Posted on 04/11/2006 3:41:19 PM PDT by Rockitz
Is that book worth reading, I'll take your word for it if it is.
"question the Christian faith because of what this book says."
Then they're stupid! You did say it. Just not in so many words!
I read the book. I found it mildly entertaining, and a fair work of fiction, but I cannot see how the format of the story line would translate very well into a motion picture. Seems to me it would look something like "National Treasure", which was also B.S. and IMO a lousy movie.
If it does well at the box office, and I suspect it will, it will be because of the controversy around it. Nobody read Satanic Verses, until the Iranians put out a contract on the author, then it becomes a best seller.
Z-Man is that you? Look out, our boys are hot on yer trail.
I highly recommend all of Daniel Silva's books. To be accurate, the main character is actually a former Mossad agent who becomes an art restorer.
He never seems to be able to stay retired, however, and is always having to put down his paintbrushes and take care of some terrorist.
You read too much into my post.
I've read the book, and I'm not Christian (I'm Jewish). It's entertaining, but factually incorrect. It accepts a hoax as historical truth, presents conjecture as fact, and paints the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, in a very unfairly negative light.
I would not recommend reading the book, unless you're looking for a cheap thrill. It certainly delivers that, though. Good airport reading, but I wouldn't take it any more seriously (in fact I'd take it less seriously) than a Frederick Forsyth or Tom Clancy book.
The fact is, the way it is protrayed, most people do not realize it's pure fiction. Most people tell me, though it is a novel, it was well-researched and fatcual, and that it talks about a truth that's been hidden.
IMHO, it feeds the skeptic's desire not to believe, which is not a good thing from a kingdom perspective.
I've read the book. It did not turn me into an anti-catholic. So I doubt the movie will. Of course it is fiction. At no time during it's readin did I feel like "religion" in general was being bashed.
If it weren't for for constant howling from the church, the book would not have been so long on the best seller list.
On the other hand, the fact that Cardinal Mahony is encouraging Catholic Americans to break the law and harbor illegal aliens, is not fiction.
Why not speak out and protest that?
Flame away!
It is based upon a theory about Mary Magdalene being the bride of Christ, and that she bore offspring.. blood descendants of Christ who are alive today. It purports that the Roman Catholic Church maligned Mary because they viewed living descendants of Christ to be a threat to their authority, that she was not a harlot as they implied, but was a noblewoman of the House of Benjamin. It professes that the Templars were guardians of the secret of the San Griel (Holy Grail). It professes that San Griel was a catch phrase whose real meaning was Sang Riel or "Blood Royale", or Royal Blood... the living vessel containing the blood of the Savior.
The RCC considers such things to be heresy. I can see why, but am unsure why those who are not catholic would be so offended by the theory. I do not buy his story about how things went down.. but he DOES touch on some interesting history.
Either way, I do not think it helps the situation when Christian groups are out there saying we should burn the books. That tends not to sit well with the public at large. Burning books brings back bad memories, justified or not. Best advice I have is just remind people it's fiction, if they refuse to believe than that is sad. Remember God said some people's hearts would only be hardened.
I am. Search my posts.
This is what you Christians get for not beheading a few heathens now and then. You don't see Tom Hanks making this kind of movie about Mohommed, now do you.
I haven't read it either, but as I understand, it presents an alternative ending to the gospel story whereby Jesus gets married and the church is complicit in hiding this from the world.
Why? If Jesus was called 'Rabbi' (and he was); a Rabbi must be married (by Jewish Talmudic laws). Jesus was called 'Rabbi' by Peter (Mark 9:5; 11:21), by Judas (Matthew 26:25,49), and by Nathanael (John 1:49), and other disciples (John 1:38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8), He acknowledged the title without dispute.Great masses of the people also called Him "Rabbi" (John 6:25); and when Nicodemus, a Pharisee, and a ruler of the Jews acknowledged Jesus as "Rabbi", it was conclusive evidence that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi (John 3:1-2).
So, again why is anyone who would suppose that Christ was married be considered 'stoopid'. Jesus was a Jew, and as such followed certain perscribed dietary restrictions, was held to certain acts of conduct, and observed traditional Jewish customs.
Again, why is supposing that Jesus Christ was married such a leap? Why does that cause people to question his message?
A very concise and factual post. BUMP!
Yes, but their writings and beliefs are still in the historical record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.