THE DA VINCI CODE - BLASPHEMY HITS THE BIG SCREEN

Don Feder dot com ^ | May 19, 2006 | Don Feder

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

THE DA VINCI CODE - BLASPHEMY HITS THE BIG SCREEN

By Don Feder
Posted May 19, 2006

The Da Vinci Code -- which opened today -- might be subtitled "Religion for Morons" or "Gnosticism Meets The New Age."

It's fantasy posing as reality. The Sony Pictures film is blasphemous, defames the Catholic Church, and promotes neo-pagan Goddess worship.

I find it offensive, and I'm not even a Christian.

Director Ron Howard (who specializes in visual candy) assures us that Opie's opus will be true to the novel - a pretentious, overwritten piece of trash that makes Bridget Jones's Diary look like one of the 100 Greatest Books Ever Written.

The plot of Dan Brown's mega-best seller (45 million copies sold) goes like this: Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who bore his children, who became the Merovingian monarchs of France, whose descendants are running around Europe today - being chased by Opus Dei or Mormon missionaries or Martians or someone.

Again, according to The Code, The Catholic Church has for centuries concealed the truth about Jesus to maintain its power. Mary Magdalene represents the "sacred feminine" - which supposedly predates monotheism - and which wicked patriarchalists have spent millennia trying to suppress, the better to deny man's sexual nature and subjugate women.

The book (and presumably the film) even has a ritualistic orgy, where communicants dance with orbs and the grand master of the book's mysterious order gets frisky with a plump, middle-aged lady. The scene is described on page 311: "'The woman you behold is love!' The women called, raising their orbs again. The men responded, 'She has her dwelling place in eternity.'" (All I want is lovin' you, and music, music, music?)

[Burlem]

If someone has no religious experience whatsoever you may be correct. However, if people do know about Jesus they will see the movie for what it is, just that.
I still believe that prior to the "hype" the book was just that, not too much interest, the "hype" perpetuated the sales and interest. That is all I am saying, more people went to see the movie because of the talk.
Personally I have no interest in the book or movie,

[Caleb1411]

[af_vet_rr]

I mean I'm no fan of this movie, but the attack on this specific movie compared to all the other garbage that is not attacked is getting ridiculous.

Ironically enough, the people who are most upset about it, are the people who act like they are most secure in their faith.

We saw the movie this past weekend with several friends, two of whom are Jewish, and two who were Catholic. What followed was an interesting conversation.

One of our Catholic friends brought up the marriage issue. One of our Jewish friends asked her why she would have a problem with Jesus being married - would it cause her to stop believing in God or to immediately change her life?

That caught her off guard, and he went on to explain that because Jesus was Jewish and considered a Rabbi (and even addressed as a Rabbi, I believe Peter and others did), that it would have almost went without saying that he was married. He mentioned that Jesus spoke of how important marriage was, that Jewish law of that time would have practically required him as a Rabbi to be married (some considered Jewish men of a certain age who weren't married, to be always thinking of sin), and that Mary Magdalene had to have been married to Jesus or one of his followers, because unmarried Jewish women of that time would not have traveled as she did.

It was very interesting, and he made a good point - that even if Jesus was married, it should change nothing - after all, he was raised by a man and woman, he lived among men, he did not really start teaching until after he would have been married, and that he followed all other customs befitting a Jewish male of that time.

Obviously our views diverge over the issue of whether he was the Son of God, but he pointed out that God did promise David that David's line would continue forever, and Jesus was descended from David through Mary, and he pointed out that the Gospels didn't explicitly state that he wasn't married, and that those writing the Gospels would not necessarily state the obvious.

Everything he mentioned, he said, was based on Jewish history and tradition and beliefs, and not some fake documents found in France in the 1800s or taken from some fictional novel.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Might I point out that if you believe Jesus was the Son of God then his children would also be God's direct offspring. That means they would be born without a sin nature. The story doesn't point that out because it first discredits the claim of Christ's own divinity. If you want to accept the one idea without the other, you should consider what that means.

[MonroeDNA]

As a recovering catholic, I left the church a long time ago. The hocus-pocus stuff, partiarchy, anti-sex, dark-forbooding atmosphere, and guilt-as-a-cult did not mesh with my idea of what God wanted.

Having read the Davinci code, and done some research, I am more likely to come back to christianity. Seems to me that God wants families, and no guilt over sex. Jesus marrying, and having a kid, appeals to me.

As far as opus die, etc., I've been exposed enough to fruitcakes hiding behind their version of religeon. Those types, and the folks who insist that words in a book compiled by an emperor are the last word, drive people away.

Just like Christmas is not Christ's birthday.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

But..it's just fiction. Ask many of the posters on this thread. You were never supposed to believe it, don't you know?

[ClancyJ]

I agree with all you are saying. The hype does cause people to want to see it. But, it is time that people spoke up for their beliefs because there is a mass effort in this country to take God out of the U.S.

I have never said it would harm Christians. The concern is that it will cause untold numbers to believe the fiction and thus discount all the Bible says. It also furthers distrust of churches.

We speak up when people trash the U.S. on foreign lands, we speak up when we disagree with the president, it is totally fair to speak up when Jesus is used in a disrespectful manner.

Maybe the public will hear all the flack and understand that people are upset because it will cause the non-Christian public to be led astray and might prevent them learning the truth of what Jesus offers them if they only believe and follow Him.

But we also are upset because they are tampering with Jesus and not to spread His message - but to discount His message.

[Ditter]

Don, calm down, it's fiction! I'll say the same thing to those who get their panties in a wad over Albore's coming FICTION movie.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Read some of the posts on this thread and you will see that not everyone sees it as fiction. I was inclined to just dismiss the whole thing myself, since I find it entirely uninteresting. But this movie, as the book, is very popular and people are not always taking it as fiction.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Just fiction? What about the book's FACT page? See Objection One linked here

[af_vet_rr]

Might I point out that if you believe Jesus was the Son of God then his children would also be God's direct offspring. That means they would be born without a sin nature. The story doesn't point that out because it first discredits the claim of Christ's own divinity.

That's where the story fails. While it is certainly true that people were looking for a Messiah before and after Jesus (Messiah in the sense of a leader - the Romans and Jews were frequently clashing before and after Jesus, and it was a very violent time for a few hundred years and the Jews were constantly looking for a leader of sorts), and that all of the representatives of various branches of Christianity did vote on Jesus' divinity, all but 2 said "Yes, he is the Son of God". This message is lost in the story - they would just have you believe he was mortal and had offspring and go from there, without looking at the context.

While God certainly promised King David that his line would continue forever (and there is no reason to believe it hasn't), and while in a historical/Jewish context it's certainly possible and maybe even probable Jesus was married, I don't think the two came together (i.e. he had offspring). It wouldn't have served God's purpose and it could have diluted certain messages (i.e. the One True Son).

He was one to lead by example, and if He were married it would certainly reinforce what He taught His followers at the time, in regards to marriage, both His beliefs and those of the Jewish people in general.

The fact is, that while there was a historical/religious context for Jesus to have been married, the Da Vinci Code story and movie were also mainly based on documents that were proven to be fake, and the main group (Priory of Scion or however you spell it) was created as a hoax in the 1950s or 1960s by one or two individuals (who confessed in the 1980s or 1990s). It's a shame in a way, because it is interesting to ponder Jesus' life as a Jew and the potential or probability for marriage, but that doesn't sell as many books or movie tickets, I suppose.

[Burlem]

You are 100% correct when you say the atheists are trying to take God out of schools, our country, off our coins, and trying to take monument crosses down. We definately need to stand up and be counted. I totally agree.

Clancy all I am saying is that with so many people convinced to go see it that may not have seen it otherwise.

[MonroeDNA]

"...The concern is that it will cause untold numbers to believe the fiction and thus discount all the Bible says. It also furthers distrust of churches.

Sounds good to me.

I believe in God, with all my heart, but not the bible, nor organized religeon.

[ClancyJ]

See, already the "fiction" of the movie is getting intermingled with facts in religious discussions. It was fiction, Jesus was not married and all would be better off not tampering with what God told us in order to please what we think.

You know - it does not matter what we think - it only matters what God let us know He thinks. God is the one we follow - our little human view is merely whether we try and follow God or we waste time making up our own religion.

Do you really think God will follow what YOU tell him religion is? Or, did God create this world and man and set up a plan where we could be perfect enough to live in his presence for eternity? If He did, then He is the one determining what is required for eternity. Not what any of us ants think is required. We take it or leave it.

Which is why it is so dangerous to even pose theories about what might have been that was hidden, etc.

They mean absolutely nothing but can lead the ignorant along a path going no where.

[ClancyJ]

I understand what you are saying - was just trying to explain what I am saying. Apparently we are just discussing.

[ClancyJ]

If you do not believe in the Bible, how do you know what God wants you to do?

[af_vet_rr]

See, already the "fiction" of the movie is getting intermingled with facts in religious discussions.

Huh? I think you have my post mixed up with somebody else's.

our little human view is merely whether we try and follow God or we waste time making up our own religion.

What made up religion are you talking about???? I don't consider Christianity or Judaism to be made up, and if you are talking about either of those, I would take offense to that, but that's for another thread.

Which is why it is so dangerous to even pose theories about what might have been that was hidden, etc.

My Jewish friend never made any claim about any "hidden" theories - his point was, that if we could go back to that time period, and if you pointed out a Rabbi walking by, that you wouldn't need to say "he's married", because I would know that automatically.

That's why he believes that only if Jesus wasn't married, would it have been mentioned. The people writing the Gospels would know that the people of their time that would be reading the Gospels, would understand Him to be married - there would be no need to say "oh, by the way, Jesus is married".

It's like the story from the Talmud about the young unmarried Rabbi being told by the older Rabbi to leave and not come back until he is married. That's the way things were back then - I know and understand it's hard for many today to comprehend how important marriage once was, but trust me, marriage was important - if you get a chance, buy a Bible or borrow one from a friend and read about what Jesus had to say about marriage between a man and a woman.

As I said, I don't know - as a well-respected Rabbi, it's certainly possible He could have been married. One way or another it does not change his divinity.

[af_vet_rr]

Seems to me that God wants families, and no guilt over sex. Jesus marrying, and having a kid, appeals to me.

Marrying, sure. Marriage was important to Jesus as a Jew, as a Rabbi, and as the Son of God, spreading His Word.

Having children, no, because it would have conflicted with certain things said by Jesus and God, and because the only real premise of the children is based on a bunch of 19th century forgeries, unlike the marriage aspect which is based on Jewish history, culture, tradition, and law.

Of course I wasn't there, and the thing about King David being told by God that his line would continue forever does bug me a little, but there were other lines that his descendants could have come down. I think he would have picked a different avenue than Jesus, knowing what was to come for Jesus.

[ClancyJ]

So you believe Jesus must have been married because a rabbi would have mentioned it if not. Well, change all the teachings - a rabbi would have mentioned it.

Well, I don't believe He was married, I don't believe He had children. He was about His Father's business, He had only three years to teach.

And, the fact we are even discussing whether He was married or not is because the theories proposed in the stupid movie brought it up. And, many will therefore believe the Bible to be wrong.

But, a rabbi would not care about the life message of Jesus because a rabbi never accepted Him as the Savior. So, of course, they tend to believe He was only a good man and therefore, of course He was married.

Well, this is the Lord's Son who was put here on earth for a purpose. Raising a family was not His purpose.

[ClancyJ]

So you believe Jesus must have been married because a rabbi would have mentioned it if not. Well, change all the teachings - a rabbi would have mentioned it.

Well, I don't believe He was married, I don't believe He had children. He was about His Father's business, He had only three years to teach.

And, the fact we are even discussing whether He was married or not is because the theories proposed in the stupid movie brought it up. And, many will therefore believe the Bible to be wrong. And, rather than all of us discussing whether or not He was married, it might be better to study the Bible to find out what His teachings and words said.

But, a rabbi would not care about the life message of Jesus because a rabbi never accepted Him as the Savior. So, of course, they tend to believe He was only a good man and therefore, of course He was married.

Well, this is the Lord's Son who was put here on earth for a purpose. Raising a family was not His purpose.