I have the Book and bought the DVD. Fact or Fiction !, its still good and makes you think .
Have you read the book it was based on?(allegedly) - The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. If you haven't then buy it and read. I actually bought both books at the same time. (In the Airport flying out to Cuba.) I then read the Facts before the Fiction.
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is BASED ON RESEARCH! (for all those with their eyes shut and fingers in their ears!) It gives you facts and interpretations from both biblical and other texts dating back to Jesus's actual living years right through to modern documents. They present a fully logical and research based argument, with full reference and bibliography in the back. They open up all of their research sources and details of all people (both alive and dead) that had been consulted during their research. They present explanations for possible error and also theories as to possible inaccuracy within their research. They also present theories and then try to debunk themselves on a number of occasions. The copy that I bought also included an update to the original issue, so try to get the updated version.
This book also helps to add meat to the bones of The Davinci Code. So its a "Must Read" for anyone interested in the History of Europe and the Middle East, but also for anyone who simply enjoyed the film.
2006-11-16 09:36:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by WavyD 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Da Vinci code is a fiction book based on an old theory. Dan Brown simply wrote a mystery around that theory.
The theory of Jesus being married and creating a bloodline has been around much longer, Read the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail if you're interested. It discusses some interesting aspects. The idea of Jesus being married is not that far fetched, when you consider that jewish law dictated that a man had to be married at a fairly early age, and Jesus was, above all else, a jewish man. It actually makes more sense than him being celibate.
Most religous folk will argue with you about the painting of the last supper, stating Peter was very feminine looking, as the bible states he was. However, I don't much care how feminine looking he was, unless he also had a chest, that picture is of a woman.
I'm guessing you didn't read the book, only watched the movie, since you didn't mention the other key points in the painting, such as the mystery hand and the dagger. The movie veers away from the storyline in the book .. you really should read it.
If the story of the da vinci code got you thinking .. great. But don't take it as fact, it isn't. Its a good opening to an old theory, that requires more research before blindly believing it.
Personal opinion .. do I think Jesus married and had a child? IF he existed, because there is no proof he ever did, then absolutely he would have married, it was the law at the time. And if he was married, then procreating would have been almost a no brainer.
So, if he existed, yes.
2006-11-16 13:46:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jaded 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
1) DaVinci's notes and drawings prior to painting the Last Supper explicitly prove it's the apostle John, NOT Mary, sitting next to Jesus.
2) If you look carefully, there ARE wine containers on the table. The Jews didn't use "wine glasses," they used small ceramic or earthen bowl-like vessels. There is one in front of each person in the painting. The concept of a "Holy Grail" is un-Scriptural; the Bible doesn't ascribe any significance whatsoever to any object Jesus ever touched.
3) No, you should not pray to Mary. We are commanded to only pray to God, in Jesus' name.
It might be helpful for you to do a web search regarding this issue. Dan Brown's work of fiction contains no facts, regardless of the claim he made at the beginning of the film and the book.
Peace.
EDIT: "Chris M" and "Deus," I can prove to you from both the Old and New Testaments that Jesus wasn't married. Send me a message with even ONE "fact" in Dan Brown's book. I promise you, I can prove it's actually a lie.
"Ciniful," you are greatly mislead. Jewish men did not have to marry. In fact, abstaining from marriage in order to honor God was a recognized and approved choice. Also, there are NO reputable historians who disbelieve Jesus lived. He's even mentioned in the Jewish Talmud!
2006-11-16 13:50:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Suzanne: YPA 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
The painting isn't even a real representation of the Last Supper. If you read the bible, then you will notice that Peter has to ask someone to repeat what Jesus said. In the painting, he's next to Jesus, while Judus is down on the end. However, if he really were next to Jesus, he would have heard what Jesus said. And, Judus dipped his bread right after Jesus, right? THere is no way that everyone just handed that bread and oil (or whatever) downt eh table to Judus to do so right after Jesus. Judus was next to Jesus, Peter was farther away, and it's unlikely that tehy were sitting at table to begin with.
When that silly movie came out, my church had a historian come in to talk about this. He pointed these things out, using historical and biblical references. Da vinci didn't live in the time of Jesus, and his painting was just waht he thought it should be. THat's not even real.
The movie is false, too. Do'nt believe it but believe in the bible.
2006-11-16 13:51:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by sister steph 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
It means that you feel that a work of fiction based on interpretations of artwork that are known to be false is true. Some of the items in the Davinci Code book (a work of fiction) that claim to be fact, are, in fact, not entirely true or not true at all. The author first tells you that it is a work of fiction, and then people go on to believe that it is true anyway.
2006-11-16 13:45:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Blunt Honesty 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yea, I was wondering about that in reality!
As to the movie, I figured it all out long before the ending.
The moment I saw his hands I thought of the two pyramids.
The moment I saw the puzzle I knew she was the one.
As a caper film it was pretty weak.
As a Ron Howard movie it was quite good.
Boy, Tom Hanks is looking old.
If Jesus married Mary and had a baby, more power to him.
Jesus said ALL men should marry, if he took his own advice, great!
I've always been opposed to the "boys club" of religions.
Since I don't subscribe to Catholicism, Peterism, Paulism or any other religious ism, I'm open to anything and nothing would bother me or shake my faith, unless I found out Jesus married a 6 year old girl and consumated the marriage when she was 9, that would make me leave the belief system behind!
2006-11-16 13:45:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I think it is a pretty good movie, and a great book. It's true there are no wine glasses. I don't know that it is a woman, per se, because there are other experts who refute it. The History Channel and the Discovery Channel have great documentaries following this. I think it is a great story, that Dan Brown borrowed from other people. The idea has been around a while. He just intwined it into a good novel. Do your own research, outside of the book. and movie.
2006-11-16 13:58:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by teeney1116 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
I read the book got caught up in it and then found out his information was not as believed. His book is a flash in the pan. Great literature though you need to make sure you do not take things from the media especially second-hand media. The facts are there they just are not straight up with you. it is like telling a truth but not the whole truth so be careful with the info given here. plz do not pick this as best answer it is just a helpful hint from a concerned carbon-based life-form.
2006-11-16 13:53:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by radioactive popsicle 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Brown has mixed a lot of facts that most organized Christian religions conveniently overlook. He has, however, also mixed in a lot of fiction as well.
The story of Christ marrying Magdaline is, IMO, true. There are stories that go beyond that and suggest the crucifixtian was fiction as well and Christ lived with his family in France (where it has also been suggested he spent his years growing up).
There is nothing really new in Brown's story, either. He just pulled all the items together in one "fictional" novel. Its all out there, one just has to be willing to read what the church doesn't want you to.
2006-11-16 13:45:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Gwydyon 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Unlike what most Christians think, the theories in the movie are NOT fiction, only the part about Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu are fake. The theories are all as real as Christianity, albeit greatly exaggerated.
2006-11-16 13:46:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by =_= 5
·
1⤊
3⤋