Im sorry to be boring and re-hashing the most over exposed news this summer, but Im gonna...the da vinci code, how real is dan browns theory? or is it just that, a theory? and if its true, is it so bad that jesus had a child? does it take away any of his message or good work? please dont all scream heathen at me all at once, or call me stupid,its just a question.
2006-11-30 08:10:50 · 19 answers · asked by bling_licious 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
P.S yes i know this has nothing to do with biology but i clicked the wrong option, button, whatever it is. but just humour me
2006-11-30 09:20:47 · update #1
The book itself is definitely fiction. Some of the theories posed are palusible. The Catholic church claims that Jesus wouldn't have been divine if he was married, yet Christ was a rabbi (or considered such by the masses). To my understanding of Jewish beliefs at that time, rabbis or any teachers of faith would have needed to be married to have any credibility. Simply put, the Jews probably wouldn't have listened if he was single.
When it comes down to it though, there's no scriptual reference to a wife of Christ, so it's not important to salvation and it's not important to us in the larger scheme of things.
2006-11-30 08:24:22 · answer #1 · answered by Brawl2099 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's based on an actual theory, but a lot of the things used in the book were changed. Like the paintings mentioned - there are a lot of differences to what Dan Brown wrote. Wikipedia goes into great detail about how wrong the book is about these paintings...
I don't think it really matters if it's true or not - Jesus was still Jesus, whether he had a kid or not. Of course, me = atheist, so I probably have a totally different view to someone who's actually religious. Still don't see how it matters.
It would be cool if it was true, though.
2006-11-30 08:23:55 · answer #2 · answered by Bee 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its a work of fiction around a historical framework. Yes, somethings actually happened, some people in the book were real but is totally exaggerated and Dan Brown never claimed it was fact.
The popularity of the Davinci code lies in how beleivable it is but using these codes you can find anything in any text, theres no coded message in the bible or in paintings, except for the meaning behind the stories that people take too literally.
2006-11-30 08:33:33 · answer #3 · answered by graeme b 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
even with the actuality that the e book is fiction, some thoughts contained in the e book are in holding with existent records. there are countless records that regulate the info that we assume of that's actuality. operating example, very few days in the past someone got here upon a sparkling version of Bible. All of this records, like the pink sea manuscripts, tell contradictory thoughts of the bible that are literally not many times established through Christians.IN " The Da Vince Code", the author blend actual historic info, actual evidences, which include his personal tale, so it really is a fictional e book in holding with historic info like " The call of the Rose" of Umberto Eco.
2016-10-16 11:14:43 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is fiction. Not that it's inconceivable that Christ could have fathered a child and left a blood line, just that Dan Brown assumes it without evidence and bases his story on this premise.
It wouldn't undo Christ's divinity, except it would of course suggest that there were direct descendants of God walking round amongst us. But if you believe, then don't you think we are all direct descendants of God??
And it's not a stupid or heathen question - it's a great question!
2006-11-30 08:21:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
DaVinci Code VS. Bible – both written by people thus neither can be trusted...
Bible gives people hope which is is so much needed.
DaVinci code is real but its laking some of the facts that would be really helpful, and made believing it much more easier...
2006-11-30 10:36:05 · answer #6 · answered by Vetal' 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i never read the book. but i am familiar with the concept that the grail is actually womanhood, and specifically Mari Magdalen (did I get it right?). goes back to the origins of chivalry in the 5th century AD. this much is true
that Jeshua had a child -- hmm, doubtful. from a divinity perspective, there would be no reason for him to procreate since his purpose was to redeem humanity, not create a patrilineal bloodline. Magdalen was one of his most beloved followers, that much is true as well. he redeemed her body and spirit, and she was faithful, kept his words true and did adore him...several of his disciples (John, Matthias, Tomas) acknowledged her preeminent status.
Hope this is helpful
2006-11-30 08:31:15 · answer #7 · answered by Super G 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Tony Robinson did a TV programme about it recently .It might be a good yarn but it is total baloney!
In 2000 years some people might believe it, like the 'Noah's Ark' rubbish!
2006-11-30 08:21:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it's as real as you want it to be after all people only believe the Bible because lots of people do there isn't really any proof.
Why couldn't Jesus have a blood line?
2006-11-30 08:16:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
some fair points there, i think that there maybe some truth to it, but cant be too sure, and your right, big deal if he had a kid, kids are being born all the time and is it so wrong for the guy to have had at least one, no it isn't, if he did have kids, good on him.
2006-11-30 09:05:35 · answer #10 · answered by tribalgirlie 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋