No, the point is that Christianity is a fake and the paintings just point to this "truth."

Oh sure, the Church has been lying about the origins of Christianity for 2000 years. But Christ's message hasn't been destroyed. Of course not.

WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HIS MESSAGE IS IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE CHURCH. AND THE BOOK IS TELLING US THE CHURCH HAS BEEN LYING TO US FOR 2,000 YEARS!

How on earth can you defend this trash CM?

We disagree. It has been awhile since I read it, but my impression was that most people would know the fact from fiction. I don't recall it opposing the existance of Christ not his message but there was some gnostic stuff in it.

What about my theological question?

I think what we disagree about is if blasphemy is an offense of not.

If republicans or democrats made a "fictional" story about a major figure in each others party which painted falsehoods about them, there would be many people angry. Also if someone made a "fictional" story about Martin Luther King jr, which was ripe with falsehoods, the black community would be up in arms (and rigthly so).

So why isn't there a problem when someone deliberately creates a blasphemous story about Our Lord Jesus?

Can't wait for the movie. Could be a blockbuster of a film.

why am i not surprised

so how much of the myth of the davinci code do you actually accept as fact gio?

There is no problem. Dan Brown can write what he wants.

It's up to the individual to investigate, to reason and ultimately to choose for themselves what they believe.

It is God's will that we have the choice, that we have free will as well as reason and the Holy Spirit to guide us in our investigations of these things. A book (or now a movie - cool!) that raises controversial issues about such theological questions can only serve to get everyone talking about this stuff. What's wrong with that?

Freaking out over one fictional work, in my view, shows a lack of faith in people and in God. The truth is there. We don't have to censor people or manufacture a trumped up view of our position. It's not so weak that we have to raise alarm bells whenever an alternative is postulated.

I've been reading the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is the basis for the DaVinci Code. I find it fascinating but the conclusions are completely speculative and in the end, of course, I just don't believe it.

But some of the interesting historical bits totally peaked my curiosity. There is a description of the Knights Templar from inquisition documents which suggests they were actually involved in occult worship and later an underground version of the Templars is said to have supported Luther. There are other examples throughout the book of what are called "ostensible Catholics" who underneath their Catholic exterior were actually members of secret societies and the occult.

Humanum Genus, the encyclical on freemasonry, suggests that there is some truth in this, that freemasonry is at least one example of a "secret society" trying to destroy Catholicism.

(Some of the ideas of freemasonry explained interestingly seem to mirror the U.S. constitution (separation of Church and State, removal of Christian education (para.19), the "pursuit of happiness" (para.20), equality of all men and power to the people (para. 22)), but that's another topic...)

I have it on my agenda to read more actual history surrounding these issues. I'll get to it eventually. I'm sure a lot of people are going to do the same after this movie.

What's wrong with peaking one's interest in the history of Christianity?[/i]

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail



i encountered a wacko on another message board who traced his lineage back to our Blessed Mother (a direct line to one of Her "children" ) who espoused confidence in the validity of this book

It is a movie and I am not threatened by it nor by the information that it reporst as being factual.

It is just another belief within christianity that lost out to the official christianity that we have come to accept.

My faith is not so easily shaken.

How exactly would Jesus being married destroy the power of Christ? He would still have been killed for our sins. How would the apostles getting jealous and trying to play down Mary M's role in Jesus’s life destroy the church? Peter denied Jesus three times. The apostles were as human as us and subject to all the same emotions and sins as the rest of us. That being said I don't believe a lick of the book but was exciting and entertaining though not very well written. A book can be poorly written and still a good book if the plot makes up for it.

correct me if i'm wrong uis...since i have not read the book ...but wasn't the premise that Christ did not die on the cross and that He and Mary Magdalene went off to france and got married...

Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Yeah, the more I read it the dumber it gets. I never took it seriously to begin with.

Interesting nevertheless.

wip...glad to hear...but the problem is that some people actually do believe it... just like they accept some of the things in the davinci code as truth

would it matter to you if jesus did have a wife and children?

How would this change orthodoxy or his purpose in coming to earth?

Not only do some believe it, it is blasphemous to make up this nonsense about Our Lord. Many people create "works of art" depicting our Lord in blasphemous ways, this is another "work of art" written to blaspheme God.

If this book/movie were about islam and making up stories about it, it would be banned ASAP.

The Church is the Bride of Christ.

For him to marry someone else would be adulterous.
--Ann

It is in greek mythology that gods come down and have relations with women. That simply isn't Christianity.

Seems to me it would make the Ascension a little problematic.

GKC

hehe...gio, you do believe in the Ascension right...

An apology.

I went back and after a quick review of the book and it's plot I have to admit, I forgot alot of the twisted theories presented. Of course they need to be twisted to make the plot work and I do recall rolling my eyes a bit at some of them.

However, I never forgot that it was a work of fiction so I didn't get too upset about it. As I now recall, the one point suggested that religion was originally matriarchal and the secret of the "grail" was never determined or resolved.

Perhaps I simply dismissed the wacky stuff as I do when I watch flying men in capes, I know it's not true but I go along for the ride.

I don't recall and I did not see it while reviewing the suggestion that Christ did not die on the Cross. Are you sure this book said that?

Anyway, perhaps I was too critical of those who are really bothered by the book. I apologize for being insensitive.

What do you mean Gio?:

You sound like Brown...

Brown says, it's a "lost history".

The problem is that Brown suggests that there is more than just imagination in his book. He encourages his readers to accept certain assertions of history as factual...That the "real" message of Jesus was supressed by Peter and the Catholic Church and that we only hear the side that "won out". Brown also suggests that the early "heretics" of Christianity had the truth and that the "false" teachings of Jesus are the ones that "won out" by the Catholic Church and Peter because of supression on Jesus' "real" teachings...that Jesus' teachings were supressed by the Catholic Church and Peter, that Peter got jealous of Mary M.

Most historical fiction books promise that, while the novel concerns fictional characters engaged in imagined activities, the basic historical framework is true and should be accepted...So, many just trust that Dan is telling the truth about history, which he got from pseudo-history books--Holy Blood, Holy Grail, etc....Also, just look at his website www.danbrown.com. He even puts a quote on the front page by New York Daily News saying, "His research is impeccable." HA!

Dan Brown on his website also says:
Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly, Gio, there was diversity in early Christianity. But, you have to understand that none of this diversity, change, or development in early Christian history occured in the way that The DavVinci Code suggests it did. When early Christian Christian leaders sought to affirm the truth of Christian teaching, their criterion was not about gender or power. It was, as we can see from their own writings, if we bother to read them, about faithfulness to what Jesus said and did. However, no where in any serious scholarly work do you find anyone taking seriously the suggestion that Jesus' mission was all about sending forth Mary Magdalene to carry His message of the "sacred feminine".

Brown' characters in the book frequently assert that the traditional Christian understading of Jesus' life and ministry is false, Hence the New Testament is completely untrustworthy, which then is completely dangerous to any Christian and Catholic.

So, when someone says, "Oh relax, it's just a book." etc etc. Well, no it's not, you'll see the effect it has on everyone after the movie comes out...And, if anyone has their feet, by the grace of God, planted in stone, they will be disturbed by this man's book and movie because they know what is True and that these are lies against our own God. So, yes, I will not just "chill out" or accept what he has to say.