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".
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
they're the same person then, he was saying Da Vinci was not the same person, or that's how I read it.Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
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.
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' smurfer!!!
Last edited by Lychon; 05-16-2006 at 07:25 AM.
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.
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.
Last edited by escobert; 05-16-2006 at 07:36 AM.
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.
-LYCHON
My biggest bone to pick with the catholics is killing off protestants but, that's because i am one
I have to agree with Lychon on his last post :twocents:
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.
You talking about the ones on the Discovery channel? I watched thoseI'm not done with the book yet, probably finish tommorow or so.
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.
It did not cause a hype where I live. I didn't actually hear about the book until the movie came out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
