The Da Vinci Code

L

Lionheart3k

Elite SeeD
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
131
Age
36
Location
Scotland
Gil
0
Now i know this may just be a film or a book, but does anyone actually see the facts around this theory? Or believe them for that matter?

I'd like to know what anyone everyone else thinks.

Discuss.
 
This has been one of the great arguments since the creation of the book and now the movie. It opens up the possibility, and I believe that perhaps some of the things that should have been in the Bible were left out. But the whole idea of a secret society protecting someoen from the church seems a little outrageous to me. I don't necessarily believe that the church is incapable of doing such a thing, quite to the contrary actually. If someone had the resources of the church, such evidence wouldn't exist anymore. Short of being a leader of a country, no one else has the power of the church. Sorry, my short rant.
 
I know for a fact that the person people suppose to be Mary Magdeline in that Da Vinci painting, is actually Jesus' disciple John who was really young at the time, hence his feminine appearance. He was not old enough to have a beard or anything and hadn't broadened out yet, so he looks to be a woman. I know this because John wrote some texts quite a lot later than the last supper, so he must've been fairly young at that time.
 
Yeah but if you look at all the other clues in the one painting, and the person who is suppose to be John has long flowing blonde hair...doesent even look close to being manly. Of course it is suppose to be John, but it doesent seem it. Then if you refer back to all the other clues in the painting that lead to feminine ideas, who actually velieves that this 'Jesus' walked the earth? My theory would say, Jesus did walk the Earth, but not as an Immortal, a man with great power. A man with beliefs and courage to preach those beliefs, that there was this 'One' God who created the world etc etc. And stories through the years have manipulated the persona of who Jesus actually is, these things can happen, i just think he got alot more credit than he was due.
 
Ultima36 said:
I know for a fact that the person people suppose to be Mary Magdeline in that Da Vinci painting, is actually Jesus' disciple John who was really young at the time, hence his feminine appearance. He was not old enough to have a beard or anything and hadn't broadened out yet, so he looks to be a woman. I know this because John wrote some texts quite a lot later than the last supper, so he must've been fairly young at that time.
Click to expand...

What about the blade? There is an extra hand in the painting holding a dagger close to "John" or Mary. I believe it to ber her. Ive been fasinated by theories like this since I was a child. It doesnt alter my faith in any way if Jesus had a child.

But remember that the Bible wasnt faxed to earth, people wrote it. And it could have been edited the way they chose. Why make Mary Magdeline a whore unless she did something to piss off the church? There was no really reason to mention her was there? Unless she had done something wrong.

Also, some of Jesus's life was missing in the Bible. What happended in the time that wasnt mentioned? Did he wed Mary Magdeline and have a child with her? There are alot of unanswered questions in the Bible and I believe at the end of the day its your choice which answer you chose to believe. There is no right or wrong.
 
ive seen the film and rad the book and i did some research of my own into it and i found that ceratin parts of them were actualy true, like the rose line down france is real and there was (and might still be) a group called the priory of scion
 
i totally agree to be honest, it does have the aura of a real life history documentary instead of a work of fiction
 
There are a lot of unanswered questions in the Bible and I believe at the end of the day its your choice which answer you chose to believe. There is no right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's something that can't be proven true or false with fact, thus either is true.
While I am interested in these theories and love to read or watch something about them whenever I have the chance, I really don't dwell that much on what's true or not, it happened so long ago there is no way to get to the bottom of it, unless someone travels back in time :).

I agree with @Leonheart3K that there was a person called Jesus and that he did do something that was radical and revolutionary, but still was a ordinary man (not a god), and that over the time the truth got more and more exaggerated and deformed that now we don't know what's what.

But I guess that's the thing that entices us the most, the mystery :D
 
You all do realize that this is a book of fiction, and only meant to be so. Dan brown on purpose put in ideas in there that were obviously wrong, in hopes that people don't get the wrong idea
 
What did he expect? He was bound to get such a response.

When you write such a thing you have to be prepared to face the consequences, religious fanatics on your door, the church calling you a heretic and a blasphemer, people start asking questions, then theories are made ... you get a big mess.
 
Of course it's a work of fiction. People who call it blasphemous obviously haven't read the book. It's supposed to arouse intrigue, not bash religion altogether.
 
Yeh I know, It was the same with his book 'Angels and Demons' which I have read twice now. It doesn't bash the idea of religion or science for that matter, but instead raises some interesting points and views on the whole subject.. really made me think.

And as for The Da Vinci Code, I've seen the film and have read most of the book, but can't remember every detail of it as it was a while ago. It did make me think though, much the same as Angels and Demons. As an agnostic-catholic I prefer to stay open-minded to any views on religion, and am not entirely one way or the other. I'm pretty sure that the book had something to do with descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdelene though, and the Holy Grail? I don't see any reason why it can't be true though, considering when the Bible was being made, any articles/stories which made Jesus appear anything close to human were removed, therefore making the Bible hugely biased.
 
Blech, Dan Brown. Well, to begin with, he ripped off most of his ideas from a book that was published in the 1970s, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (or something to that extent). I think that while there are some facts in the book, most of it is based very loosely on history, and he takes a lot of creative license. It's basically a lot of intriguing speculation with a few shadowy facts to support it. Basically, it's much more fiction than fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top