The Da Vinci Code Movie

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: koffee

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I could explain the cover-up aspect of it well enough for my agnostic friend to understand.  But I couldn't explain what was so horrible about the idea of Jesus being a husband and father.  

Keep in mind that Catholics don't believe that Jesus had a brother, much less a wife and a child.  Apparently Mary and Joseph weren't supposed to be acting like husband and wife either.   I can't explain it so I'll leave that to someone else.

quote>

 

How do you explain the fact that priests and nuns can't marry?  (Or is that just self defining?)

 

quote>

 

How do I explain it?  As I understand it, it is because the church didn't want the clergy to have any heirs so there would be no argument about inheriting church property.

It's only fair to note here that my opinions and experiences of the Catholic church were formed by the fact that I was raised Catholic for the first 12 years of my life, at which point my family left the church.  It's given me a somewhat different perspective on it.    (I babbled about that in the House of Worship thread, if you want more details.  No need to repeat it here.)

Which is a long way of saying, you might want to get the opinion of an actual practicing Catholic.

[MayorTim 16]

Originally posted by: hello_SC4

Originally posted by: MayorTim If you want the REAL facts, go to your local community chuch, and ask its pastor what parts of the book are fact and which are fiction.quote>

 

I agree with you that too many people take this book as pure fact, when it's not, although it's tempting to be understood that way.

However, what you're suggesting is like asking Microsoft which is better: the Xbox or the PlayStation. I think we all know the answer.

Anyway, I did watch the film and read the book. The book itself was entertaining and I have to say as a work of fiction I like it a lot. Of course, it can't be considered an academic text, and noone said it is. The movie, however.. Well, I wasn't as impressed by it as by the book. First of all, the storyline was adapted. Okay, maybe it was for clarity's sake, however many modifications appeared to only exist to make the film as politically correct as possible. But that wasn't the worst. The worst was that the movie itself was simply boring. Okay, so maybe I'm just not that sensitive to stuff like this, or I already knew what was going to happen because I read the book. Then again, it was amusing seeing the Smart meandring past cars and pedestrians while driving in reverse on the narrow streets of Paris..

Meg: Good point, however I have to admit that the Church's reaction to the book reminds me of their treatment of "heretics" in the Middle Ages..quote>

By community, I ment a church that, while Christian, allows all denominations. In otherwords its not Catholic, Baptist, whatever. I can see where it could still be somewhat biased, but unless you want to take the time to research everything for yourself (which I strongly recommend, but doubt many people actually did) than its your best option.

[ephorex_77 0]

Keep in mind that Catholics don't believe that Jesus had a brother, much less a wife and a child.  Apparently Mary and Joseph weren't supposed to be acting like husband and wife either.   I can't explain it so I'll leave that to someone else. quote>

Well, let's say you were Joseph, an aged man who wasn't actually Mary's wife per se (he was merely a spouse who was to take care of her as she was consecrated to God). Let's say you knew (as he did) that Mary was supposed to give birth to the God of all creation, would you sleep with her still?? The very person that God Himself has chosen to give birth to Him?? Think about it...

You'll notice that Joesph, Jesus' earthly father, is conspicuously missing from the Bible, except during His early years. When Jesus starts preaching, you'll notice that Joseph is never mentioned, although His mother, Mary, is, and numerous times too. Why is this so?? Why is it that Mary, when Jesus was about to expire on the Cross, was entrusted to the Apostle John as opposed to Joseph?? This was because St Joseph was already dead when Jesus started to preach.

According to the Protoevangelium of James (120 A.D.), St Anne, Mary's mother, promised her child to God just as it was with Samuel by his own mother. This meant that Mary was to remain forever a virgin in God's service. For the sake of ceremony, Mary was to have a guardian or a spouse after a certain age. This spouse chosen by God was St Joseph, an old widower who had already, children of his own, hence the "brothers" referred to in the Bible.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, all fathers of the Reformation, agreed unanimously and unconditionally that Mary was a virgin throughout her life. It is only a modern belief that Mary slept with Joseph and begot other children.  This is an insult of the highest order to God. Mary was a virgin in His Temple and in His service. To suggest that God would allow Joseph to sleep with Mary is a slur. 

koffee: Priests, monks, abbots, nuns, deacons, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and Popes are not to marry as they are perpetually in God's service and serve Him alone. Granted, although celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church per se, it is a discipline that is strictly enforced and maintained throught prudence, and through thousands of years of tradition. 

And besides, what's so wrong about not being married?? Is it such an earthshaking experience?? To consecrate yourself to God in His service is a great honour indeed.

EDITSKI: Well, to think that the Church doesn't allow marriage because of inheritance issues is really quite...interesting in the least. I'm sure the Church had the same rules regarding marriage when it was oppressed by the Romans and before Constantine. What wealth did it have to safeguard then?? The early Church was poor and oppressed. St Epiphanius (310-403 A.D.) mentioned that men who were married currently were not to be admitted as priests. Even back then, it was accepted that priests were to be celibate, serving one God.

[ephorex_77 0]

Double post

[koffee 0]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

koffee: Priests, monks, abbots, nuns, deacons, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and Popes are not to marry as they are perpetually in God's service and serve Him alone. Granted, although celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church per se, it is a discipline that is strictly enforced and maintained throught prudence, and through thousands of years of tradition. 

And besides, what's so wrong about not being married?? Is it such an earthshaking experience?? To consecrate yourself to God in His service is a great honour indeed.quote>

 

 

I knew that about priests, et al.  I was asking SkiGeek how she explains it.  The question wasn't, "what's wrong about not being married," it was, "what's wrong about (Jesus) being married."

 

Now I don't believe in the Bible, but I can still see the logic in "serve Him alone".  I don't see why that wouldn't fit as a simple example for Jesus as well - at least when explaining things to a non-believer.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: koffee 

 

Now I don't believe in the Bible, but I can still see the logic in "serve Him alone".  I don't see why that wouldn't fit as a simple example for Jesus as well - at least when explaining things to a non-believer.quote>

 

I tried that.  The response:  "but I thought that going forth and multiplying was supposed to be a good thing"

[callagrafx 3]

Not sure about the going forth bit, but the multiplying is a good thing.

Anyway, back on topic.....This is the definitive work concerning the Holy Grail: CLICK ME

[thesonofgray 0]

Haha, callagrafx.  Yes, indeed it is.

The real question isn't if Jesus was ever married and had children, but rather, what the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is.  Only when that is revealed will we ever know the real truth.

But on the Da Vinci Code movie, I saw it and was somewhat dissapointed (in the movie version).  You can't beat a storyline like that, but the dialog in the movie was somewhat chunky and corny.  But in the end, it is just a fictional story.  I'm no Church supporter, but it is clear that the Da Vinci Code is just a very interesting story.  Nothing more.

EDIT:  And there was much rejoicing.

_yaay

[dev 47]

The problem with Christ being married is that the church is Christ's bride. And Christ isn't a polygamist.

Basically, I've been reading the book, I can't put it down, I love it, not offended at all, either. I can imagine a Catholic easily being offended...but, so far, I think it's a good read.

Looking forward to seeing the movie.

[sloppet 3]

This is a horrible Movie! If you belive in God, don't watch it - it's Evil!

[defcon pilot 0]

I see that the religious here have not taken well to this. Well, like thesonofgray said: It's just fiction. Lighten up. You don't have to take it so seriously.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: defcon pilot I see that the religious here have not taken well to this. Well, like thesonofgray said: It's just fiction. Lighten up. You don't have to take it so seriously.quote>

 

LOL

You can't defend everything with the usual "It's fiction", because you know very well (I suspect you're feigning ignorance there) that the novel and the movie present warped fiction as fact.

I wonder if you would be as blasé with your comments if there was a movie  that gave the distinct impression that all gays are promiscuous, sex-charged beasts who just want to ****. Or perhaps a post for that matter that attacked the so-called "gay lifestyle". I know how the vast majority of you would act, having experience angry replies firsthand. Remember those??

[callagrafx 3]

Misconception here: the movie DOES NOT present it as fact, but it presents a story and leaves it up to the educated viewer to make up their own mind....Honestly, why do people go off on one about these "religious" films? It's ENTERTAINMENT (I nearly said "for Christ's Sake LOL)...it's a person's interpretation of events, real or imagined, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE IS!!!! The film is not worth the entry fee NOT because of the subject matter, but because the dialogue and pace are not up to Ron Howard's usual standard (Apollo 13 is his best work, followed by A Beautiful Mind).

Now, what would happen if there were indisputable proof that Jesus was gay? Would you change your position on the whole homosexual issue or would you remain bigoted and thereby hypocritical? What's wrong with questioning belief systems once in a while? Answers on a postcard please.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I saw it last night, it was very interesting. I have not read the book, and I don't intend to, seeing the movie has been enough. I find it quite strange that it is being dismissed as fiction, but many people in certain countries are willing to go on hunger strike until they die unless the movie is banned. Well, I thought it was just a well done film. A fictional film...

Which is why I am quite annoyed that tourists have begun digging in the grounds of Roslyn Chapel near Edinburgh. I have been to the chapel, and it is fascinating. But it is nothing to do with the Holy Grail. It is so historic, it is ancient and beautiful. And some easily suggestible people are digging in the grounds around the chapel, hoping to find something and solve the Da Vinci Code. Bevause they are all Sherlock Holmes and can deduce the code from a piece of dirt from the ground near the building...

[callagrafx 3]

They've obviously not read (or seen) the final scene of the Da Vinci Code, otherwise they'd be digging up the Louvre. Forgive them, for they not know what they do.

[infoscott 0]

Ah, some interesting tidbits to ponder regarding the underlying historicity of the Da Vinci Code (BTW, I liked the movie but only after having read it twice).

* The box office take of this movie has been running about 2 - 3 times overseas what it's grossing in the U.S.

* Authors Baigent and Leigh, writers of the non-fiction book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (1982), lost their lawsuit of copyright infringement against Dan Brown in British court. Note that Teabing is an anagram of Baigent. Although the Priory of Sion is a matter of great historical dispute, it does have serious scholarship backing it up.

* A pastor graduating from the seminary prior to 1991 would not have been properly schooled on the Dead Sea Scrolls, although they would have had access to the Nag Hamadi library (my copy was first printed in 1978). The DSS were not published until 1991, and only then against the objections of the Ecole Biblique who had denied access to other scholars to the scrolls for decades ("The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered"). Vermes translation of the Scrolls in English (first edition in 1962) covers only a fraction of the corpus.

* Emperor Constantine changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday in 321 AD ("Documents of the Christian Church").

* The alteration of the scriptures is extremely well documented, especially by the early church fathers themselves! Here is a passage from Metzger's well researched work, "The Text Of The New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration",

'ALTERATIONS MADE BECAUSE OF DOCTRINAL CONSIDERATIONS...In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus...The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures "proof" of a favourite theological tenet or practice.'

* As an example of the above, the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 prophesy was "almah" [maid], not "bethulah" [virgin]. Isaiah used the word bethulah five times, and in those instances it is evident from the context that he implied chastity. Equating virgin to almah was a presumption by the RC church originating around the second to third centuries. If the Apostles had been relying on the Septuagint for their Isaiah source, they would have been misled by the sloppy use of "parthenos", which substitutes for three different Hebrew words (naarah, bethulah, and almah)! By way of example, Justin Martyr, around AD 160, pointed out the error, while Bishop Irenaeus, around AD 180, gave dogmatic justification for the expanded interpretation ("A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs").

* The word for the extended family of Jesus is "desposyni", meaning "of or belonging to the master or lord". There is biblical support for four brothers and at least two sisters. A reference to Jesus' descendents survives in a quotation by the fourth century Eusebeus in "Historia Ecclesiae".

* And jumping ahead, my favorite of the movie was the covering of the Templar capture. There are numerous well documented references to this event, along with the preceding Cathar massacre known as the Albigensian Crusade, centered around the Langedoc region ("The Dark Side of Christian History").

-- My point is not to be a church anti-apologist, but to point out that Dan Brown did some excellent historical research in providing the backstory for his fictional account. I couldn't find anything in either the book or the movie that contradicts my several dozen references on early Church history (note that I don't have any materials covering Opus Dei, can't speak to them). You should do your own independent research to confirm any truth in his backstory, but B&N and Amazon have shelves stacked with references.

[infoscott 0]

ephorex_77:

Celibate priests is a peculiarly Roman Catholic practice, and one not enforced throughout Church history. Currently the custom for Eastern Orthodox priests is that they may be married as long as the marriage occurs before they enter the priesthood. I believe Nazarenes and Anglicans can also marry, as well as the clergy of the early Culdee Church (Celtic), and I'm not aware of any Protestant sects that can't marry. Some of the RC priests were married up until the time of the 11th century Great Schism, and indeed not allowing priests to marry was one of the contentious issues contributing to the Schism ("The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600 - 1700)").

* Pope Benedict VIII (1018) banned priests from having wives and mistresses, upholding a Church position held in the fourth - fifth centuries but fallen into lapse in the Dark and Middle Ages.

* Pope Innocent II ruled subdeacons and above could not have wives (Second Lateran Council, 1139)

The only pattern of celibate clerics I'm aware of, from which RC clergy could use as reference, in Jesus' time were desert hermetics and monastic orders within the Essenes (Qumran/Zadok and some Theraputae, but not village Essenes). These orders were considered the fringe of the fringe for the multitude of Jewish denominations and sects of the time. The rules governing Essene orders are extensively documented in the "secular" writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection. The norm for mainstream Judaism, including the clergy, was to be married.

Even in non-Judeo-Christian religions, celibacy is normally reserved for monastic orders.

[thesonofgray 0]

Thanks for that info, infoscott.

ephorex:    *sigh*

No, you can't defend everything with a "It's just fiction" excuse when someone tries to pass something of as definitive fact and truth.  But that does not apply to this movie.  This movie is an interesting story that plays on imagination and a 'what if' scenario.

I dislike the show 'Queer as Folk' because I see it as passing off the stereotype of homosexuals you outlined above.  But I don't take up arms and rally my troops against it because it's just a fictional show.  It is, like callagrafx said, ENTERTAINMENT (for Christ's sake ).

--

But back to the movie itself, did anyone else not like how they gave away the end like halfway through their trip to London?  I didn't know the ending before seeing the movie but I quickly realized it with all of the hints.  Why did they feel the need to 'dumb it down' a notch.  I hate it when writers/directors feel the need to spoon-feed the audience.

[nealos101 20]

But I couldn't explain what was so horrible about the idea of Jesus being a husband and father.quote>

Looking at a person of faith's point of view, a holy being of such religious & symbolic power with children and a human wife... It does not make any sence as to why he is so powerful?

Any man could be a father, any man could be a husband - There is no distinguisher between he and Jesus, and thus it adds to the discussion that there was no Jesus at all just an honest man supporting a family?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: nealos101

But I couldn't explain what was so horrible about the idea of Jesus being a husband and father.quote>

Looking at a person of faith's point of view, a holy being of such religious & symbolic power with children and a human wife... It does not make any sence as to why he is so powerful?

Any man could be a father, any man could be a husband - There is no distinguisher between he and Jesus, and thus it adds to the discussion that there was no Jesus at all just an honest man supporting a family?quote>

 

So what you are saying is it makes Jesus seem ordinary?

I thought he had other, um, distinguishing characteristics that were unique. If his sole claim to fame was being a childless bachelor, he would have faded from memory long ago.

There is something troubling about the idea of marriage and parenthood negating any other accomplishments in his, or anyone else’s, life.

[thesonofgray 0]

That's the supposed reason there are two versions of 'The Virgin of the Rocks' by Leo: the first with the two babies (Jesus & John) being almost indistinguishable which made Jesus too ordinary compared to John. Heresy!! And the second (supposedly less controversial) version had Jesus holding a cross.

But that's all speculation. Not historical fact.

And again. This has been said multiple times, but didn't 'God' want us to be fruitful an multiply (which would imply marriage since sex without it is a 'sin').

[defcon pilot 0]

@ephorex: On the subject of the "usual 'it's fiction'", I'm going to agree with callgrafx.

If there was a such a movie poking propaganda at gays through fiction, I would just sit back and laugh and not watch it. Now, if the movie presented such propaganda as a fact, then I would take issue. The movie in we are discussing, on the other hand, is fiction. Entertainment, like callgrafx said. A person's interpretation of events, real or not. If you want to attack someone, attack the historians who presented it as fact. This is just fiction, so there's no reason to make such a huge deal.

Also, the replies attacking the gay lifestyle were presented as facts, not fiction, so you really can't use them to support your case.

[infoscott 0]

thesonofgray:

The original passage "be fruitful and multiply" is taken out of context. It goes on to say "...[and] fill (replenish) the earth...". It was said to Adam and Eve and again to Noah, both times when the earth had almost no humans. Today we have about 6 billion people.Mission accomplished, to the point that we're failing in our responsibilities of exercising dominion [i interpret stewardship] over the earth.

On the other general note:

The Da Vinci Code is full of facts, even while it is joining them together in a fictional narrative. Some of these facts are without dispute; Constantine did preside over an ecumenical council in Nicea in 325 AD, and King Philip IV indeed arrested the Templars on October 13, 1307. Some of these facts are very debatable; Nicea was convened ostensibly to discuss heresy, not to sort through scriptures, and Philip's motive for arresting Templars may have been that he owed them money, not because he was bothered by their heresy. And the Church has a dark side to its history, whether or not it feels comfortable about that. The conclusions of the book and the movie are a consequence of its fiction, but it comes to some conclusions that have close parallels in non-fiction works such as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", and others. Not characters, but the real contemporary people Brown, Gardner, Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln, Thiering, and others all come at the same subject from different angles.

The non-fiction books put forward theses that are supported by facts. The fictional account, Da Vinci Code, uses clear facts, cloudy facts, and speculation to give substance to a fictional narrative. Because it is an historical fiction, those facts used in the story cannot be dismissed just because the genre is fictional, the facts still stand on their own (or don't if they are disputable).

[dev 47]

I'll repeat it again since I wasn't heard...the reason Christ being married wouldn't work is because Christ's bride is his church. It's confusing, but it's all in Revelation. See you at the wedding feast.

And once again I'll say I am loving the book...It had to have taken a lot of research to write a book so rich in history. Even a fictional book.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: dev I'll repeat it again since I wasn't heard...the reason Christ being married wouldn't work is because Christ's bride is his church. It's confusing, but it's all in Revelation. See you at the wedding feast. quote>

That's too metaphorical to make sense to an agnostic.  Wait . . .that's not a metaphor; it's personification, giving human characteristics (in this case, the ability to marry) to something that isn't human (in this case, the church).   Whatever the proper term, to an agnostic, what you are saying is just flowery language.  One may dedicate oneself to an institution but that doesn't consistute a "marriage".

And once again I'll say I am loving the book...It had to have taken a lot of research to write a book so rich in history. Even a fictional book.quote>

 

Glad you are enjoying it. 

[thesonofgray 0]

Yes...those were the words I was looking for.  Flowery language.  Thanks SkiGeek.  Religious texts seem to love that flowery language. 

Thanks again for the info, infoscott.   Just curious, are you a history buff or an actual historian of some sort (or both)?  You seem to have a lot of random, yet interesting facts about this subject.  And on multiplying, I definately agree about us abusing our expendable planet with overpopulation being a major factor.

What exactly qualifies a book as 'historical fiction'?  The undefined line reminds me of that issue a couple of months back with that one book claiming to be a memoir and it was actually 90% made up by the author.  Something to do with Opera and drug rehabilitation.  I dunno.  I'm just saying, The Davinci Code does have true historical facts but has equally fictitious facts and characters.  Where do you draw the line?  Just a thought.

[infoscott 0]

I'm a theoretical linguist who also pursues the sub-topic of historical linguistics. Scriptural origins is a particularly interesting facet of historical linguistics. Some of the Biblical idiom and stories can be traced as far back as the Sumerians.

Sorry about the randomness. If I elaborated any more about scriptural and church history it would probably not be that interesting to the general audience. Just trying to point out facts that directly relate to the Da Vinci Code.

Here is a definition of "historical fiction" - Works in which the characters are fictional, but the setting and other details are rooted in actual history. My favorite historical fiction of all time is "The Name of the Rose", written by linguist Umberto Eco. The movie included Sean Connery, who did an excellent job in the leading role.

[koffee 0]

Wow... that's cool! I don't think I've ever met one of -um- those before. I'm just a compu-geek sys-admin yawn sorta thing.

Anyway, back on topic. Well, the original question was about Jesus, and not priests, nuns, et al. There is the Trinity belief: God is one and three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So saying Jesus was married is just like saying God was married.

I think that will either answer SkiGeek's friend's question, or change the topic of conversation to questions about how the Trinity is possible.

[infoscott 0]

Ah, the Trinity. Commentaries associating a triune nature of God, apart from implicit passages in the Gospels, started showing up in the late second, early third century ("A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs"). Gender (which is how this ties back to DVC) wasn't really an issue then, more the bishops were trying to deduce the exact relationship among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and/or whether they were different aspects of a single entity. As it turned out, by focusing exclusively on these three aspects, two being male and one being neuter, it excluded the feminine from worship.

Adopting the Nicean creed in the fourth century would enforce the belief in the Trinity. Extra-biblical references to God's aspect included the feminine, but they were not to be even considered at Nicea, because Constantine's purpose of this council was to unite Christianity under a common belief system and to shut the door on heresies.

If a bishop would not sign the new profession of faith, he was banished, and in AD 380 Emperor Theodosius passed a law making it illegal to disagree with the church on the position of the Trinity ("The Dark Side of Christian History"). Bishop Ephiphanius expressed the sentiments of the orthodoxy, saying "Let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshipped, but let no one worship Mary." (ibid.)

Basically, within the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, the sacred feminine was legislated out of existence and any scripture with even a taint of heresy was not to be even considered for inclusion in the Bible. DVC portrays events, sources, and movements of the fringe, non-orthodox elements of Christianity that wholeheartedly believed in the sacred feminine as an integral part of following Jesus.

koffee: Thanks, {blush}, I still learned computer science stuff in order to make a living. Linguists are slightly more employable than poets. Let's see if we can yawn together in two part harmony. ;^)