[peyton randolph]

the spiritual body of Christ (i.e. the Church - Christ's bride). Mr. Brown fails to see that a relationship with Mary would make Jesus an adulterer, and thus a hypocrite, since He spoke against adultery.

---

We're redefining marriage. This a new definition for adultery.

BTW, it is only a movie...and one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

If it had been distributed as a documentary, then it would belong in the Michael Moore wing of discredited film-making. As a fictional work, there is a difference.

[JamesP81]

BTW, it is only a movie...and one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

You might want to read the little bit Dan Brown puts in the beginning of his book.

[D-fendr]

one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

Not quite: Check Brown's "Facts" page.

[Full Court]

one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

"Though the Da Vinci Code is a novel, it purports to be based upon historical facts. In an introductory note Brown writes that “all descriptions of documents and secret rituals are accurate.” On an ABC News special Jesus, Mary, and Da Vinci (Nov. 3, 2003), Brown said that he believes the book’s thesis. In an interview on Good Morning America that same day he said that if he were to write a nonfiction piece on these things he would change nothing about what he claimed in the novel (Darrell Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, p. 3)."

http://wayoflife.org/fbns/davincicode-myth.html

[unlearner]

That would apply if it were merely adding fictitious events or characters to history. It is acceptable to embellish and use a poetic license within a fictional work about historical places and people. It is quite another thing to rewrite history while maligning the character of true historical figures.

If it were a story about the Civil War and they included a scene which implied Abraham Lincoln having sexual relations with another man, many people would be very offended. And rightly so.

The only difference here is that One of the figures in question is greater than Abe Lincoln.

[af_vet_rr]

BTW, it is only a movie...and one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

Brown himself said it was a spy thriller.

I don't see what the hoopla is about - if people are that worried about a clearly fictional movie (I've only the book listed in fiction) then perhaps they shouldn't go. I promise it will save them time and money.

[Aquinasfan]

and one that makes no claim to be anything other than fictional.

In one of the first pages Brown claims that the background information in the book is accurate. In other words, he's claiming that this novel is historical fiction. It's not. So Brown is either a liar, an idiot, or a lazy researcher. Most likely he's a bit of each.