). This is fact and cannot be argued. :D

Edit by Psychotic: Yeah, what ~SapphireStar~ said. Spoiler tagged.

[~SapphireStar~]

Maybe you should have spoiler tagged that Lychon. Not everyones read the book remember.

[fantasyjunkie]

I really enjoyed it, was a page turner! Just keep in mind that I work at a book store part time and when I stock shelves it goes in the FICTION part of the store! :)

[Nephiliam]

We plan on seeing this in Alaska this weekend. :) My boyfriend bought the book last week and has been reading it, he says the book is pretty good. I just want to see it because I am overly curious about it. :D

[Roto13]

P.S. Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, they had children, and the descendants of those children should be the ones controlling the Catholic Church, not the apostolic succession of popes. This means that Catholic doctrine is all wrong and has to be reworked in aggreement with the bloodline descendants of Jesus Christ (because blood descendants take precedence over apostolic succession...duh). This is fact and cannot be argued. :D
I really hope you're joking.

Anyway, yes, put Harrison Ford in it. Instant win.

[~SapphireStar~]

No, the spoiler has sent the Catholic church crazy. Im a Catholic and I found it to be an interesting theory.

[Roto13]

Just because the church freaked out, it doesn't mean it's true. They freak out over everything. They're conservatives.

[~SapphireStar~]

Just because the church freaked out, it doesn't mean it's true.
Seriously, why should they totally freak out unless they are worried about Catholics rejecting their faith and believing that. They could have said what a load of rubbish and just claim it as blashemy. But instead they tried to ban it, making more people, including Catholics, want to read it more. If they have gotten so hot and bothered about the subject, why not ban "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which gave the idea to DB in the first place?

[Lychon]

Maybe you should have spoiler tagged that Lychon. Not everyones read the book remember.

You're right, sorry about that. One of the mods already put spoiler wraps around that part, so thank you to whoever did it.

-LYCHON

[ZeZipster]

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I haven't read the book.

[Roto13]

Just because the church freaked out, it doesn't mean it's true.
Seriously, why should they totally freak out unless they are worried about Catholics rejecting their faith and believing that. They could have said what a load of rubbish and just claim it as blashemy. But instead they tried to ban it, making more people, including Catholics, want to read it more. If they have gotten so hot and bothered about the subject, why not ban "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which gave the idea to DB in the first place?
They ban lots of things. Like Harry Potter. That's obviously not true. And "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" isn't popular enough to get banned.

[ZeZipster]

The Pope went from sending millions to die for penance during the crusades to arguing about children's books. I don't quite get why people still listen to him.

[Lychon]

Just because the church freaked out, it doesn't mean it's true.
Seriously, why should they totally freak out unless they are worried about Catholics rejecting their faith and believing that. They could have said what a load of rubbish and just claim it as blashemy. But instead they tried to ban it, making more people, including Catholics, want to read it more. If they have gotten so hot and bothered about the subject, why not ban "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which gave the idea to DB in the first place?
They ban lots of things. Like Harry Potter. That's obviously not true. And "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" isn't popular enough to get banned.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail may not be that popular now, but it created quite a stir when it was published in the early 1980s. As I recall, some church officials (particularly Catholic) openly lambasted and debased the book in their local parishes and in television interviews. I'm not sure if it was banned from anywhere, however. I'll have to check that out...

-LYCHON

[~SapphireStar~]

They ban lots of things. Like Harry Potter.
Which hasnt happened, thank God. And thanks for correcting me Lychon :D

[Lychon]

They ban lots of things. Like Harry Potter.
Which hasnt happened, thank God. And thanks for correcting me Lychon :D

No problem. (As far as I am concerned, you were correct in your post- I just wanted to add some extra info to it. :hat:)

-LYCHON

[Captain Maxx Power]

Though I find the subject matter intensely interesting (and have been reading about all sides of it), I couldnt believe just how awfully the book was written. Really, it reminded me of a Goosebumps book, especially the constant cliff-hangers at the end of chapters.

That's probably the best description of the book I've heard so far. Dan Brown is terrible, and I mean terrible at prose. Honestly it's abysmal attempting to read it. Most of it does feel, as said, like it's written for children. As for the movie I'm indifferent until I see it, though I will shout "This is smurf!" as loud as possible when the credits roll if I don't like it.

[Hawkeye]

Just a heads up to all you religious fanatics out there (after reading articles from MSN.com) that the Da Vinci Code is, to put in the simplest terms possible, fiction. That is all.

[Dixie]

I loved the book. My friends hated it. I can't wait to see the movie! ^_^

[escobert]

Who the hell is Da Vinci?
OMG!! :eek: OMG!! :eek: OMG!!! :eek: You're kiddin', right!?
He was a pacifist yet invented advanced weapons (for the time), painted the Mona Lisa (among others), developed the basis for the helicopter and was an accomplished scientist and inventor.

I haven't seen the film or read the book but anything that challenges the church is of interest to me. (Absolutely no insult is meant by this.)
I definately want to see the film.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that was Leonardo, who had no surname. Da Vinci is not a last name. Anybody who has done any research on him knows that. Da Vinci means "of Vinci." That's like calling Jesus "of Nazareth."
For once you're wrong KB

[TheAbominatrix]

He's right, actually.


In his lifetime, Leonardo — he had no surname in the modern sense; "da Vinci" simply means "from Vinci" — was an engineer, artist, anatomist, physiologist and much more. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of [Mes]ser Piero from Vinci".

[Shaun_lawless]

da vinci paintings that were of jesus unlocked more backround of jesuses past they think he could of been married to a mary someone and mabye he had a son meaning people living today could be decendents of christ

[escobert]

He's right, actually.


In his lifetime, Leonardo — he had no surname in the modern sense; "da Vinci" simply means "from Vinci" — was an engineer, artist, anatomist, physiologist and much more. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of [Mes]ser Piero from Vinci".
they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.

[pyro psychosis]

i think the church has quite a good reason to be in such an uproar. this book/movie is an attack on the blood of Jesus which is the most precious thing to us christians. dan brown presents the story in such a way that it could very misleading to the lost. im not saying all fiction is bad. there is much secular literature that i enjoy but brown claims his story is based on fact and it is not at all.

[fantasyjunkie]

i think the church has quite a good reason to be in such an uproar. this book/movie is an attack on the blood of Jesus which is the most precious thing to us christians. dan brown presents the story in such a way that it could very misleading to the lost. im not saying all fiction is bad. there is much secular literature that i enjoy but brown claims his story is based on fact and it is not at all.
It doesn't matter. On the spine of the book you will see the word "Fiction" As in made up, not true. If you know how to read the book, you know how to read the word "fiction" and what it means.

[Lychon]

i think the church has quite a good reason to be in such an uproar. this book/movie is an attack on the blood of Jesus which is the most precious thing to us christians. dan brown presents the story in such a way that it could very misleading to the lost. im not saying all fiction is bad. there is much secular literature that i enjoy but brown claims his story is based on fact and it is not at all.

It is based on fact. In fact, it can be argued that there is more factual evidence which supports books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code then there is the Bible. The book may be 'offensive' to some Christians, but it is certainly not an attack on Christianity. However, it is irrelevant how offensive or how confrontational the book is because it is published in the democratic republic of the United States of America, and here we have a little thing called the Constitution which contains the clauses "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and "FREEDOM OF RELIGION."

If someone wants to use the ideas discussed in The Da Vinci Code as a basis for their religious beliefs, then they have just as much right to do so as any other person of any other religion. No one has proved that the Bible is true, and no one has proved that the Da Vinci Code is true, therefore it is illogical to regard one as false and the other as true. Just because your traditions are being ruffled by new views and new ideas does not mean that those new ideas and new views will be prevented from disseminating into society so that intelligent people can understand them and make their own choices.

No one is forcing you to read the book; no one is forcing you to see the movie; no one is forcing you to listen to radio shows about the book or movie; no one is forcing you to continue living in this society and interacting with people who talk about the Da Vinci Code.

Finally, (and this will be the most offensive paragraph for any fundamentalists, sorry) the Da Vinci Code speaks far more truth than the general public is of yet aware of. (But trust me, they soon will be aware of it). Along with books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, and the Templar Revelations, the Da Vinci Code paints a combined, fact-based message about our world's history in context with the development of Christianity and other religions. The only problem is that current Christians cannot come to terms with the notion that they may have possibly believed the wrong ideas their whole lives and that their entire belief system needs to be reexamined. Humans favor consistency and certainty in their lives, and when it comes to something like The Da Vinci Code which shakes things up and throws them skyward into the breath of twisted pathways and confusing choices, it is easy to see why some people become close-minded (especially religious folk).

Oh and one last thing: Since Mary Magdalene was quite possibly married to the supposed Son of God, how about we stop recognizing her as a prostitute (which she most certainly was not- this was a false notion painted by Pope Gregory the Great, possibly to obscure the truth about Mary) and start revering her as what she is: Wife to God's supposed Son. The revolution is at hand: Bow down.

-LYCHON

P.S. Mary Magdalene like a mo' fucker!!!

[pyro psychosis]

look, i'm not saying brown or anyone else doesn't have a right to write or say anything he wants but any thing that denounces the blood of Christ as being devine IS an attack on christianity because that is the basis of our faith. i'm not denying that the catholic church has some dark secrects, any protestant-christian will tell ya that, but i just have to assume that if Jesus (whom openly supported and condoned marriage) was married, the Bible would surely say so. He did indeed have a special place for mary magdalene in His is heart but there is absolutely no evidence to support that He was married to her or anyone else for that matter.

[escobert]

there's also no evidence saying god created earth but many people seem to believe that. And why would a protestant be more likely to say the catholic church has secrets then anyone esle? Yes I know that you all persecuted us but come on.

[Lychon]

there's also no evidence saying god created earth but many people seem to believe that. And why would a protestant be more likely to say the catholic church has secrets then anyone esle? Yes I know that you all persecuted us but come on.

The Catholic Church's past transgressions are not secrets, but open facts:

1.) Initiation of the bloody Crusades which resulted in more damage than benefit to Europe and the Holy Land;
2.) The Inquisition, which tortured and murdered thousands of people deemed heathens or heretics, with particular ferocity against the Cathars;
3.) Advocation of the Slave Trade;
4.) Advocation of the suppression of Native Americans and the erosion of their culture;
5.) Inactivity during the Holocaust;
6.) Suppression and condemnation of contraception and abortion

Of course, many other religions and institutions are guilty of similar acts.

I could also explain (with perfect logic) the reasons why Jesus' possible marriage and wife are not mentioned in the Bible, but I don't feel like writing an essay right now. :D

-LYCHON

[escobert]

My biggest bone to pick with the catholics is killing off protestants but, that's because i am one :p

[fantasyjunkie]

I have to agree with Lychon on his last post :twocents:

[~SapphireStar~]

I cant recall if the book caused this big a hype when it was released 2 years ago, I read it last year myself. Maybe its because someone had the balls to place it onto the big screen that everyone has gone into a bigger uproar. There were 3 programmes looking at the Da Vinci Code today! 3 in a day, is it really nessary? I can see some die-hard Catholic communities protesting outside their local cinemas this Friday. I really can.

[TheBrent]

You talking about the ones on the Discovery channel? I watched those :D I'm not done with the book yet, probably finish tommorow or so.

[~SapphireStar~]

I think so, I was skimming through the channels. I didnt stop to watch cause I watched a 2 hour one on Channel 4 the other day and they just cover the same old ground.

[Chris]

It did not cause a hype where I live. I didn't actually hear about the book until the movie came out.

[TheBrent]

The book just got popular around here this year, hardly heard of it before then. I was thinking about picking up a copy of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

[~SapphireStar~]

My friend at uni told me about it last year. Said her dad had borrowed her the book and I should really get a copy because it was interesting. My grand bought my copy at Woolworths last March and I had it finished afew months later, I read several novels at once. And I had never read anything else on it till end of last year when someone mentioned a movie being made on a forum I was a member of.


I was thinking about picking up a copy of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

I made a thread I think it was last week about purcashing other books that contain material related to DVC. And I was going to get a copy myself and asked if anyone had read it. Some people have read it, there are some other books avaliable. fantasyjunkie told me of a USA magazine that had covered some good stuff on the subject. Im trying to track it down.

[TheBrent]

The movie looks good, think they coulda got someone better to play Langdon though...*mumbles*

[~SapphireStar~]

I personally think Tom will be great as Robert. Who would you have chosen? And Im glad McKellen and Reno have been pulled into it. It will be one great movie.

[TheBrent]

...just about anyone but him...never really like him much. I just wish I had the money to go see it >_<

[~SapphireStar~]

Im meant to be going home Friday till Sunday :( I really, really wanted to go opening night, but my chances are looking very slim.

[Kirobaito]

He's right, actually.


In his lifetime, Leonardo — he had no surname in the modern sense; "da Vinci" simply means "from Vinci" — was an engineer, artist, anatomist, physiologist and much more. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of [Mes]ser Piero from Vinci".
they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.
Da Vinci is not a person. That's what I'm saying. Da Vinci is not something used to specify a person.

[TheBrent]

Since when is Da Vanci not a person? Or am I understanding you wrong?

[escobert]

He's right, actually.


In his lifetime, Leonardo — he had no surname in the modern sense; "da Vinci" simply means "from Vinci" — was an engineer, artist, anatomist, physiologist and much more. His full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of [Mes]ser Piero from Vinci".
they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.
Da Vinci is not a person. That's what I'm saying. Da Vinci is not something used to specify a person.
Don't need to be so techincal, that's what he's most commonly known as. It'd be like say William Clinton and Bill Clinton are different people since well Bill isn't really his name.

[TheBrent]

Oh. I guess I did misunderstand you >_>

[o_O]

"Da Vinci" is Italian for "Of Vinci". Vinci is a town in Italy.
Therefore, "Leonardo Da Vinci" loosely translates as "Leonardo from Vinci". His actual name was just "Leonardo", but to distinguish him from other Leonardos, he was known as the Leonardo from Vinci.

And I completely disagree with everything the has been said about the Da Vinci Code being fact. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither pro nor anti-Christianity, but most of the information contained in the Da Vinci Code is neither fact, <i>nor does Dan Brown claim it to be</i>. That is the biggest mistake that conspiracy theorists are making, and if they'd actually bothered to read the opening page in the book, would've noticed that it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. There is <i>no</i> mention of the theories addressed by the <i>fictional</i> characters in the book.

Sure, the Catholic Church has gotten all up in arms about it, denouncing it as blasphemy and whatnot; that doesn't mean that they're trying to hide something. They get up in arms over many things (take Harry Potter for example). Sure, the Knights' Templar existed, the Priory of Sion existed (albeit not as it was portrayed in the book, and has been all but proven beyond doubt that it was a fabrication of one man in the '50s), but all they were, were secret organisations. Much in the way the US Delta Force, or whatever the hell goes on at Area 51 is secret. The leaders of countries at war, suprisingly enough, don't want to reveal their strategies and secrets to the enemy, in this case which happened to be the Knights' Templar.

But tell me honestly, if you would believe, or even know of these things about Christianity if you had not read the Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction and there are a select group who have taken it as fact and believed it. :p

[Lychon]

"Da Vinci" is Italian for "Of Vinci". Vinci is a town in Italy.
Therefore, "Leonardo Da Vinci" loosely translates as "Leonardo from Vinci". His actual name was just "Leonardo", but to distinguish him from other Leonardos, he was known as the Leonardo from Vinci.

And I completely disagree with everything the has been said about the Da Vinci Code being fact. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither pro nor anti-Christianity, but most of the information contained in the Da Vinci Code is neither fact, <i>nor does Dan Brown claim it to be</i>. That is the biggest mistake that conspiracy theorists are making, and if they'd actually bothered to read the opening page in the book, would've noticed that it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. There is <i>no</i> mention of the theories addressed by the <i>fictional</i> characters in the book.

Sure, the Catholic Church has gotten all up in arms about it, denouncing it as blasphemy and whatnot; that doesn't mean that they're trying to hide something. They get up in arms over many things (take Harry Potter for example). Sure, the Knights' Templar existed, the Priory of Sion existed (albeit not as it was portrayed in the book, and has been all but proven beyond doubt that it was a fabrication of one man in the '50s), but all they were, were secret organisations. Much in the way the US Delta Force, or whatever the hell goes on at Area 51 is secret. The leaders of countries at war, suprisingly enough, don't want to reveal their strategies and secrets to the enemy, in this case which happened to be the Knights' Templar.

But tell me honestly, if you would believe, or even know of these things about Christianity if you had not read the Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction and there are a select group who have taken it as fact and believed it. :p

True, the events and characters in The Da Vinci Code are obviously fictional, but the ideas addressed in the book (such as the Priory of Sion and many others) are supported by authentic research in non-fiction books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Templar Revelations.

Secondly, the history of the Priory of Sion is greatly convoluted, and you are making the common mistake of confusing the Ordre de Sion with the Priory of Sion. I will not go into the details, but suffice it to say that the name "Ordre de Sion" originated in the 11th century, while the Priory of Sion most likely came about in the 1950s (as you stated). Dan Brown, and many other writers, have chosen to classify both organizations as one for the sake of simplicity or belief that they are the same organization, which seems to be inaccurate according to legitimate research.

Lastly, the ideas and concepts presented in the Da Vinci Code are much older than the publication date of that book. In modern times, literature having to do with the topic of an alternate history to the life of Jesus Christ was made present in the mid 20th century (1950s), shortly before the Priory of Sion was supposedly organized by the recently deceased Frenchman Pierre Plantard (d. 2000). If you consider the ideas and concepts of this alternate history of Christianity to be true (as I do because I know they are fact :D), then they have been around for a much, much longer time than Dan Brown's prose has. So to answer your question, yes I did know about the ideas in The Da Vinci Code long before Dan Brown even began writing the book, and many other people have known about them as well. The bottom line is that they are no more 'facts' to the fundamentalist Christian than the Bible is 'fact' to an atheist or agnostic.

Oh, and Mary Magdalene is a Goddess that needs to be worshipped. BOW DOWN!!!! :D

-LYCHON

[o_O]

but the ideas addressed in the book (such as the Priory of Sion and many others) are supported by authentic research in non-fiction books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Templar Revelations.
Are you aware that Richard Leigh, one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail has since changed his mind about much of the content contained within?


you are making the common mistake of confusing the Ordre de Sion with the Priory of Sion.
The Ordre de Sion was, until the 1200s, one and the same as the Knights' Templar. The supposed parting of these two organisations is something asserted only by documents from the Priory of Sion (You said yourself that the existence of the Priory before 1956 is unlikely. :p). Also disproven by legitimate research is the supposed family trees which depict the genealogy of Jesus. These were drawn up by Plantard, and are almost certainly an utter fabrication as were the lists of past Priory leaders in his "Dossiers Secrets".
To quote a documentary I saw several days ago, "If you wanted to hide the existence of your organisation, why would you label your secret documents 'Dossiers Secrets' and place them in a famous public library?".
Nonetheless, supposed "sworn duty" of the Order of Sion is to restore the Merovingian dynasty to power - which was created 450 years <i>after</i> the time of Christ - <i>not</i> to protect the Holy Grail, making it a very different organisation to the Priory, who were supposed to have maintained the "truth" behind the Christian bloodline.


The bottom line is that they are no more 'facts' to the fundamentalist Christian than the Bible is 'fact' to an atheist or agnostic.
Does the fact that Christianity has been embedded and followed for two thousand years not give it more credibility than something that was brought to light 50 years ago, at the most; though most would say it was brought to light in 2003?

Now I ask you, if you "know" for certain that Mary Magdalene and Jesus married; and a Christian "knows" for certain they didn't, who is right?

[Raistlin]

I had a long post written about Dan Brown bashing both his irrational critics and supporters. But I found a post at IIDB which sums it up better:

<i>The attention Dan Brown is getting would be like Michael Critchon getting all kinds of publicity because numerous creationist orginizations were objecting to his claims of dinosaurs ever existing while paleontologists from across the nation demand to know where the hell he got the idea that diplodocus had a neck frill and spit poison.</i>

[Lychon]

Are you aware that Richard Leigh, one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail has since changed his mind about much of the content contained within?

Are you aware that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was written by 3 people? Are you also aware of the fact that much of the research in the book can be relegated to subjective interpretation?



The Ordre de Sion was, until the 1200s, one and the same as the Knights' Templar. The supposed parting of these two organisations is something asserted only by documents from the Priory of Sion (You said yourself that the existence of the Priory before 1956 is unlikely. ). Also disproven by legitimate research is the supposed family trees which depict the genealogy of Jesus. These were drawn up by Plantard, and are almost certainly an utter fabrication as were the lists of past Priory leaders in his "Dossiers Secrets".
The Ordre de Sion was not necessarily the same as the Knights Templar. (By the way, ‘Knights’ is not written with an apostrophe :)). It has been insinuated that the Knights Templar were the military arm of the Ordre de Sion, but this is once again a subjective notion which does not have definite support. It is also interesting how you suddenly open up about the Ordre de Sion, while in your first post above you make blatantly erroneous statements by just taking the Priory of Sion into account. In regards to the geneology charts, I never brought those up, but you are correct to state that it was most likely Plantard and his organization that fabricated them.


To quote a documentary I saw several days ago, "If you wanted to hide the existence of your organization, why would you label your secret documents 'Dossiers Secrets' and place them in a famous public library?".
This is a subjective notion and has no bearing on my argument. You are responding to my last post in an argumentative fashion but you are not actually arguing anything. I never brought up the Dossier Secrets as legitimate documents. You are failing to see the big picture here. The big picture is that there is more to this than one megalomaniac in France who fabricated historical documents to support his claim for the French throne. There is also the mystery as of yet unresolved in Rennes-le-Chateau with Berenger Sauniere; there are the Cathars of the Middle Ages; there are the countless Apocrypha (both of Judaism and Christianity) which recount strikingly different portrayals of Jesus Christ and other individuals in his time; there are the Knights Templar and the question of there rapid acquisition of wealth and power, not to mention the disappearance of their treasure; there are the underlying themes of Arcadia and the Rosicrucian and Freemason involvement in the matter of an alternate history of Christianity; there is the surge of Holy Grail writings and allusions during the Middle Ages which appear to be related to some Christian Apocrypha; there are concepts of the French dynasties and their relations to Christianity’s alternate history; and of course, there is the Ordre de Sion and the Priory of Sion, which you fortunately now acknowledge as being two separate entities.

The research has already been done and if you choose not to believe it, then that is entirely up to you. It hasn’t been proven of course, but neither has the Bible. Some people prefer one view, and some people prefer the other. I am limited to what I can say in this post because I do not want to reveal some of my own research, but I can tell you that Sion, France, Jesus Christ, and Mary Magdalene are much more related than the false writings of Pierre Plantard.




Nonetheless, supposed "sworn duty" of the Order of Sion is to restore the Merovingian dynasty to power - which was created 450 years after the time of Christ - not to protect the Holy Grail, making it a very different organisation to the Priory, who were supposed to have maintained the "truth" behind the Christian bloodline.
The oncoming of the French Merovingian dynasty 450 years after the time of Christ is irrelevant because descendants of Christ could have intermarried in this dynasty, therefore further sheltering and protecting any kind of ‘bloodline’ within a royal kingdom. The history of the Merovingian’s is not complete, therefore making assumptions about their ‘creation’ and calling them an ‘organization’ is completely mistaken. Also, the Priory of Sion has never made its intentions fully clear, and even if the Dossiers Secrets and other documents (such as Le Serpent Rouge) were proven to be fabrications of Pierre Plantard, the true intention of the organization may still remain unclear (especially now since Plantard has passed away). The bloodline of Christ, however, does play a central role in all of these cryptic enigmas, and it warrants much more than a careless dismissal of Plantard’s short-lived organization.



Does the fact that Christianity has been embedded and followed for two thousand years not give it more credibility than something that was brought to light 50 years ago, at the most; though most would say it was brought to light in 2003?
Christianity has greater credibility because of tradition and traditional beliefs. People who have believed one story their entire lives are not about to abandon their dreams and belief systems for something they just heard. You are confusing credibility with truth, which is actually a rather interesting sophism, but overall quite unoriginal. You must also remember, that if the bloodline of Christ and the organizations surrounding it are true, then that version of Christianity is much, much, older than the organization of the first Christian Church. For example, Scientology is about 40 years old, but yet you see previous Christians and members of other religions subscribing to it, despite Christianity being much older. Age has little to do with what we are after: the truth.


Now I ask you, if you "know" for certain that Mary Magdalene and Jesus married; and a Christian "knows" for certain they didn't, who is right?
Belief and faith create different concepts of ‘facts’ and ‘knowledge.’ No one is ‘right’ until something is PROVEN right or something is proven wrong. Since we are talking about religion here, that is unlikely to happen. Therefore, no one is actually ‘right,’ but some people ‘know’ that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus Christ and that she rules. In the same manner, some people 'know' that The Da Vinci Code is all bull and that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. :)


P.S. BOW DOWN TO MARY MAGDALENE like a Mo'Smurfer!!!!

-LYCHON

[Strider]

To quote another movie that was steeped in religious controversy:

"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

Anyway, I finally started reading the book earlier tonight and read it for about five hours straight. It's pretty interesting stuff when taken with a grain of salt.

[bipper]

I am going to see it - rather excited too. Though, I hear the critics are already claiming it lacks the spark the book had - but meh. It should be good.

Bipper

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

What spark? The book was terrible. And so is the movie, apparently.

[Miriel]

Spiff speaks the truth.

The book was bland, the movie is apparently even worse and it's getting reviews akin to Alexander which isn't remotely near a good thing.

I'm curious to see how the fanboys will react to the movie. I'm thinking that even after watching it and cringing through the film, they exit the theater applauding the movie and then go onto internet forums and defend this adaptation of their book to the death.

Apparently Ian McKellen was really great in his role though. The only character who managed to be interesting. But he's always brilliant so that's not a surprise. :heart:

[Dreddz]

I saw a review giving it 2 stars, meh. Guess its all hype then.

[Shoden]

The movie was excellent, very well done. Under rated, the problem was the 12A rating, they could of put more stuff in if it was a 15 or something.

[NeoCracker]

Saw it today, while its not going to convince me of anything it was a terrific movie. Good plot, great Idea behind the story, but really just a story. Whether or not the PSion people exist or if Jesus was married is irrelevant, the point is it was very fun to watch.

[Aurey]

Looks pretty boring, personally. I would only see it for Audrey Tautou and Ian McKellen.

[Elysian]

Just because the church freaked out, it doesn't mean it's true.
Seriously, why should they totally freak out unless they are worried about Catholics rejecting their faith and believing that. They could have said what a load of rubbish and just claim it as blashemy. But instead they tried to ban it, making more people, including Catholics, want to read it more. If they have gotten so hot and bothered about the subject, why not ban "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" which gave the idea to DB in the first place?


In the end it's still just a fiction book. End of story.

[ZeZipster]

I like how quickly this thread turned into a debate over the Da Vinci Code book.

[Skarr]

Compared to the book, the movie sucked... a lot. If you read the book and went to see the movie (like myself) it will be disappointing.

[Emerald weapon]

i saw it today and theres nothing really to start a rukus about,yeah sure its a great film but the whole plot about Jesus's son and mary magdaline is not really convincing to get people to belive that jesus was just a great prophet and not the son of god

[~SapphireStar~]

In the end it's still just a fiction book. End of story.
Dont just quote me here. And dont go with its all fiction stuff. Yeah its fiction, but if people want to dive deeper what business is that of yours?

[agrudis]

It annoyed me with all the false acusations of Paganism being Devil-Worship ... I'll never see Godzilla in the same way because of that guy.