ok. its a novel, its not factual.

But we have read the book now, and he made enough reference to some interesting historical stuff that I did the research on the Catholic church, the history of the gospels, how chosen, who chose them, the deification of christ in the 3rd century, the political pact with constantine at the same time, the acceptance in that pact of pagan symbols and events in the Christian mythology (eg SUNday, halos, Xmas day etc).

Fast forward to Matin Luther and the breakaway church from what he saw as a political catholic abomination. Henry the 8th and adoption of protentantism so he could get divorced.

Wow, what a story. So what do we think of the Catholic church? Its sure lasted a long time, but back to Da Vinci code, is it more likely that:

1) Christ was the son of god, but noone realised for 300 years after his death, or
2) he was a guru of good in his time, captured the imaginations of a generation, and his good lives on in the christian religion (but mutated over the years, as Martin Luther lamented)

If (2), why any problem that he might have been married and had children? Only (1) creates the problem as if he is the son of god, hat cant happen right? So the Catholic church that deified him would indeed have to rewrite any suggestion he was married an had children. eg demonise Mary Magdeline (if indeed she was the one) etc etc

Accepting that history is changed by those with the ability to change it (the victors, ie the catholic church), which story actually makes more sense as the more likely true one?

Now we have the gospel according to Judas authenticated recently (this independent of anything the da vinci code has to say), and the catholic version of history all starts to look decidedly dodgy.

Great stuff.

Oh, I hasten to add that I researched the whole Merivigian thing too and it is highly polluted by fraudulant documents created by some French guy (why did he bother to do that? Must have taken him years)

But the question of "which is the most likely story" still doesnt change.

Is it possible that there are descendants of Christ in our midst? Certainly there will be people from the same family, unless he was really the son of god.

The catholic church is based on the trinity, and its rich and powerful, and I can see all the reasons why a rich and powerful entity would resist any proof that the trinity is invented.

ok. its a novel, its not factual.

This could possibly be said about the Bible also.

This could possibly be said about the Bible also.

And I for one say it quite frequently..... as you well know Andrea hunnie :wink2:

Im looking forward to reading more about the Judas Gospels.........

and finally............I still think that the truth is in a vault in the Vatican.....which is why the RC Church is so against women in the Church....we would shout the truth from the rooftops......................................well I would :blush: :w00t:

This could possibly be said about the Bible also.


Not for a large part of the New testament. take out any religious aspect and it is still the best historical document we have about the first century. most of it is factual.

I must say that this book/film must be a conspiracy theorist's joy. It does make someone like me (not really knowledgeable about the bible apart from the basics) think why not? Why is it so impossible to believe that Jesus had a sexual relationship with a woman, who then bore his child?

If nothing else, Dan Brown is a very clever, thought-provoking story-teller.

But why oh why did he have to make the last living descendant of their union French? :shocking:

So what do we think of the Catholic church? Its sure lasted a long time, but back to Da Vinci code, is it more likely that:

1) Christ was the son of god, but noone realised for 300 years after his death, or
2) he was a guru of good in his time, captured the imaginations of a generation, and his good lives on in the christian religion (but mutated over the years, as Martin Luther lamented)
Or 3) he was the son of God, and recognised as such at the time ;)

There's masses of early Christian writings, and many of them pretty much contradict many of the others. The Gospel of Judas is one of the younger (more recent) ones, and there's no particular reason why it should be more convincing than Matthew/Mark/Luke/john, which were written closer to Jesus's life.

Interesting stuff (for Bible nerds! ) here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

But why oh why did he have to make the last living descendant of their union French? :shocking:


thanks missus - I have neither read the book nor seen the film yet.:ranting:

Well now you don't need to. :)

Sorry.

...and he's called Eric.

When I was a-growing up WE were taught that Joseph was a widower, and had young children BEFORE he married Mary.So I am sure there are tons of his descendants roaming around the world.(well..'half' descendants, if that's the right word.)

A book like the Da Vinci code is not going to change your opinion on your faith one way or the other.What I dont' like about the book-apart from the cliches and stereotypes :D is the way it deals in particular with 'The Last Supper.'....
I went to a lecutre about this last week and apparently there are Da Vinci workbooks in existence with prelimenary sketches of the mural.And drawings saying quite clearly which disciple is which.
There is no mention of Mary Magdalene at all.
I know it's only poetic licence on the part of Dan Browne...but still.

Or 3) he was the son of God, and recognised as such at the time ;)

There's masses of early Christian writings, and many of them pretty much contradict many of the others. The Gospel of Judas is one of the younger (more recent) ones, and there's no particular reason why it should be more convincing than Matthew/Mark/Luke/john, which were written closer to Jesus's life.

Interesting stuff (for Bible nerds! ) here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

You know we like to tease each other Mik, but the more recent and authenticated case of a mass-believed divine being was the Emperor of Japan, who only discreated the belief of his divinity by doing a radio broadcast in the second world war when the Japanese were looking like losing.

If only we had the Sun and Daily Mirror around during Jesus day, history and Jesus's place in it might be a bit different.

But being more serious, I met a guy in Opus Dei recently and he even had that thigh thing on (no blood, no scars, just some discomfort).

He was far from being a nut, extremely intelligent, and expressed his views very clearly. He said nothing I could really disagree with on his life choices as they were just that, his choices, and he fully understood all the other options open to him.

He was happy, and I could see why as he had some clarity of belief and what he termed "a self generated mechanism for keeping himself more in touch with himself and the suffering of others", vs the choices of others around him that he made no judgment on, except to observe that the lives of others looked more than he could handle with regards pressures people put on themsleves etc, and he didn't see any group of truly happy people that he felt provided an example that his life choices were "wrong" in any way. It worked for him, not broke, so nothing to fix.

Interesting, interesting person. And he loved the Da Vinci code - its given him an opportunity to explain his choices more which he likes.

Oh, the Code only made the descendants French remember as the Merivingian thing was created by a fraud in France which was a major source of ideas for the story. So the French link wasn't Dan Browns, he just picked it up and ran with it.