Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

For those who have read the Da Vinci Code, do you believe what it is talking about? I do.

_________________

It's a good story, but that's all it is; a story. Fiction derived from fiction, like all those Star Wars novels.

_________________

My thoughts almost exactly.
Warning, may contain a few spoilers, highlight white text to read.
I think that there is a chance that the suspected Holy Grail could be Mary Magdalene, as there have been many documentaries on the subject from the time before the Da Vinci Code came out. There were many truths in the book, like the organization of the Priory with Da Vinci being one of the head honchos, and the connection between the Pagan and Christian religions, though, of course, a few things from the book are completely fictitious, like the supposed continued blood line of Jesus, as I personally don't believe that he was the Messiah, and the entire thing about the Crusades being about the Holy Grail, since there's just too much evidence saying that the war was indeed about the tension between Muslims and Christians.

[edit]- I just found a rather useful article on the subject here.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

I think that there are some truths to the Da Vinci Code (like the Christian Church suppressing documents that go against their faith, etc.) I actually do not particularly care for the theory of the royal bloodline or whatever. If Jesus had descendants there would be more proof of this.

_________________

It could be fiction derived from truth . . . . . that's the beauty of what historty is - "a fable agreed upon". Although the most important thing is to think for yourself, and that's the beauty of faith.

But there is a certain art to history that makes it not so much a "fable agreed upon," and that art is called "Documentation." The whole point to it is that, if you want to demonstrate something actually happened in history, you must have some written or archaeological evidence to support your claim. You can't just make something up and expect people to believe you. My apologies to Naked_Lunch, but that's pretty much why few people were willing to take his "Interesting New Religious Idea" very seriously.

_________________

Try explaining that to Mormons

_________________

I enjoyed the book in that it brought a whole new idea to light and made me think about it as a possibility. The ultimate faith comes in challenging ideals and figuring them out on your own terms.

_________________
Hot!

I realize that no one gets your respect on this forum, Dr. Zaius, but can we at least keep the diminuations and insults to a minimum? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say I'd appreciate it.

You aren't alone. I would appreciate it too.

Wow, lighten up. Can't anyone here take a joke?

_________________

The Priory Of Scion is a grand surrealist prank which was pulled on the authors of the book Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and had already been roundly dismissed by the time that earlier book came out. Its origins extend all the way back to the ancient days of the early 1950s

I can't help but remember [sarcasm]that classic movie, "The Quest of the Delta Knights."[/sarcasm].

_________________

Well, it's more of an "assumed conspiracy", but after some research, I agree as to its validity.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

I, enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, I found it extremly well written with a blend of fact and fiction. As for the theory put forth in the book, I haven't made up my mind, I doubt well'll ever know truth as history diluted with misinformation. As Napoleon asked "What is history but a fable agreed upon?" I might also recommend reading Angles & Demons which Dan Brown also wrote.

I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but I've heard that it's really good. One thing I'm wondering though, why did the Vatican tell all it's followers not to read it? Was it because it said that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline? Now my father won't read it because he says that he doesn't believe what's stated in there, but it's a story. It's not saying that it's the truth, it's a story to...
A: Make people think.
B: Make money.

_________________

I do, to a point. I do believe that Jesus and Mary were married, or at least "involved". But I don't buy much else.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

And upon what do you base that assumption? Do you have access to historical records that theologians haven't had the past 2000 years?

_________________

No. It's more like a hunch.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

Hunches don't work in real life the way they do on police TV shows. In order to really know anything, you've got to have evidence. And the evidence points away from Mary Magdalene being anything other than a disciple.

_________________

Okay, coincidentally, I just finished this book last night. And I thought it was wonderful. Very suspenseful.

Here is a great article that I read before I actually read the book, from the Lutheran Witness (you'll have to scroll down to page 5), a magazine that my parents subscribe to. For those of you that want the Cliff Notes version, or do not want to read a an article from a religious magazine, it basically debunks a lot of the ideas presented in the book, while still saying that it is an excellent story - so long as you recognize that it is fiction.

I don't see it as being threatening to Christians at all, personally. I think that Mary M. was probably ONLY a disciple of Jesus (and one of the most important at that - she was one of three people at the foot of the cross), but honestly (please don't flame me, my fellow Christians) I don't think that if Christ was married that it diminishes him at all. Marriage and sex are not evil - it's what people do with those things that can be evil. Let me reiterate that I don't believe he and Mary were married, but that IF they were, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But as I've stated in other threads, it all comes down to our willingness to have our beliefs challenged. If you can stand them being tested, then they can become stronger - and the DaVinci Code does just that. I saw on The Daily Show last night a brief clip of Dan Brown saying that he's gotten thank you letters from Priests - not for his avant-garde ideas, but because he's gotten people talking about spirituality.

_________________

SC is right about that whole Jesus being married point. But I do think that if he had been married, then whoever his wife was would have probably been held in much higher esteem than his own mother. But M.M. is not given that kind of esteem, even though she is recognized as a disciple.

The problem is that people sometimes try to use things like this (historical speculation) to try to undermine the Scriptures (recorded history). And that's where I like to come in and stir things up a bit, to show that historical speculation is just that: speculation.

_________________

*shrug* Fair enough.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

I think that if He was married then His wife would be held in higher esteem than His mother was. However, it depends on what Jesus would have wanted for His wife. Let me explain. We know Mary was Jesus' mother. Now lets look at what has happened to her. No offense to any Catholics, but I don't believe that Jesus wants us to pray to her, or worship her. But we can see how much worship she receives, and how many things have been done in her name. Also, we can see how much defamation she receives from the world as well. If we knew for a fact that Jesus was married, or who his wife was, what do you think would have been the result? She would probably be as widely prayed to, and as widely defamed as Jesus Christ himself was. I think that because of the esteem in which Jesus would have held his wife, and because of the love he would have had for her, he would have kept her protected. Kept her unknown, so that she wouldn't have to endure the same criticism that He does, and so that she wouldn't have to endure the pain of people worshipping her instead of God.

Just some ideas I had when I read your post...

We don't worship her. There's a huge difference between respect and worship.

_________________
THE DEMENTED CARTOON MOVIE!

Useless advice of the month: If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now. It's just a spring clean for the May Queen.

Sorry. My bad. Worship was a wrong word. I was just trying to refer to the Hail Marys etc. I guess that's what I get for taking my impression of a few friends and generalizing it to an entire religious body.

Again, sorry for my misunderstanding and insensitivity.

It was a great book. A great, fictitious, book.

It does make a lot of points as far as the ties of christianity into other ancient religions are concerned, as well as the catholic church's suppressing of documents. I highly doubt MM was married to jesus however. Like didy said, there isn't that much evidence to indicate so.

It's just a book though. Nothing to get steamed about.

_________________

Of course not. It's a fictional work about a fictional conspiracy that is based around a person that was probably fictional to begin with.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Leonardo was a real person. I've actually seen the Mona Lisa in Paris.

_________________

I got two things to say.

First, even though this book was fiction, it did make me think. I remember after reading it I had a long talk with my school's priest on The Da Vinci Code. He said that a lot of what was disscussed in the book was very plausible, but that there is no evidence to support it.

Second, Necromancy is bad.

_________________