The Da Vinci Code

Regular Joined: Feb 16, 2004 Posts: 69

What is your take on this movie?
As a Christian, I am a bit concerned that it will confuse
new/young Christians. On the other hand, it is fiction
and I know this. I read the book and enjoyed it.

Larry

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

There is no doubt that it will serve satan's purpose. Those that know not Christ will get an even more distorted view of who Christ really is, which is what satan and his legions of fallen angels work around the clock to do. Those that know Christ as their Savior should ignore the movie completely. Proverbs 19:27 says "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge.". In other words, don't listen to those that teach that which is contrary to the Scriptures. That's what this movie does. It is not innocent entertainment. It is a tool of the devil to cause even more confusion to both the saved and the lost.

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:54 pm

Amen!

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:31 pm

Code:

"Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge.". In other words, don't listen to those that teach that which is contrary to the Scriptures.

Who can say what is contrary to the Scriptures, when even the Scriptures don't agree with each other?
The current "accepted" Scriptures were compiled by the Council of Nicaea over 300 years after the events happened and were selected from over 50 different books of gospels, by clerics, to fit their views and maintain their powerbase.
Of the Gospels, they don't even agree with each other and are totally out of line with Jewish tradition, if you concede Jesus was Jewish.
The Da Vinci Code, while admittedly is a fictional work, it is based upon sound footing.
So while many may see this as an "attack upon the faith", who can say this faith is based upon such solid footing itself?
If the Gospels relating to the birth of Jesus can't even agree, who is to say what has been omitted in over 2000 years of propaganda and editing?
Example....Jesus is referred to as "the Christ"...the original Greek for this is "Christos"..meaning the "annointed one"..which was a title bestowed by a higher "official" and was also a common sign of respect to elders and was in common usage. According to historical documentation, by the most meticulous record keepers of the time, the Romans, there were many self-proclaimed "Christs", touting themsleves as Messiahs during this period.
The main point of affront to organized religions as out forth by the Da Vinci Code and related works, is that of a mortal Jesus who took a wife and had offspring.
According to Jewish tradition of the time, it would have been highly out of character to have an unmarried male over the age at which Jesus is purported to have ministered, and, if the Gospel writers are taken as reliable observers, this fact would have been commented upon.
Whether Mary Madeleine is the actual bride, I have no theories, although according to the accounts given, it might logically follow.
Mary was a woman of means and possibly powerful politically. She, among others, is reported to have provided lodging and financial support to Jesus' minestry, which is quite unusual when one considers a woman's standing amidst Jewish culture of the times.
As to whether the Da Vinci Code is here to lead us atray, one must consider the source of the beliefs and wonder whether we were lead astray 2000 years ago.

Involved Joined: Jul 15, 2004 Posts: 252 Location: OKC, OK

Well as a non Christian - I'm a Taoist, I could care less if Christ had a kid or not, and since I am not Christian I will not go into any ramifications the book could have religiously.

The book is a cheaply written hack job by a hack writer who is just out to make a quick buck and could care less about who or what he writes about as long as it will make money. I tried to read the book and couldn’t keep from laughing at the horrible prose,

I hate to see all the talent that went into the movie wasted on such a bad story. If you are going to make up a story that is so wildly sensational why not make “Elvis is an alien and the father of my child who then went on to shoot Kennedy.” Now that would make an interesting story.

If it has to cause such a brouhaha why could it not have been a good story by a good writer.

OK a little religious talk. I don’t think it is bad to have your faith tested. If your faith can’t be tested and you don’t from time to time reexamine your faith, it is not faith, it is blind adherence to dogma.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:01 pm

Very interesting post.
I would not go so far as to say the book was based 'upon a sound footing' but most likely based upon some partial and unsupported data.
It does however raise some intriguing questions to which, I have no answers.

For example, it is claimed that the painting of 'The Last Supper' *may* have included a likeness of Mary Magdelene. If it was her, what was she doing there?? Why was she sitting were she was?
Does anybody really know for sure?
Will we ever know, without a shadow of a doubt?

I doubt I will ever take the right turning on the path to enlightenment, I have a problem seperating fact from fiction.
The early days of Christianity seems like such a big scholarly black spot to me when it comes to verifiable, documented facts.
I thought originally that the Bible (The New Testament) might have been written by the Contemporaries of Jesus but instead find that even the earliest one, The Gospel of Mark was written at least 40 years after Jesus's death.
As much as I might want to, I have a hard time accepting the written word of something that was past from person to person, huddled around campfires, orally for over 40 years - a people who were noth uneducated, prmitive and superstitious.
Does it actually matter that they might have been a primitive, uneducated, superstitious people?
We know the devastating affects that 'chinese whispers' can have.
Is it possible these stories were embellished as time past?

During the 200 years following the writing of the Gospel of Mark, we know, as a matter of fact that many other Gospels were written about the life of Jesus, most taking on a local flavour influenced by the circumstances of each community as word spread among the many scattered communities.

In December of 1945, in the mountains of the Jabal-al-Tarif, some Arab peasants uncoverd an earthenware jar around six feet high containing thirteen papyrus books bound in tooled leather.
These books are now commonly refered to as the Gnostic Bibles and their stories contradict those set down in the New Testament.

The content of the Gnostic Bibles doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor does the fact that some of their content contradicts what was written before. I want to know WHY they ended up buried there.
Was it some sort of primitive practical joke?

Well thats enough of that before I'm labeled a heretic.
Of course I'm not really a heretic, just a lost soul trying to find the light at the end of the tunnel and hoping it isnt some dude with a torch.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:11 pm

ok heres my point of view...all faiths have the basic principle instilled in them...and i hate to say this but christs teachings where teachings of faith and how to remain steadfast in your beliefs..but to say that to see Christ as a person be written about, and things different from the bible , is not anywhere near his teachings...to be honest...if Christ got married and had kids...what affect does that have on ur religous beliefs...i mean its not a sin to get married or to have children..actually its celebrated...todays "christian" has neither the knowledge nor resources to understand the actual bases of christ life in his times...i mean with the spirit u get reassured and sloidified in ur beliefs but the bible is somethin to be interpreted with EACH persons own interpretation an knowledge..this is not a definite thing in the bible as it was written by man interpreted through god...im a non christian but i see from their point of view..i just dont believe in God...so there u have it.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:46 pm

Quote:

if Christ got married and had kids...what affect does that have on ur religous beliefs..

I would imagine that, if it were indeed true, it would have an enormous impact as far as I know, the Church (at least the Vatican) has always disclaimed such theories and one would think that such an imprtant event would certainly be one that featured prminently in any writings about that era.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:47 pm

Grr, I will have to get a new keybord this one keeps missing letters.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:15 pm

true..but u would still believe in christ and his words...my point..it would effect the "church"...not the christian...see i make it a point to educate myself on religions to have a TRUE bases of opinions. The reason i quote church is because u are refering to one denomination..catholic...as this may be the predominant denomination it is infact based off the apostle Paul as it is said that he started the church..outside of catholism this is disputed...but the fact remains that the church is the ppl or christians that make it up.
not the building.

Paul...not Christ stated that it is better to not be married or have children as this will allow for more focus towards the Lord and His teachings....Christ has not been noted to ever say that.

The Church based their preists code off of Pauls example...not so much Christs.
This is admitted by the catholic church so i feel i am stating fact in this and not an uneducated guess.

This is why i state that if christ had a wife and children...it would not affect ur beliefs...it may affect the makeup of the christian denominations..as i doubt Paul would have stated such a thing if this was the case...but the fact is...a christian today would still be a christian if Christ was married or not married....all upto them...thats the beauty of free will.

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:14 am

So you are saying then that if someone had a specific belief which, they had held for a long time, beliefs they had acquired through various stories and writings that if those stories and writtings were proved false or inaccurate, they would still maintain their beliefs?

You are probably right.

One thing is for sure - nothing unites people like religion and without it, regardless of ones individual beliefs, the world would be a much, much badder place without it.

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:24 am

Quote:

The book is a cheaply written hack job by a hack writer who is just out to make a quick buck and could care less about who or what he writes about as long as it will make money

Dan Brown, to my knowledge, has never claimed the book was for anything other. I clearly remember one television interview where Brown specificly states his book is nothing BUT a work of fiction. He is an author who came up with a concept for a story, wrote it down and, just like almost every other author, hoped it would sell. But everyone is entitlted to their opinion. I, personally, found the book quite entertaining and look forward to seeing the movie in the next day or so.

Quote:

I would not go so far as to say the book was based 'upon a sound footing' but most likely based upon some partial and unsupported data.

The ideas put forth by Brown are not new, although Baigent and Leigh (two of the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail") seem to want people to believe so. They were put forth by serious Biblical scholars as more evidence and data were unearthed (literally in some cases, such as the Gnostic Gospels).
The lack of documentaion is a partially the work of the Church itself since for hundreds of years, it looked upon any knowledge, except for the select few, as dangerous.
My personal view is this is the reason the Gnostic texts and others were hidden so long ago, by those foresighted enough to prevent their destruction by a growing movement with a habit of getting rid of anything which didn't fit it's views. Hopefully more will be found and this period of history will have more gaps filled.

Quote:

Is it possible these stories were embellished as time past?

I would have to agree it would be almost impossible for these stories to not have been embellished. As is stated elsewhere, all of this is open to personal interpretation, so each would almost surely have been given a slightly different slant as it was translated, recopied, and retold throughout the ages, in order to enhance a story or to support a personal or political view.

Quote:

true..but u would still believe in christ and his words...my point..it would effect the "church"...not the christian...see i make it a point to educate myself on religions to have a TRUE bases of opinions. The reason i quote church is because u are refering to one denomination..catholic...as this may be the predominant denomination it is infact based off the apostle Paul as it is said that he started the church..outside of catholism this is disputed...but the fact remains that the church is the ppl or christians that make it up.
not the building.

The contention that Christ was mortal, had offspring, and possibly did not bodily ascend to Heaven, challenges the basis for one of the most powerful and profitable enterprises in history. Not just the Catholic Church but every offshoot also stands to lose out.

People need faith and beliefs, whether personal, scientific, or religious. Anything which threatens those beliefs is often violently attacked and, if possible, destroyed. When it is no longer possible to suppress, the old dies out and is either absorbed or replaced by the new.
Even many of the teaching ascribed to Jesus can be found in earlier religions. They were repackaged and marketed under a different brand name.
This didn't stop people from believing them. So you are right, it's not the building, but the people. But if people stop buying, you can't pay the rent on your building.

People will see what they want to see, and if enough people believe, it will become a fact where the actual truth is irrelevant.

Worker Joined: Jan 18, 2008 Posts: 143

There is to much missinformation out to make a clear statement on Jesus.

To me Jesus was a good man. Not a lords saviour. But a man that was "VERY" important. He also should stay important. He was a teacher. In that time people knew very little. They could not do things for themselfs. Fishing, woodworking masonery. Very important things. He passed his knowledge on to the common people of the time. He was doing this against his peers wishes.

Jesus was of the line of david from what I can gather.

Poor jesus another reason why he was put to death. A king walking around in romam empire. I do not think romans like this. Plus the levits did not like having anyone contending with thier power.

This is trying to peice together history. Since history is not well docmented. Its hard to find truth.

Again. If jesus did not come along. This world would not be where it stands today. I thank the man jesus for his contrabtion to history.

I am not christain but I do believe in a higher power.

New Member Joined: Nov 01, 2008 Posts: 6

Hi all, lovely topic,

One: All heresies have been explored:

"Heresy is an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief.

The study of heresy is heresiology. The founder of a heresy is called a heresiarch. One who espouses heresy is called a heretic."

A close, a scrupulous, an exhaustive study of surrounding historical events bring about a picture, though ofttimes looks like a Picasso vs. a Van Gogh clears up many events.

Anthropomorphizing a higher power will always lead to diminutivisim.

Oh, and then try fitting the both "God and man" thingy in your head, that should keep us all busy for awhile.

Love Chris

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:22 pm

vaudevillian wrote:

I am not christain but I do believe in a higher power

Somehow I missed this when you originally posted it. Your statement above is basically the definition of an agnostic. I, too, was an agnostic for many years, until I was 29 to be exact. Then, well, you can read the rest of the story here Wink

- http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/postp1184.html#1184

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:35 pm

zolatar wrote:

Anthropomorphizing a higher power will always lead to diminutivisim

This can only happen if you try to reconcile who Christ was when He walked the earth (the God man) through humanistic thought rather than through Faith. Christ, according to Scripture, was 100% God while at the same time He was 100% man. How do I reconcile that? I can't and I don't other than the testimony of Christ through the Scriptures. This what Faith is all about. Wink

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:38 pm

vaudevillian wrote:

Again. If Jesus did not come along. This world would not be where it stands today. I thank the man Jesus for his contribution to history.

I would agree with that, though I am sure the world could have done without all the wars and atrocities conducted by religious zealots in the name of their chosen religion.
Where their is evil, there is good and thankfully there are more evil atheists than religious zealots.

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:24 pm

Guardian2003 wrote:

Where their is evil, there is good and thankfully there are more evil atheists than religious zealots

Huh?

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:34 pm

Quote:

I am sure the world could have done without all the wars and atrocities conducted by religious zealots in the name of their chosen religion.

Again, I can only say, that, that which we do to others is based on self-will, I can hardly imagine God that would allow such heinous acts, other than that which is borne from Love.

I know hard to wrap the mind around that concept, but "Free Will" is the key, we are not pre-destined, pre-programmed.

The act of selfless Love (non-human) is a concept best share with friends, we know it, because, after all the research, the quiet nights of seeking, it does come down to one thing,

It is.

Banners can be flown for many reasons, Religion, Politics, hair-style, it doesn't mean, that the cause they support in their mind is the same as the cause the root purpose has in mind.

Love Chris

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:39 pm

Raven wrote:

Guardian2003 wrote:

Where their is evil, there is good and thankfully there are more evil atheists than religious zealots

Huh?

Screwtapes: God did not battle Satan, an Angel did, kicked his bum, Michael which is to say "Who is as God" in a blink of an eye, far smaller i would guess, the battle was won, the rest is mopping up.

Thank you all, for posting a thread like this, it's not often I get the pleasure to express my passions.

All roads lead to Rome ... some are quicker ..

Love Chris

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:55 pm

Raven wrote:

Guardian2003 wrote:

Where their is evil, there is good and thankfully there are more evil atheists than religious zealots

Huh?

That is what I thought after hitting 'send', I doesn't make sense to me either and I wrote it - need sleep, much sleep...

Hangin' Around Joined: Dec 06, 2004 Posts: 46

Raven wrote:

vaudevillian wrote:

I am not christain but I do believe in a higher power

Somehow I missed this when you originally posted it. Your statement above is basically the definition of an agnostic. I, too, was an agnostic for many years, until I was 29 to be exact. Then, well, you can read the rest of the story here Wink

- http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/postp1184.html#1184

I think that would fit more with a Deist view, not of an Agnostic. An Agnostic is one who believe that the existence of god-type beings can't be known (or prove or disprove). A Deist is one who believe in the existence of a high power (say some sort of god) who may be a creator but who doesn't intervene, thus a Deist doesn't follow a religion.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:15 pm

Okay, but an Agnostic doesn't follow a religion either. That's why I said basically. Thanks for your explanation of the delineation Wink

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:36 pm

True. I just wanted to say that there were other options.

I'm sorry for editing my last message, I didn't know you had already answered it. I wanted to include the following to mess a little more with our minds Wink

zolatar wrote:

Oh, and then try fitting the both "God and man" thingy in your head, that should keep us all busy for awhile.

Raven wrote:

Christ, according to Scripture, was 100% God while at the same time He was 100% man.

This is difficult to understand and interpret (in some verses, the Bible says that the word of God isn't open to subjective interpretation, but His literal word). Let's say it may be open to deciding wich (if any) passages to take, for example, this other passages may seem to say that God and Jesus are two different "persons":

Quote:

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and him only.'" (Matthew 4:10)

"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him." (Mark 12:32)

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18 )

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" (Mark 12:29)

And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them. Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. (Mark 9:36-37)

"If you truly loved me you would rejoice to have me go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I". (John 14:28 )

Please not how "Son of God" is a phrase used in the Bible to describe different characters:

Quote:

"The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." (Genesis 6:2, KJV)

"…Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38, KJV)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Jesus in Matthew 5:9, KJV)

Confussing, isn't it? Regards.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:06 pm

Only if read out of context. By reading the entire passages, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and reading with the help of a concordance such as Strong's, can you have the most complete picture and understanding of what the actual meaning is.