PDA

View Full Version : The Da Vinci Code


Jenson71
04-22-2006, 09:47 AM
In anticipation of the film coming on May 19, I decided to read the novel, by Dan Brown. What a great read. I quickly finished it and am looking forward to the picture. Ron Howard directs. Hopefully this is done a lot more passionately than his last horrible effort (Cinderella Man). Stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

So who has read the book, what did you think, and are you seeing the movie?

Dunit35
04-22-2006, 09:52 AM
I am looking forward to the movie. From the previews it looks like it should be good.

JBucc
04-22-2006, 09:52 AM
I thought Cinderella Man was supposed to be good

Brock
04-22-2006, 09:55 AM
I thought Cinderella Man was supposed to be good

It was good.

stevieray
04-22-2006, 09:59 AM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.

Talisman
04-22-2006, 10:00 AM
I read the book. Thought it was alright. Listening to "Angels and Demons" right now - the prequel to Da Vinci Code. It's a better book, IMO.

He's got some other good ones too. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" were great reads. I think Da Vinci Code was the weakest of the lot, but it got the most hoop-la and threw Brown into the spotlight.

Jenson71
04-22-2006, 10:05 AM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.

Why is that?

Cinderella Man was a two and a half hour Rocky set in the '30s. And Rocky wasn't that good, in the first place.

BigMeatballDave
04-22-2006, 10:14 AM
I really liked Cinderella Man.

Dave Lane
04-22-2006, 11:09 AM
Angels and Demons was the better book of the two and a better body count too.

Dave

GMitch
04-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Loved the book and I'm looking forward to the movie. From reading this thread, I'll have to check out Angels and Demons.

KingPriest2
04-22-2006, 11:34 AM
Why is that?

Cinderella Man was a two and a half hour Rocky set in the '30s. And Rocky wasn't that good, in the first place.


How old are you?

HC_Chief
04-22-2006, 11:52 AM
I read the book. Thought it was alright. Listening to "Angels and Demons" right now - the prequel to Da Vinci Code. It's a better book, IMO.

He's got some other good ones too. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" were great reads. I think Da Vinci Code was the weakest of the lot, but it got the most hoop-la and threw Brown into the spotlight.

I have heard good things about "Deception Point"

CHENZ A!
04-22-2006, 12:08 PM
National geographic channel, or discovery channel(one of the two) had a documentary called breaking the DaVinci code, in which they interviewed a lot of experts on the subject, it was very good.

I never saw Cinderella Man, I remember ESPN doing a segment on it, and some boxing historians saying how inaccurate the movie was.. probably a dumb reason not to see it though, it could still be a good film.

CHENZ A!
04-22-2006, 12:08 PM
might have been the history channel now that I think about it.

Bowser
04-22-2006, 12:43 PM
Liked the book, look forward to seeing the movie depiction.

Angels and Demons is a much better book, imo.

And Deception Point was a great book as well, except for the romance part he tried to force on the two main characters. Seems like that's a habit he has with all his books.

Fire Me Boy!
04-22-2006, 01:09 PM
I read the book. Thought it was alright. Listening to "Angels and Demons" right now - the prequel to Da Vinci Code. It's a better book, IMO.

He's got some other good ones too. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" were great reads. I think Da Vinci Code was the weakest of the lot, but it got the most hoop-la and threw Brown into the spotlight.
Angels and Demons isn't really a prequel -- a prequel indicates it was written AFTER the first, but set beforehand. Not true.

But I finished listening to Angels and Demons a couple of weeks ago and liked it a LOT better than The DaVinci Code.

But I am looking forward to the film -- good casting, if you ask me.

Sully
04-22-2006, 01:35 PM
I've read DaVinci 3 times or so. Very good.
I also like Angels and Demons.
I was completely unimpressed with Digital Fortress, but, you know, opinions and all...

The movie should be fantastic, as long as not too much is changed. The cast is great, and I kinda hope they expand Silas' part a little, as I love Paul Bettany, and don't recall seeing him in such a sinister role. I'll definitely be seeing it the day it opens... even though Jerry Johnston told me not to.

Talisman
04-22-2006, 01:55 PM
Angels and Demons isn't really a prequel -- a prequel indicates it was written AFTER the first, but set beforehand. Not true.

Yeah, I knew he wrote it first. I didn't mean prequel. I meant book-that-was-written-before-the-book-that's-out-now.

irishjayhawk
04-22-2006, 02:05 PM
Angels and Demons was way better but 'Code' got the press.

ChiefFripp
04-22-2006, 02:23 PM
Angels And Demons and The Davinci code are essentially the same book. Both start with a phone call, both have the same type of henchman for the evil protagonist, both have similar love interest for Robert Langdon, both take Robert to europe...ect, ect. It's like the Bond series or something.

Frazod
04-22-2006, 02:28 PM
Angels And Demons and The Davinci code are essentially the same book. Both start with a phone call, both have the same type of henchman for the evil protagonist, both have similar love interst for Robert Langdon. Both take Robert to europe...ect, ect. It's like the Bond series or something.
So I guess both books are

1. Figure out old clues/find some new clues.
2. Oh shit the bad guys found us!
3. Improbable escape!
4. Run like hell!
5. Repeat steps 1 through 4 over and over.

:D

I did enjoy DaVinci Code, but it did get a bit tiresome.

Logical
04-22-2006, 02:34 PM
I loved the DaVinci code not so much for the plot (which was adequate) but for the historical tidbits and the possibilities they allow you to explore yourself.

Course the evil inherent in organized religion was great, I did really like that element.

Frankie
04-22-2006, 03:15 PM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.I fail to see any connection between "Da Vinci Code" and "debating God!" Am I missing something here?
:hmmm:

Ebolapox
04-22-2006, 03:17 PM
read da vinci code ~3 times...agree with the people who say angels and demons was better, it was...

haven't read deception point yet, but have read digital fortress, it was good as well

Frankie
04-22-2006, 03:18 PM
Cinderella Man was a two and a half hour Rocky set in the '30s. And Rocky wasn't that good, in the first place.
"Rocky" would easily have been listed in any list of great American classics, had Stalone not made the next 5. It was that great a movie.

beer bacon
04-22-2006, 03:41 PM
Angels and Demons was the better book of the two and a better body count too.

Dave

I haven't read either book, but I heard Angels and Demons was basically the same book.

Confirm/deny

Angels And Demons and The Davinci code are essentially the same book. Both start with a phone call, both have the same type of henchman for the evil protagonist, both have similar love interest for Robert Langdon, both take Robert to europe...ect, ect. It's like the Bond series or something.

Oops. Nevermind.

Taco John
04-22-2006, 03:57 PM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.


You mean that there's a reason other than we're human and have been debating it since the dawn of creation?

stevieray
04-22-2006, 04:18 PM
You mean that there's a reason other than we're human and have been debating it since the dawn of creation?

I'm not interested, Taco.

ChiefsFanatic
04-22-2006, 04:28 PM
I love the cover.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/pcl/roundup/angelsanddemons.jpg

It is the same upside down and rightside up.

Donger
04-22-2006, 05:05 PM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.

Debating God? You got that from The Da Vinci Code?

Frankie
04-22-2006, 05:12 PM
Debating God? You got that from The Da Vinci Code?
That's what I wondered about too!

Taco John
04-23-2006, 03:56 PM
I'm not interested, Taco.


Of course not. You're not really equipped to discuss religion. You're equipped to take parting shots and condemn people who don't believe exactly like yourself.

stevieray
04-23-2006, 04:01 PM
take parting shots and condemn people who don't believe exactly like yourself.

yup that pretty much describes your agenda, which is why I'm not interested, and proven by your response.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 04:06 PM
yup that pretty much describes your agenda, which is why I'm not interested, and proven by your response.

Rep enroute.

Yellowbutter72
04-23-2006, 04:07 PM
I read The Da Vinci Code and really enjoyed it! I'm glad to learn about Angels and Demons and can't wait to go get it and read it! I am also anxious for the movie to come out next month! Even though the book is a fiction I found it hard not to get caught up in many of the items like Jesus being married. Wow, wouldn't that be a concept!

stevieray
04-23-2006, 04:09 PM
I read The Da Vinci Code and really enjoyed it! I'm glad to learn about Angels and Demons and can't wait to go get it and read it! I am also anxious for the movie to come out next month! Even though the book is a fiction I found it hard not to get caught up in many of the items like Jesus being married. Wow, wouldn't that be a concept!

Last Temptation of Christ.

Crush
04-23-2006, 04:12 PM
I read The Da Vinci Code and really enjoyed it! I'm glad to learn about Angels and Demons and can't wait to go get it and read it! I am also anxious for the movie to come out next month! Even though the book is a fiction I found it hard not to get caught up in many of the items like Jesus being married. Wow, wouldn't that be a concept!


I've heard Angels and Demons is better than The Da Vinci Code.

Yellowbutter72
04-23-2006, 04:21 PM
Thanks! I'll get both: Last Tempetation of Christ and Angels and Demons!

Logical
04-23-2006, 04:33 PM
Last Temptation of Christ.Is not nearly as interesting, it is a centuries old story told for the 1000th time with no understandable dialogue and tons and tons and tons of torture. If you like torture like most organized religion based Christians do, you will love that movie.

P.S. I am pretty sure Stevie was recommending a movie. I don't even know if Mel Gibson authorized a book to be made out of the screenplay which he owns the right to.

Taco John
04-23-2006, 04:46 PM
yup that pretty much describes your agenda, which is why I'm not interested, and proven by your response.



That's not my agenda at all. I'm more than happy to discuss my spiritual views with people willing to hear them.

I found your original comment curious, and responded to it with the reality that we're not questioning our roots and connection to God anymore today than we did in the past. You then chickened out, and blamed it on me.

I'm cool with you balking. What I'm not cool with is you balking and then putting your balk on me.

If you've got something to say, say it. If you're going to make vague allusions and then tuck tail when someone questions something you say, then what's the point?

stevieray
04-23-2006, 05:06 PM
That's not my agenda at all. I'm more than happy to discuss my spiritual views with people willing to hear them.

I found your original comment curious, and responded to it with the reality that we're not questioning our roots and connection to God anymore today than we did in the past. You then chickened out, and blamed it on me.

I'm cool with you balking. What I'm not cool with is you balking and then putting your balk on me.

If you've got something to say, say it. If you're going to make vague allusions and then tuck tail when someone questions something you say, then what's the point?

"responded with the reality"

"chickened out"

"Cool with you balking"

"balking and putting it on me"

just more of the same agenda.

I have no problem discussiing the issues, I just have no desire to discuss them with you. Stick to claiming 9/11 was an inside job, and taking parting shots and condemning those who disagree with you.

Or go back to the Steeler board to claim their SB win is tainted. Do you always need to bait people so you can claim some sort of psuedo victory?

Play your baiting game with someone else, I rarely post on your threads, I rarely respond to your posts.

Get over it.

|Zach|
04-23-2006, 05:14 PM
ROFL

Threads. heh.

greg63
04-23-2006, 05:16 PM
...Haven't read the book; not seeing the movie.


That is all.

DaneMcCloud
04-23-2006, 05:58 PM
Is not nearly as interesting, it is a centuries old story told for the 1000th time with no understandable dialogue and tons and tons and tons of torture. If you like torture like most organized religion based Christians do, you will love that movie.

P.S. I am pretty sure Stevie was recommending a movie. I don't even know if Mel Gibson authorized a book to be made out of the screenplay which he owns the right to.


Vlad, aren't you confusing The Last Temptation of Christ (Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel & directed by Scorsese) with Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, James Cavaziel). LTOC was banned because it showed Jesus married to Mary Magdelagne along with Jesus asking Judas to betray him.

Logical
04-23-2006, 11:40 PM
Vlad, aren't you confusing The Last Temptation of Christ (Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel & directed by Scorsese) with Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson, James Cavaziel). LTOC was banned because it showed Jesus married to Mary Magdelagne along with Jesus asking Judas to betray him.Yes, dammit I am, thanks for clearing that up.:banghead:

Halfcan
04-24-2006, 12:16 AM
Very average book with great research that he ripped off from another book. There are so many gramical mistakes it was hard to read sometimes-kind of like my post-lol

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 12:17 AM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.


Is it you?

Dave

Taco John
04-24-2006, 01:51 AM
"responded with the reality"

"chickened out"

"Cool with you balking"

"balking and putting it on me"

just more of the same agenda.

I have no problem discussiing the issues, I just have no desire to discuss them with you. Stick to claiming 9/11 was an inside job, and taking parting shots and condemning those who disagree with you.

Or go back to the Steeler board to claim their SB win is tainted. Do you always need to bait people so you can claim some sort of psuedo victory?

Play your baiting game with someone else, I rarely post on your threads, I rarely respond to your posts.

Get over it.


First... Condmening those that disagree with me? HA! First, when have I ever done that? I don't condemn anyone for disagreeing with me. Legitimate disagreement is my bread and butter. Condemning is your game, sister "Christian."

The Steelers SB was tainted. I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with believing that there had to be an internal aspect of 9/11. There were demolition charges in those buildings to cause them to collapse... The question is how did they get there. The evidence is more than clear. I'm not afraid to acknowledge the evidence exists (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness) nor am I afraid to ask tough questions.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid of my radical opinions... I can hold my own. If I say something, I say it... I don't make pussy-footed references to Armageddon (like yourself) and then cry like a little bitch when someone tries to draw me out. If you're going to be an armageddon monger, have the balls to stand behind your convictions. Say it man. Don't hold back.

keg in kc
04-24-2006, 04:22 AM
I think there is a reason we appear to not to be able to go a week without debating God.Must be the 400-pound gorilla that grabs you by the throat and says "post on this thread stevie, don't skip over it. oh, and while I have you under my thumb, make sure you reply to taco john instead of ignoring him like someone who really wasn't interested in a little verbal tussle ".

Rausch
04-24-2006, 04:50 AM
I also don't have a problem with believing that there had to be an internal aspect of 9/11. There were demolition charges in those buildings to cause them to collapse... The question is how did they get there. The evidence is more than clear. I'm not afraid to acknowledge the evidence exists (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness) nor am I afraid to ask tough questions.

:spock:

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 06:59 AM
ROFL

Threads. heh.
LOL, Internet.

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 07:09 AM
The Steelers SB was tainted. I don't have a problem with that.

ROFL Its good to hear you are not bitter. Dude, the Steelers won 4 post-season games. I don't see how it was tainted. Sure, the refs did a lousy job during the SB, but you did see the shit they had to overcome in Indy, right?

chagrin
04-24-2006, 07:47 AM
ROFL Its good to hear you are not bitter. Dude, the Steelers won 4 post-season games. I don't see how it was tainted. Sure, the refs did a lousy job during the SB, but you did see the shit they had to overcome in Indy, right?


Watch out dude, the Centrist is about to claim loyalty to (in his own words) "...my Seahwks [and] my Broncos..."

Fire Me Boy!
04-24-2006, 07:48 AM
I love the cover.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/pcl/roundup/angelsanddemons.jpg

It is the same upside down and rightside up.
I'd never seen that... that's incredible (the audiobook I had was the new cover -- NOTHING like that).

FAX
04-24-2006, 11:12 AM
I think there's a secret message in the cover. Held sideways, it looks like a glowing phallus with warts.

This is spooky.

FAX

Baby Lee
04-24-2006, 11:45 AM
I'd never seen that... that's incredible (the audiobook I had was the new cover -- NOTHING like that).
Wasn't that 'sacred sign' integral to the plot though?

Ari Chi3fs
04-24-2006, 11:52 AM
thats it, stevieray... Im voting for Phobia.

Fire Me Boy!
04-24-2006, 12:18 PM
Wasn't that 'sacred sign' integral to the plot though?
Yeah, but the new cover sucks and apparently got rid of the original. The original is MUCH better.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 12:40 PM
First... Condmening those that disagree with me? HA! First, when have I ever done that? I don't condemn anyone for disagreeing with me. Legitimate disagreement is my bread and butter. Condemning is your game, sister "Christian."

The Steelers SB was tainted. I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with believing that there had to be an internal aspect of 9/11. There were demolition charges in those buildings to cause them to collapse... The question is how did they get there. The evidence is more than clear. I'm not afraid to acknowledge the evidence exists (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness) nor am I afraid to ask tough questions.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid of my radical opinions... I can hold my own. If I say something, I say it... I don't make pussy-footed references to Armageddon (like yourself) and then cry like a little bitch when someone tries to draw me out. If you're going to be an armageddon monger, have the balls to stand behind your convictions. Say it man. Don't hold back.

Talk about being anal retentive.

You have no proof of your belief only speculation.

Your inability to converse with others here just shows how juvenile you really are.

Sully
04-24-2006, 12:46 PM
Your inability to converse with others here just shows how juvenile you really are.

ROFL :rolleyes:

CoMoChief
04-24-2006, 12:48 PM
I read the book. Thought it was alright. Listening to "Angels and Demons" right now - the prequel to Da Vinci Code. It's a better book, IMO.

He's got some other good ones too. "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress" were great reads. I think Da Vinci Code was the weakest of the lot, but it got the most hoop-la and threw Brown into the spotlight.



Angels and Demons is a better book. A must read.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 12:48 PM
ROFL :rolleyes:

I guess you don't understand. I don't mind getting flamed, if I did I'd never be here. I just have a problem with someone trying to pretend that they are better than others and then let fly with language that most sailors wouldn't be caught dead using.

|Zach|
04-24-2006, 12:50 PM
I guess you don't understand. I don't mind getting flamed, if I did I'd never be here. I just have a problem with someone trying to pretend that they are better than others and then let fly with language that most sailors wouldn't be caught dead using.
What a pussy.

Put your big kid pants on.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 03:16 PM
I've read DaVinci 3 times or so. Very good.
I also like Angels and Demons.
I was completely unimpressed with Digital Fortress, but, you know, opinions and all...

The movie should be fantastic, as long as not too much is changed. The cast is great, and I kinda hope they expand Silas' part a little, as I love Paul Bettany, and don't recall seeing him in such a sinister role. I'll definitely be seeing it the day it opens... even though Jerry Johnston told me not to.Great, I am 17 posts into this thread and still hoping for someone to say wtf the thing is about, a brief synopsis of the plot maybe.

Great, I will stipulate that you all read it and it is good. geesh. :shake:

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 03:19 PM
You mean that there's a reason other than we're human and have been debating it since the dawn of creation?Of course, we have you Taco. You obviously have figured it all out, so please, spare us the debate and tell us what you think.

:p

Taco John
04-24-2006, 08:32 PM
I think that somewhere in Stevie Ray's closet is an Elvis costume, and a Tom C@sh costume...

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:35 PM
I think that somewhere in Stevie Ray's closet is an Elvis costume, and a Tom Cash costume...

If you are going to be a son-of-a-bitch, at least figure out how to spell.


I'll be back in a while, I have to go give birth to a Taco John.

Thig Lyfe
04-24-2006, 08:49 PM
Cinderella Man was great.

irishjayhawk
04-24-2006, 08:50 PM
I think that somewhere in Stevie Ray's closet is an Elvis costume, and a Tom C@sh costume...
I thought I was the only one noticing this.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:52 PM
I thought I was the only one noticing this.

All of the left wing nut jobs feel the same as you. go figure.

Frankie
04-25-2006, 12:19 AM
What a pussy.

Put your big kid pants on.
Uhmm, actually that was one of very rare CE posts I agree with.

Count Alex's Wins
04-25-2006, 12:23 AM
Threads like this are THE reason why Taco John made it into the CP Tourney...

KChiefsQT
04-25-2006, 12:25 AM
How old are you?
He's 20 and going on 70, the boy has been around and knows EVERYTHING there is to know about life in general.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:50 AM
What a pussy.

Put your big kid pants on.
You probably need to go wash your mouth out with soap.

Then have your mama change your diaper and put you to bed.

No tittie for you tonight, you've been a bad little boy.

DaneMcCloud
04-25-2006, 01:00 AM
Great, I am 17 posts into this thread and still hoping for someone to say wtf the thing is about, a brief synopsis of the plot maybe.

Great, I will stipulate that you all read it and it is good. geesh. :shake:

No offense, but have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan the past few years? How is it possible that you HAVEN'T heard of the Da Vinci Code and it's plot? It's been the subject of Dateline NBC, 20/20 and has sold over 20 million copies in hardback? Haven't you been on vacation and seen multliple people reading it by poolside, let alone tables upon tables of it at Costco? I mean seriously, how could you have missed this?

Miles
04-25-2006, 01:06 AM
No offense, but have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan the past few years? How is it possible that you HAVEN'T heard of the Da Vinci Code and it's plot? It's been the subject of Dateline NBC, 20/20 and has sold over 20 million copies in hardback? Haven't you been on vacation and seen multliple people reading it by poolside, let alone tables upon tables of it at Costco? I mean seriously, how could you have missed this?

Yeah its everywhere but I don't think I have heard anyone say much of anything about the plot. They just say you should really read this, its a great book.

stevieray
04-28-2006, 05:03 PM
Must be the 400-pound gorilla that grabs you by the throat and says "post on this thread stevie, don't skip over it. oh, and while I have you under my thumb, make sure you reply to taco john instead of ignoring him like someone who really wasn't interested in a little verbal tussle ".


must be the four hundred pound gorilla that grabs you by the throat and says "reply to this post keg, don't skip over it." ;)

Actuallly, I think its because of the breakdown of family. But you are free to assume what you may. no biggie. we all do it from time to time.

point taken on your second comment, this thread was the first time I've engaged in conversation with him in quite some time.

Pitt Gorilla
04-28-2006, 05:16 PM
...Haven't read the book; not seeing the movie.


That is all.Why? It looks pretty good.

Sully
04-28-2006, 05:22 PM
Yeah its everywhere but I don't think I have heard anyone say much of anything about the plot. They just say you should really read this, its a great book.

You should really read it. It's a great book.

ENDelt260
04-28-2006, 06:33 PM
National geographic channel, or discovery channel(one of the two) had a documentary called breaking the DaVinci code, in which they interviewed a lot of experts on the subject, it was very good.

I have the bobblehead Jesus that guy had on his dashboard.

KcMizzou
04-28-2006, 06:34 PM
I love the cover.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/pcl/roundup/angelsanddemons.jpg

It is the same upside down and rightside up.
Wow. That is really cool.

CoMoChief
04-28-2006, 06:46 PM
Cant wait for the movie.

Bob Dole
05-15-2006, 07:12 AM
The Catholic church sure seem to be bothered by the darned thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/15/cardinal.davinci.reut/index.html

King_Chief_Fan
05-15-2006, 07:37 AM
Yeah its everywhere but I don't think I have heard anyone say much of anything about the plot. They just say you should really read this, its a great book.

a book is all it is. It is fiction. Dan Brown states "assume" that the data is real -- (or something like that). Makes no claim to be fact.

NewChief
05-15-2006, 07:57 AM
The Catholic church sure seem to be bothered by the darned thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/15/cardinal.davinci.reut/index.html

It's funny because we were just discussing this yesterday. I went to my mom's church for Mother's day, and the preacher was talking about the upcoming movie. He was very complimentary of the book and encouraged everyone to go see the movie. He said that Christians should use it as an opportunity to witness to people and get the truth out. Of course, they were offering a study/seminar on the "truth" behind the book to prepare people to discuss it with others. Anyway, I thought that was a much cooler way of handling it than, "THIS IS SATAN'S WORK! STAY AWAY!"

Part of our discussion, though, was that the Catholic church has more at stake than protestants here. The book really goes after Catholicism as an institution. Yes it presents an alternate history of Christ (which could offend all of Christendom), but it full on attacks Catholicism. As such, it's understandable that Catholics would be a little more angry than others.

Aries Walker
05-15-2006, 07:58 AM
I thought I'd be helpful and go find a synopsis of the book for the benefit of those of us who don't know it. Wikipedia was full of spoilers, and Amazon's were basically ads for the book ("a whopper of a plot!"). So, I'll write my own. My apologies for my second-rate synopsis writing.

Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (an expert on religious symbology) is called to the Louvre to investigate the bizarre murder of its curator. With the help of French cryptologist Sophie Neveu, he discovers a much more puzzling series of events behind the murder. The two of them follow the clues and along the way uncover a centuries-old religious and political conspiracy which is described as "the greatest cover-up in human history."

Frankly, I think it to be an OK book. It appears that Dan Brown did his research, but on closer inspection, I could tell that he changed, skewed, or outright invented anything he wanted in order to advance his plot line.

There's nothing wrong with that - every fictionalist does it. Brown, though, tried so hard to shroud everything in a cloak of pseudo-historical-accuracy that it makes me think that he's a mediocre thriller novelist who so desperately wanted to be a JK Rowling-esque multi-gazillionaire that he used the controversy to make up for the fact that he's not quite Twain, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, or even Grisham.

InChiefsHell
05-15-2006, 08:07 AM
I thought I'd be helpful and go find a synopsis of the book for the benefit of those of us who don't know it. Wikipedia was full of spoilers, and Amazon's were basically ads for the book ("a whopper of a plot!"). So, I'll write my own. My apologies for my second-rate synopsis writing.

Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (an expert on religious symbology) is called to the Louvre to investigate the bizarre murder of its curator. With the help of French cryptologist Sophie Neveu, he discovers a much more puzzling series of events behind the murder. The two of them follow the clues and along the way uncover a centuries-old religious and political conspiracy which is described as "the greatest cover-up in human history."

Frankly, I think it to be an OK book. It appears that Dan Brown did his research, but on closer inspection, I could tell that he changed, skewed, or outright invented anything he wanted in order to advance his plot line.

There's nothing wrong with that - every fictionalist does it. Brown, though, tried so hard to shroud everything in a cloak of pseudo-historical-accuracy that it makes me think that he's a mediocre thriller novelist who so desperately wanted to be a JK Rowling-esque multi-gazillionaire that he used the controversy to make up for the fact that he's not quite Twain, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, or even Grisham.

Brilliant analysis. I was less impressed with the book as the days went by after I finished it. I thought the characters were pretty milk-toast, and I found myself unable to give a crap about them or what happened to them. No, this book was not a great novel, but it was a gripping story that you just HAD to see how it would end. I was a little dissapointed in it at the end. Then, the more I thought on the book I liked it less and less.

I read Angels and Demons, and it is another scathing attack on the Catholic Church. Seriously, what would the world do without the Catholics to beat up on?

InChiefsHell
05-15-2006, 08:11 AM
Part of our discussion, though, was that the Catholic church has more at stake than protestants here. The book really goes after Catholicism as an institution. Yes it presents an alternate history of Christ (which could offend all of Christendom), but it full on attacks Catholicism. As such, it's understandable that Catholics would be a little more angry than others.

I guess that's true. The funny thing though, is that attacks on the Church are as old as...well, the Church. This is an attack on the whole of Christianity, not just the Catholic Church, so I don't understand how a Protestant could feel less offended than a Catholic over the premise of the book.

Rausch
05-15-2006, 08:17 AM
What a pussy.

Put your big kid pants on.

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
05-15-2006, 08:21 AM
Read the book, and many of the critiques and responses.

Entertaining fiction. But like Oliver Stone's JFK, or historical films like the Titanic or Pearl Harbor, people will presume what they see on film to be reality.....too bad.

Sully
05-15-2006, 08:59 AM
Through reading the book, I learned tons. It made me ask questions about things I had never had any idea about. So though there are inaccuracies, through the "facts" in the book and the questions that followed, I learned more about my belief and religion tha I had in 25 years previously.

NewChief
05-15-2006, 09:13 AM
This is an attack on the whole of Christianity, not just the Catholic Church, so I don't understand how a Protestant could feel less offended than a Catholic over the premise of the book.


While the premise of the book (Christ had kids) is an attack on Christianity, there are many other components that are mainly reserved for Catholicism. He makes the Catholic church (and Opus Dei) out to be this sinister, NWO type organization who are trying to pull the puppet strings on society and have done so throughout history. While I think that catholics are probably offended by the Christ with kids part, I imagine the church is also upset by the portrayal of their role in history and of Opus Dei, which probably doesn't even bother Protestants (some of whom might even agree with some of the negativity directed toward Catholicism).

InChiefsHell
05-15-2006, 09:20 AM
While the premise of the book (Christ had kids) is an attack on Christianity, there are many other components that are mainly reserved for Catholicism. He makes the Catholic church (and Opus Dei) out to be this sinister, NWO type organization who are trying to pull the puppet strings on society and have done so throughout history. While I think that catholics are probably offended by the Christ with kids part, I imagine the church is also upset by the portrayal of their role in history and of Opus Dei, which probably doesn't even bother Protestants (some of whom might even agree with some of the negativity directed toward Catholicism).

Agreed. But like I said, making the Catholic Church out to be evil is nothing new. Many people want to believe the worst about the Church, so in a way this is more of the same old same old. You are right though, the book is overtly anti-Catholic, so I guess we do take it a little more personally than non-Catholics.

JBucc
05-15-2006, 09:23 AM
I haven't read the book but i did watch the special on discovery last night and it was pretty good.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-15-2006, 01:04 PM
Some great Fiction here, but there are better books in the genre.

Aries Walker
05-15-2006, 01:09 PM
Agreed. But like I said, making the Catholic Church out to be evil is nothing new. Many people want to believe the worst about the Church, so in a way this is more of the same old same old. You are right though, the book is overtly anti-Catholic, so I guess we do take it a little more personally than non-Catholics.
It's not only anti-Christian and anti-Catholic, but it is immensely popular. If it didn't sell as barn-burningly well as it did, I doubt if the outrage would be nearly as vehement.

Oh, and I never actually answered the thread: I will most likely see the movie on DVD later. There's no doubt that Ron Howard is incredible, and I'm sure it will make a fine movie, but I'm less and less pleased with the theatre-going experience these days. It would have to be a big-screen-worthy epic for me to go, and this frankly isn't enough.

Blackened
05-15-2006, 01:28 PM
Great book...
Angels and Demons was a good read as well.

Bob Dole
05-15-2006, 01:40 PM
Agreed. But like I said, making the Catholic Church out to be evil is nothing new.

Which is just silly, given its history and everything.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Which is just silly, given its history and everything.

No kidding. Have any of you guys taken World History before? The Catholic Church has been corrupt since its inception. Geez...

KC Kings
05-15-2006, 02:00 PM
I thought the book was great! It is fiction, and there were several "facts" that were obviously wrong, but who cares? I didn't care for the ending, but it was a good book that I couldn't set down.

Brown really missed out on a couple of opportunities to expand on his conspiracy though. He said that there were "hundreds of gospels", when in actuallity around 40 gospels have been found, and then said that the church decided which Gospels would go in the bible based solely on their agenda. A little later he brings up the "Q", but brings it up as one of these gospels that the Catholic church admits to believing in it's existance. It would have been a lot better (imo), if he explained the Q as a make believe Gospel that the church believes in because it helps support the existing gospels, which it does.

He also missed out on some good points to provide Old Testment scripture concerning the Sophia of God. In Hebrew it refers to Sophia, or the wisdom of God as "she", and we have translated it to plain old wisdom. He could have made more of a conspiracy using scriptures to back it up, but didn't.

Bob Dole
05-15-2006, 02:32 PM
Bob Dole believes that Christopher Moore's Lamb (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0380813815/102-5631758-1517740?v=glance&n=283155) is probably the most historically accurate account of the life of Christ. It's also an incredibly enjoyable read.

Pitt Gorilla
05-15-2006, 02:46 PM
While the premise of the book (Christ had kids) is an attack on Christianity, there are many other components that are mainly reserved for Catholicism. He makes the Catholic church (and Opus Dei) out to be this sinister, NWO type organization who are trying to pull the puppet strings on society and have done so throughout history. While I think that catholics are probably offended by the Christ with kids part, I imagine the church is also upset by the portrayal of their role in history and of Opus Dei, which probably doesn't even bother Protestants (some of whom might even agree with some of the negativity directed toward Catholicism).Why is Christ having kids an attack on Christianity? It seems pretty clear that Christ had siblings, and he very well could have had kids. Either way, it doesn't impact my beliefs at all. The teachings of Christ are no less valid.

NewChief
05-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Why is Christ having kids an attack on Christianity? It seems pretty clear that Christ had siblings, and he very well could have had kids. Either way, it doesn't impact my beliefs at all. The teachings of Christ are no less valid.


Well, it's an "attack" on traditional Christian dogma which is that Christ neglected the pleasures of the flesh and presumably died celibate. I'm pretty much with you on my take on it as it doesn't diminish my faith really one way or the other.

Calcountry
05-15-2006, 05:01 PM
No offense, but have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan the past few years? How is it possible that you HAVEN'T heard of the Da Vinci Code and it's plot? It's been the subject of Dateline NBC, 20/20 and has sold over 20 million copies in hardback? Haven't you been on vacation and seen multliple people reading it by poolside, let alone tables upon tables of it at Costco? I mean seriously, how could you have missed this?All my free time is at the Planet, thats how.

Calcountry
05-15-2006, 05:09 PM
Agreed. But like I said, making the Catholic Church out to be evil is nothing new. Many people want to believe the worst about the Church, so in a way this is more of the same old same old. You are right though, the book is overtly anti-Catholic, so I guess we do take it a little more personally than non-Catholics.Maybe, at long last, I will have the answer to the big question: "Is the Pope a Catholic?" :p

Herzig
05-15-2006, 05:25 PM
While the premise of the book (Christ had kids) is an attack on Christianity, there are many other components that are mainly reserved for Catholicism. He makes the Catholic church (and Opus Dei) out to be this sinister, NWO type organization who are trying to pull the puppet strings on society and have done so throughout history. While I think that catholics are probably offended by the Christ with kids part, I imagine the church is also upset by the portrayal of their role in history and of Opus Dei, which probably doesn't even bother Protestants (some of whom might even agree with some of the negativity directed toward Catholicism).

I totally agree with you. As a Catholic myself, this fictional book and movie doesn't offend me at all. The only thing I find offensive is that there will be many people that will regard the book and movie as "truthful" and "factual". Personally, I only find the stupid people who take this movie as the "truth" offensive.

Calcountry
05-15-2006, 06:34 PM
I totally agree with you. As a Catholic myself, this fictional book and movie doesn't offend me at all. The only thing I find offensive is that there will be many people that will regard the book and movie as "truthful" and "factual". Personally, I only find the stupid people who take this movie as the "truth" offensive.What do you expect from a general population that equates 3 dollar gasoline with "bad economy".


grunt, fire=bad
grunt, food=good

Cochise
05-15-2006, 07:11 PM
Well, it's an "attack" on traditional Christian dogma which is that Christ neglected the pleasures of the flesh and presumably died celibate. I'm pretty much with you on my take on it as it doesn't diminish my faith really one way or the other.

Well, I am not one of these people who's in a huff over this book, but I don't really agree with that. If the book contradicts the Bible, they can't both be right. If the Bible is wrong and DVC is right, then it undermines the authority of scripture.

I know little about the book, but the main thing I do know is the assertion that the diety of Jesus was voted upon hundreds of years later and it only won by a narrow vote, which is patently false. The debate was over whether he was eternal too with the father, but the vote on the other matter of diety was like 300+ to 2.

That one point should be cause for concern, because if he never claimed to be God, then there really is no underpinning for the religion as a whole. A regular old sinful guy couldn't give themselves for others' sins any more than I could. Without diety there is no gospel left.

NewChief
05-15-2006, 08:55 PM
Well, I am not one of these people who's in a huff over this book, but I don't really agree with that. If the book contradicts the Bible, they can't both be right. If the Bible is wrong and DVC is right, then it undermines the authority of scripture.

I know little about the book, but the main thing I do know is the assertion that the diety of Jesus was voted upon hundreds of years later and it only won by a narrow vote, which is patently false. The debate was over whether he was eternal too with the father, but the vote on the other matter of diety was like 300+ to 2.

That one point should be cause for concern, because if he never claimed to be God, then there really is no underpinning for the religion as a whole. A regular old sinful guy couldn't give themselves for others' sins any more than I could. Without diety there is no gospel left.

I don't really remember the vote thing that well from the book, but it's been a while. I also read the book in about 3 nights, so I was speedreading like mad. I was referring specifically to the part of whether he had children or not. I don't, personally, believe that he did. If sudden irrefutable proof came out that he did, though, it wouldn't make me suddenly say, "I'm not a Christian." That was my point. Nothing more.

There are certainly other facets of the book that likely directly contradict the Bible, the child with Mary Magdalene thing just tends to be the central driving force behind the book.

InChiefsHell
05-15-2006, 09:07 PM
Well, I am not one of these people who's in a huff over this book, but I don't really agree with that. If the book contradicts the Bible, they can't both be right. If the Bible is wrong and DVC is right, then it undermines the authority of scripture.

I know little about the book, but the main thing I do know is the assertion that the diety of Jesus was voted upon hundreds of years later and it only won by a narrow vote, which is patently false. The debate was over whether he was eternal too with the father, but the vote on the other matter of diety was like 300+ to 2.

That one point should be cause for concern, because if he never claimed to be God, then there really is no underpinning for the religion as a whole. A regular old sinful guy couldn't give themselves for others' sins any more than I could. Without diety there is no gospel left.

Exactly. It's not weather or not Jesus had kids. At least, it's not that simple. If Jesus had kids, got married, etc, then the Bible is a lie. Jesus then is not God. That's why I say it is an attack on Christianity. Like it or not, believe in it or not, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was, is and will always be God. If DVC is right, then the entire faith, not just the Catholic faith, is bunk.

That's why the thing is stirring up so much trouble. If it were just another of the many attacks on the Catholic Church, then it would be pretty much the same old same old. Honestly as a Catholic, I'm pretty used to the anti-Catholic rankor out there, so that would not have bothered me. At least not as much.

The other thing that gets me is the people who think Christians are overly sensitive about it. After all, it is just fiction. Well, if someone wrote a book about your mother, or daughter that said she was a crack whore and you were an illigitimate father, what have you, I seriously doubt you would just brush it off as fiction. People's faith hits very close to home. In that way, DVC is a personal attack on anyone who claims that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior.

FAX
05-15-2006, 09:23 PM
There's a great documentary dealing with this subject on the History channel right now. They are preparing to study the mitochondria DNA of 6th Century Maravingian royalty.

The idea is to discover if there are Middle Eastern DNA signatures in the French royal bloodline.

FAX

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-15-2006, 09:31 PM
There's a great documentary dealing with this subject on the History channel right now. They are preparing to study the mitochondria DNA of 6th Century Maravingian royalty.

The idea is to discover if there are Middle Eastern DNA signatures in the French royal bloodline.

FAX

Yeah, like it would be completely impossible for some Roman soldier recruited from the Middle East to have his legion transfered to Gaul where he mustered out of the legion.

After all, the ONLY auxiliaries the Romans used were German, right?

Oh, wait, there were Parthans and Jews and Greeks and Gauls and Germans and Slavs and Goths and . . . .

Finding mitochondria from the Middle East will prove absolutely bumpkiss.

Cochise
05-15-2006, 09:39 PM
I was going to say... what would that prove? It's like saying that the presence of a penny in the Tower of London proves I was there, because I have a penny in my pocket too.

FAX
05-15-2006, 09:59 PM
You have a critical mind, Mr. Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan. My compliments.

Of course, there could have been secret liaisons with Parthian recruits, Jews, Nobatian mercenaries, etc. which would result in a Middle Eastern DNA signature in their line. And, clearly, finding the DNA signature alone proves nothing in and of itself. Still, it will be interesting if the DNA results prove positive. Interesting, at least, to me because it opens the possibility that the mitochondrial DNA (maternally inherited if you recall) was of Middle Eastern descent. Most Roman soldiers were male, if I remember correctly.

For my part, I suppose I try and keep an open mind about such matters unless or until a fact is proven one way or another to my satisfaction.

Anyway, the issue is moot. They were able to extract the DNA but it was a European sequence only.

FAX

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-15-2006, 10:25 PM
Not meaning to chirp at you, Fax.

It's just as a medieval historian, I love it when they get all wrapped up in the science and forget about the historical settings also.

FAX
05-15-2006, 10:29 PM
Not meaning to chirp at you, Fax.

It's just as a medieval historian, I love it when they get all wrapped up in the science and forget about the historical settings also.

No problem, Mr. Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan. I'm a huge fan of medieval historians. Anyway, as I mentioned, the DNA sequence was European only, so no controversy can be manufactured - not even by me.

The DNA did reveal, however, that this particular Maravingian queen had been raped by a drunken Duke lacrosse player.

FAX

Pitt Gorilla
05-15-2006, 10:31 PM
In that way, DVC is a personal attack on anyone who claims that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior.No, it's not. Jesus is my Lord and Savior and the DVC plays no role in that. My advice would be to not see the movie/read the book, if you feel that you can't handle the perceived "attack."

doomy3
05-15-2006, 10:51 PM
No problem, Mr. Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan. I'm a huge fan of medieval historians. Anyway, as I mentioned, the DNA sequence was European only, so no controversy can be manufactured - not even by me.

The DNA did reveal, however, that this particular Maravingian queen had been raped by a drunken Duke lacrosse player.

FAX


I read a lot of posts on here, and you are one of the funniest people on this board IMO. This is a great post.

Logical
05-16-2006, 12:11 AM
Why is Christ having kids an attack on Christianity? It seems pretty clear that Christ had siblings, and he very well could have had kids. Either way, it doesn't impact my beliefs at all. The teachings of Christ are no less valid.Because he won't get his 72 virgins upon rising again, to be reborn as a Cow in the ultimate reincarnated state..


Wait maybe I am mixing some concepts here.

listopencil
05-16-2006, 01:21 AM
I have the bobblehead Jesus that guy had on his dashboard.

I think it would be funny to get a bobble-head Mohammed for my dashboard.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 07:31 AM
No, it's not. Jesus is my Lord and Savior and the DVC plays no role in that. My advice would be to not see the movie/read the book, if you feel that you can't handle the perceived "attack."

Please tell me you read the rest of my post...

Dude, it is an attack. Weather or not you take it seriously, it is an attack. If you believe that Jesus is God, which you claim to if you are a Christian, this book says your beliefs are a lie. I have read the book, so it's not like I'm just going off of EWTN talking points or something.

The DVC plays no role in weather or not Jesus is your Lord and Savior, I agree. But like it or not, the DVC attacks your beliefs. If you don't have a problem with it, you are a better stronger man than I. Like I said, I recognize it is fiction, but lies presented as fact are annoying to say the least.

It's not like I'm cowering in the corner over this movie, I am just calling it out for what it is.

Logical
05-16-2006, 11:57 AM
Please tell me you read the rest of my post...

Dude, it is an attack. Weather or not you take it seriously, it is an attack. If you believe that Jesus is God, which you claim to if you are a Christian, this book says your beliefs are a lie. I have read the book, so it's not like I'm just going off of EWTN talking points or something.

The DVC plays no role in weather or not Jesus is your Lord and Savior, I agree. But like it or not, the DVC attacks your beliefs. If you don't have a problem with it, you are a better stronger man than I. Like I said, I recognize it is fiction, but lies presented as fact are annoying to say the least.

It's not like I'm cowering in the corner over this movie, I am just calling it out for what it is.The bolded part of your quote tells me you do not understand the concept of fiction. Fiction does not present fact, books that present facts are normally classified as non-fiction.

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 12:02 PM
I can't believe so many Christians are appalled at the thought of Jesus f_cking.

Surprising, since they've basically been sucking his schlong for 2,000 years.

Jenson71
05-16-2006, 12:05 PM
I can't believe so many Christians are appalled at the thought of Jesus f_cking.

Surprising, since they've basically been sucking his schlong for 2,000 years.

Suprising, you looking for attention.

Logical
05-16-2006, 12:07 PM
I can't believe so many Christians are appalled at the thought of Jesus f_cking.

Surprising, since they've basically been sucking his schlong for 2,000 years.
ROFL

Clint you are truly missed around here, you and Cannibal need to stop by more often.:thumb:

DaneMcCloud
05-16-2006, 12:09 PM
I can't believe so many Christians are appalled at the thought of Jesus f_cking.

Surprising, since they've basically been sucking his schlong for 2,000 years.

I think it's funny that people get all worked up about one piece of fiction attacking another piece of fiction.

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 12:09 PM
Suprising, you looking for attention.


What, you don't like the thought of Jesus tapping some ass?


Apparently he continued to do interesting things with wood well beyond his days as a carpenter.

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 12:11 PM
I think it's funny that people get all worked up about one piece of fiction attacking another piece of fiction.


True.





I still say that Santa Claus can kick the crap out of the Easter Bunny, though.

Lurch
05-16-2006, 12:12 PM
Funny how arrogance and insecurity, simultaneously, in one's own beliefs drives them to ridicule the beliefs of others. (Yes, I realize that goes both ways; but it's coming from one direction in this thread.)

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 12:13 PM
Funny how arrogance and insecurity, simultaneously, in one's own beliefs drives them to ridicule the beliefs of others. (Yes, I realize that goes both ways; but it's coming from one direction in this thread.)



Yeah. I wonder why so many Christians are like that?

Jenson71
05-16-2006, 12:15 PM
What, you don't like the thought of Jesus tapping some ass?


Apparently he continued to do interesting things with wood well beyond his days as a carpenter.

I still don't understand how you can be so sure that he did that. I think it's crucial for a Christian to know Jesus did not have the same needs/longings as humans. That he is all man AND all God. He was conceived without sin as was his mother by miracles from God, and there is no perfect generation line today that stems from God.

Sully
05-16-2006, 12:17 PM
I still don't understand how you can be so sure that he did that. I think it's crucial for a Christian to know Jesus did not have the same needs/longings as humans. That he is all man AND all God. He was conceived without sin as was his mother by miracles from God, and there is no perfect generation line today that stems from God.

So.
What if there was?
What if Jesus had sex, dated, was married?
How does that change your beliefs about his life and teachings? How does that change who he was?

Pitt Gorilla
05-16-2006, 12:20 PM
Like I said, I recognize it is fiction.That should be the end of the argument. Has anyone claimed this story to be non-fiction? Seriously.

Jenson71
05-16-2006, 12:21 PM
So.
What if there was?
What if Jesus had sex, dated, was married?
How does that change your beliefs about his life and teachings? How does that change who he was?

Then He would not be who we think He is. He is God in our religion. Three sectors of God: The Father, The Son, the Holy Spirit. He was conceived by miracle, as was His mother. Do we believe He had a family with a non-Divine woman? No, we don't. His teachings would not change, they would still be most important to use to live your life. Treat your neighbor kindly. He would be a prophet, a soldier of God's, if you will. But H-e would not be God.

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 12:21 PM
I still don't understand how you can be so sure that he did that. I think it's crucial for a Christian to know Jesus did not have the same needs/longings as humans. That he is all man AND all God. He was conceived without sin as was his mother by miracles from God, and there is no perfect generation line today that stems from God.


Jesus was a man. He was not perfect. At different times he was angry, sad, happy, thoughtful....

Everything but horny, right? I doubt it. He got his jerk on and wanted some slit just like every other guy on the planet...unless he was gay, in which case he wanted some man-ass, but that's beside the point.

BTW, God is far from perfect. The fact that a "Great Flood" was deemed necessary PROVES that God is imperfect.

Sully
05-16-2006, 12:22 PM
That should be the end of the argument. Has anyone claimed this story to be non-fiction? Seriously.

Only Jerry Johnston and others who like to hoist it up to a higher standerd so they can shoot it down in the name of God.

Pitt Gorilla
05-16-2006, 12:22 PM
So.
What if there was?
What if Jesus had sex, dated, was married?
How does that change your beliefs about his life and teachings? How does that change who he was?Exactly.
:clap:

Jenson71
05-16-2006, 12:26 PM
Jesus was a man. He was not perfect. At different times he was angry, sad, happy, thoughtful....

Everything but horny, right? I doubt it. He got his jerk on and wanted some slit just like every other guy on the planet...unless he was gay, in which case he wanted some man-ass, but that's beside the point.

BTW, God is far from perfect. The fact that a "Great Flood" was deemed necessary PROVES that God is imperfect.

Jesus was all Man and all God. This is coming straight from years of Catholic teaching, Clint. He is not ordinary. He was perfect, He was savior of us. God's greatest creation, man, was built in an image of Him, and given the freedom of free will and thinking. It is His decision to make us not perfect.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 12:47 PM
Then of course there is the idea that Jesus has little God offspring...half Gods I guess...Greek Mythology type stuff...which I know to guys like Clint this is an apt description of Christianity anyway...

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 12:52 PM
That should be the end of the argument. Has anyone claimed this story to be non-fiction? Seriously.

*sigh* The story is promoted as fiction, but it is also blatently promoted as factual information set in a fictional story. (Opus Dei is real, the Priory of Sion is real, all rituals are accurate. Just read his "fact sheet" at the beginning of the book...partly true, partly not, but no explanation of which is which.) So seriously, yes. Dan Brown is a marketing genious. He is selling is fictitious story as haveing been based on fact, while always being able to say that with a wink.

Lurch
05-16-2006, 12:54 PM
Someone should write a fictitious (and to believers, a blasphemous) work about Mohamed, or Buddha. I can only imagine the waffling and flip-flopping, and scorn and indignation, of folks applauding this.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 12:56 PM
Someone should write a fictitious (and to believers, a blasphemous) work about Mohamed, or Buddha. I can only imagine the waffling and flip-flopping of folks applauding this.

Indeed. Of course, the consequeses would be much more severe...Christians don't typically resort to terrorism when they are attacked verbally...

patteeu
05-16-2006, 01:00 PM
Everything but horny, right? I doubt it. He got his jerk on and wanted some slit just like every other guy on the planet...unless he was gay, in which case he wanted some man-ass, but that's beside the point.

Imagine the uproar if a popular piece of fiction were centered on the concept of Jesus as a gay man who travelled around with a harem of male apostles. ROFL I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done as a satire, but I bet there would be some incredible fireworks if it were a semi-serious novel like the Da Vinci Code.

NewChief
05-16-2006, 01:00 PM
Someone should write a fictitious (and to believers, a blasphemous) work about Mohamed, or Buddha. I can only imagine the waffling and flip-flopping, and scorn and indignation, of folks applauding this.

Yeah, because boy was there ever an upcry from the PC liberalati Western world over the Satanic Verses. Oh..no there wasn't. Everyone said what idiots the radicals were for putting out a hit on Rushdie and awarded Rushdie the Whitbread for that novel. He's also won the Booker of Bookers for Midnight's Children.

Simplex3
05-16-2006, 01:01 PM
Someone should write a fictitious (and to believers, a blasphemous) work about Mohamed, or Buddha. I can only imagine the waffling and flip-flopping, and scorn and indignation, of folks applauding this.
First, Buddha is not a God nor did he ever claim to speak to a God. Far from it, Buddhists don't hold beliefs on the existence of any God. You don't want to be that guy claiming Christianity is misunderstood while assigning beliefs to other religions that they don't in fact hold.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 01:04 PM
I haven't followed the negative reaction that some churches/church leaders have had to the Da Vinci Code, but shouldn't they be even more concerned with the Koran and other religious texts from other religions? Afterall, the Koran's teachings wrt Jesus undermine those of the New Testament just as directly (if not moreso) than the Da Vinci Code don't they? And it's supposed to be taken as truth, not a work of fiction.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 01:09 PM
I haven't followed the negative reaction that some churches/church leaders have had to the Da Vinci Code, but shouldn't they be even more concerned with the Koran and other religious texts from other religions? Afterall, the Koran's teachings wrt Jesus undermine those of the New Testament just as directly (if not moreso) than the Da Vinci Code don't they? And it's supposed to be taken as truth, not a work of fiction.

Sure, but let's face it, less people are reading those other tomes you mentioned. Not nearly as entertaining or titiliating as the DVC, doncha know...
*EDIT* Not to mention, I don't think the Koran or the TOrah or what have you openly attack Jesus, or his followers. I could be wrong, I've never read them...

Simplex3
05-16-2006, 01:09 PM
I haven't followed the negative reaction that some churches/church leaders have had to the Da Vinci Code, but shouldn't they be even more concerned with the Koran and other religious texts from other religions? Afterall, the Koran's teachings wrt Jesus undermine those of the New Testament just as directly (if not moreso) than the Da Vinci Code don't they? And it's supposed to be taken as truth, not a work of fiction.
You know something's struck a nerve when half the churches I drive past have signs saying they'll be debunking the same thing.

DaKCMan AP
05-16-2006, 01:10 PM
Thoroughly enjoyed the book, can't wait for the movie. ;)

Lurch
05-16-2006, 01:11 PM
Yeah, because boy was there ever an upcry from the PC liberalati Western world over the Satanic Verses. Oh..no there wasn't. Everyone said what idiots the radicals were for putting out a hit on Rushdie and awarded Rushdie the Whitbread for that novel. He's also won the Booker of Bookers for Midnight's Children.

Are you saying there wasn't an outcry against Rushdie? Heh.

Lurch
05-16-2006, 01:12 PM
First, Buddha is not a God nor did he ever claim to speak to a God. Far from it, Buddhists don't hold beliefs on the existence of any God. You don't want to be that guy claiming Christianity is misunderstood while assigning beliefs to other religions that they don't in fact hold.

Did I say he was a God?

NewChief
05-16-2006, 01:13 PM
You know something's struck a nerve when half the churches I drive past have signs saying they'll be debunking the same thing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with debunking it or the church getting their version out. In fact, my first post in this thread was my admiration for that very thing. As I said, my mom's pastor was telling the congregation to go see the movie and read the book, that they needed to understand it. He said that everyone at work would be discussing it, that people on the street would be discussing it, that their friends would be discussing it, the Christian has a duty then to turn all of this discussion into an opportunity to get the truth out.

What I do have a problem with is people using this movie to add to their list of "The world hates Christians and they're out to get us! Woe is me and my poor persecuted religion."

Simplex3
05-16-2006, 01:14 PM
Did I say he was a God?
You implied he was a prophet by equating him to Mohammed. He wasn't.

NewChief
05-16-2006, 01:16 PM
Are you saying there wasn't an outcry against Rushdie? Heh.

In your post you said that the people defending/glorifying DVC would be lambasting and wiggling when faced with a similar "blasphemous" work about Islam or Buddhism. I countered that. The same liberals (I'll assume that is who you're aiming at) that are defending the DVC were just as quick to defend Rushdie from his attackers in the extremist islamic camp.

Lurch
05-16-2006, 01:22 PM
You implied he was a prophet by equating him to Mohammed. He wasn't.
Implied? In your mind....

In your post you said that the people defending/glorifying DVC would be lambasting and wiggling when faced with a similar "blasphemous" work about Islam or Buddhism. I countered that. The same liberals (I'll assume that is who you're aiming at) that are defending the DVC were just as quick to defend Rushdie from his attackers in the extremist islamic camp.

Uh-huh.

Chiefnj
05-16-2006, 01:27 PM
Why would a church feel the need to debunk a fictional movie?

Do they stand outside theaters saying Star Wars isn't real?

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 01:35 PM
Why would a church feel the need to debunk a fictional movie?

Do they stand outside theaters saying Star Wars isn't real?

Dude, you seriously draw a correlation between Star Wars and the DVC?

Chiefnj
05-16-2006, 01:47 PM
Dude, you seriously draw a correlation between Star Wars and the DVC?

Yes. They are both ficitional movies. That's what some folks in the church are forgetting. Tom Hanks is not really uncovering and tracing Jesus' bloodline, he's an actor.

Simplex3
05-16-2006, 01:51 PM
Implied? In your mind....
So you're just following that time-honored Christian tradition of turning the other cheek so that you can really get your shoulders into the punch?

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 01:54 PM
Yes. They are both ficitional movies. That's what some folks in the church are forgetting. Tom Hanks is not really uncovering and tracing Jesus' bloodline, he's an actor.

AGreed, I was commenting on what you asked, why they don't stand outside and protest Star Wars. Obviously, Star Wars does not attack their beliefs. Hense, no protests against Star Wars.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 01:55 PM
So you're just following that time-honored Christian tradition of turning the other cheek so that you can really get your shoulders into the punch?

ROFL ROFL That's a good one...

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 01:57 PM
AGreed, I was commenting on what you asked, why they don't stand outside and protest Star Wars. Obviously, Star Wars does not attack their beliefs. Hense, no protests against Star Wars.


The hell it doesn't. Who needs God when you've got the force?

Chief Faithful
05-16-2006, 02:01 PM
Yes. They are both ficitional movies. That's what some folks in the church are forgetting. Tom Hanks is not really uncovering and tracing Jesus' bloodline, he's an actor.

Thank you. As I have been label a Christian zealot on this board I feel I have the right to comment. IT IS FICTIONAL!! I think the comparison to Star Wars is right. Remember Luke had the force, which was in all and through all.

There is no reason to get worked up over the book or movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie as it sounds like it could be a good action flick.

Pitt Gorilla
05-16-2006, 02:22 PM
Yeah, because boy was there ever an upcry from the PC liberalati Western world over the Satanic Verses. Oh..no there wasn't. Everyone said what idiots the radicals were for putting out a hit on Rushdie and awarded Rushdie the Whitbread for that novel. He's also won the Booker of Bookers for Midnight's Children.Yup.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 02:34 PM
The hell it doesn't. Who needs God when you've got the force?

Well, there is that...
:hmmm:

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 02:36 PM
Thank you. As I have been label a Christian zealot on this board I feel I have the right to comment. IT IS FICTIONAL!! I think the comparison to Star Wars is right. Remember Luke had the force, which was in all and through all.

There is no reason to get worked up over the book or movie. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie as it sounds like it could be a good action flick.

Well, read the book. I don't think this will be an action flick as much as a pretty intense drama\thriller.

Pitt Gorilla
05-16-2006, 02:38 PM
I would ask why churches didn't go after Harry Potter, but it seems like some actually did.

Clint in Wichita
05-16-2006, 02:39 PM
I would ask why churches didn't go after Harry Potter, but it seems like some actually did.


They got really pissed when the Harry Potter series began outselling the Bible.

Chief Faithful
05-16-2006, 02:42 PM
Well, read the book. I don't think this will be an action flick as much as a pretty intense drama\thriller.

I might get to the book eventually, but my to read stack is already 8 books deep. Maybe I can check out the illustrated version from the library in a year or so after the excitement dies down.

InChiefsHell
05-16-2006, 02:42 PM
I would ask why churches didn't go after Harry Potter, but it seems like some actually did.

YUp. Some went after Jesus Christ Super Star, the Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, Stigmata, etc. This is nothing new, although I believe that the DVC is viewed as the most damaging one to date, hense the largest outcry that I can remember.

Sully
05-16-2006, 02:50 PM
I might get to the book eventually, but my to read stack is already 8 books deep. Maybe I can check out the illustrated version from the library in a year or so after the excitement dies down.

The illustrated version is great. Keeps you from having to look everything up as you read.

Aries Walker
05-16-2006, 03:42 PM
I might get to the book eventually, but my to read stack is already 8 books deep. Maybe I can check out the illustrated version from the library in a year or so after the excitement dies down.
In case you're tempted, don't get the audio book. The production is pretty bad; the breaks are oddly-placed and are distracting. Also, the reader isn't very good at all, and he has a strange way of pronouncing things which I found annoying - "shone" as "shahn" and "niche" as "neesh", for example. (They're technically correct, but functionally irritating, to me anyway.)

patteeu
05-16-2006, 04:18 PM
In case you're tempted, don't get the audio book. The production is pretty bad; the breaks are oddly-placed and are distracting. Also, the reader isn't very good at all, and he has a strange way of pronouncing things which I found annoying - "shone" as "shahn" and "niche" as "neesh", for example. (They're technically correct, but functionally irritating, to me anyway.)

I thought the audio book was pretty good. I thought the reader was good and didn't have any of the other problems you had with it. I guess, as with so many things, YMMV.

Taco John
05-17-2006, 03:00 AM
I"m about 1/3 through the book, and I must say... It's a brilliant read... The albino just found his Bible verse, and I'm delighted in the humor of it all...

Fun book...

Miles
05-17-2006, 03:05 AM
I"m about 1/3 through the book, and I must say... It's a brilliant read... The albino just found his Bible verse, and I'm delighted in the humor of it all...

Fun book...

Just curious is the religious aspect mostly just told as history? Kind of tempted to read it now but worried I may get annoyed with certain things.

Taco John
05-17-2006, 03:14 AM
Just curious is the religious aspect mostly just told as history? Kind of tempted to read it now but worried I may get annoyed with certain things.


Well, so far the only religious assertion I've come across is that Christianity was founded to replace the existing pagan religion which was widely celebrated in antiquity, where the divinity of the female was celebrated, rather than the deity of the male. Thus the symbology of witches were created, and anyone practicing the old religion were put to death.

I doubt it will change anyone's faith. If you fear that reading this book might convert you into a Wiccan, then you might stay away from it...

The author weaves an exciting modern mystery around an ancient mystery tied in with symolism in historical markers, paintings, and ancient secret societies that have survived the ages. It's really a thrilling read. I'm not certain how it's going to translate on the silver screen, but Dan Brown's storytelling took a giant leap in this book from Angels & Demons.

Miles
05-17-2006, 03:18 AM
Well, so far the only religious assertion I've come across is that Christianity was founded to replace the existing pagan religion which was widely celebrated in antiquity, where the divinity of the female was celebrated, rather than the deity of the male. Thus the symbology of witches were created, and anyone practicing the old religion were put to death.

The author weaves an exciting modern mystery around an ancient mystery tied in with symolism in historical markers, paintings, and ancient secret societies that have survived the ages. It's really a thrilling read. I'm not certain how it's going to translate on the silver screen, but Dan Brown's storytelling took a giant leap in this book from Angels & Demons.

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like a more historical type approach so I am more interested now.

Taco John
05-17-2006, 03:36 AM
Definitely... I'm about a third the way in, and as far as I can see, everything they're saying with regards to religion, they're validating from a historical standpoint.

I warn you, though... This is one of those page turners that you have to force yourself to put down once you pick it up. Same way with Angels and Demons. I've got Digital Fortress waiting in the wings, and I'm going to get Deception Point as soon as I come across it. I'm a Dan Brown fan for life at this point, and figure that I'll be willing to read anything he puts out.

I'm skepitcal, however, how this will work out as a movie. I think Ron Howard is making a mistake. He should have used Angels and Demons instead, which is a much more visual thriller.

patteeu
05-17-2006, 07:13 AM
Just curious is the religious aspect mostly just told as history? Kind of tempted to read it now but worried I may get annoyed with certain things.

If your faith can survive the fact that during periods of history, the Catholic Church had corrupt leaders (which I believe is a fact recognized by all) then it should be able to survive the idea that, for the purposes of entertaining fiction, this corruption was extrapolated to the point that it makes the entire foundation of the church a sham.

Go ahead and read it with the sentiment New Chief posted about in mind. You should be alright.

BTW, none of the above is intended to be a blast against Catholics (especially modern day Catholics). My entire family is Catholic and I have nothing against the church.

patteeu
05-17-2006, 07:14 AM
Definitely... I'm about a third the way in, and as far as I can see, everything they're saying with regards to religion, they're validating from a historical standpoint.

I warn you, though... This is one of those page turners that you have to force yourself to put down once you pick it up. Same way with Angels and Demons. I've got Digital Fortress waiting in the wings, and I'm going to get Deception Point as soon as I come across it. I'm a Dan Brown fan for life at this point, and figure that I'll be willing to read anything he puts out.

I'm skepitcal, however, how this will work out as a movie. I think Ron Howard is making a mistake. He should have used Angels and Demons instead, which is a much more visual thriller.

Dan Brown does an excellent job of setting up a cliffhanger at the end of nearly every chapter to keep you wanting to read on.

Frazod
05-17-2006, 09:51 AM
The showing of the movie in Cannes yesterday didn't go over too well (no link, I heard this on the radio this morning). Critical response is apparently lukewarm at best.

Perhaps the endless find a clue/chase scene/find a clue/chase scene thing gets old on the big screen. I personally found the subject matter of the book to be far more interesting than the story itself.

FAX
05-17-2006, 09:52 AM
Couldn't find a link anywhere to the story, but ...

I just heard on the news that audiences in Cannes hated the movie. They whistled at the end (instead of applauding) and there was laughter during some of the film's key moments. Moments that were not intended to be humorous.

FAX

Frazod
05-17-2006, 10:10 AM
Here's a link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_en_mo/film_cannes_da_vinci_code_2

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 10:20 AM
Here's a link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_en_mo/film_cannes_da_vinci_code_2
Wow. That I did not see coming. I love Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. It's hard to believe that they stunk it up that badly.

58-4ever
05-17-2006, 10:22 AM
You never know. Cannes reactions are not always an accurate portrayal of a film's worth.

Brock
05-17-2006, 10:23 AM
A boring, predictable book=a boring, predictable movie.

Jenson71
05-17-2006, 10:27 AM
a boring, predictable movie.

Like Cinderella Man.

Brock
05-17-2006, 10:28 AM
Like Cinderella Man.

I liked Cinderella Man. It was neither boring nor predictable.

Jenson71
05-17-2006, 10:31 AM
I liked Cinderella Man. It was neither boring nor predictable.

You didn't think it was "Depression Man starts with nothing, becomes symbol of America, wins championship"? You had to have known. It was EXTREMELY melodramtic; "You'll always be my champ, James W. Braddock Jr."

Aries Walker
05-17-2006, 10:31 AM
Just curious is the religious aspect mostly just told as history? Kind of tempted to read it now but worried I may get annoyed with certain things.
You'll be fine if you a) are sane, and b) realize it's fiction. It's almost like a "What If" book, because by the time you get to the end, there are so many simply unbelievable secrets unearthed, it seems like it isn't set in the same universe in which we're standing now. And it, in fact, isn't.

King_Chief_Fan
05-17-2006, 10:41 AM
Definitely... I'm about a third the way in, and as far as I can see, everything they're saying with regards to religion, they're validating from a historical standpoint.



Is meant to be fictional not factual. He states himself that you will have to assume that the accounts are factual.

Taco John
05-17-2006, 10:48 AM
Is meant to be fictional not factual. He states himself that you will have to assume that the accounts are factual.



He also makes it a point in the book that much of it is factual, including the Priority of Scion, including a statement that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

Make no doubt, he's making a claim here.

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 10:49 AM
Is meant to be fictional not factual. He states himself that you will have to assume that the accounts are factual.

And Taco proves the point of everyone who is freaking out about this book. Some people actually believe it, or at least some of it.

Frazod
05-17-2006, 10:55 AM
Wow. That I did not see coming. I love Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. It's hard to believe that they stunk it up that badly.

It's been a long time since Howard made a bad movie, but for anyone who thinks it's not possible, I have one word: WILLOW.

:Lin:

As for Hanks, I guess maybe he's just due for a stinker.

Personally, I'm holding out for Ebert's review in the Sun Times on Friday.

Chiefnj
05-17-2006, 11:03 AM
It's been a long time since Howard made a bad movie, but for anyone who thinks it's not possible, I have one word: WILLOW.

:Lin:

As for Hanks, I guess maybe he's just due for a stinker.

Personally, I'm holding out for Ebert's review in the Sun Times on Friday.

Didn't he do the remake of the Grinch?

Frazod
05-17-2006, 11:05 AM
Didn't he do the remake of the Grinch?

I don't know. Since I don't have kids, I'm spared crap like that.

DaneMcCloud
05-17-2006, 11:18 AM
It's been a long time since Howard made a bad movie, but for anyone who thinks it's not possible, I have one word: WILLOW.

:Lin:

As for Hanks, I guess maybe he's just due for a stinker.

Personally, I'm holding out for Ebert's review in the Sun Times on Friday.

Ron Howard's made plenty of stinkers (though I enjoyed Willow very much):

Far & Away
The Paper
Backdraft
Ransom
EDtv
The Missing
Cinderella Man (LAME movie)

All of those movies I listed were boring and predictable, as where the performances. But the second mistake that DVC has made was casting Tom Hanks. Robert Langdon (Hank's character) is described as a very young 40 year old, who swims and stays in excellent shape. So instead of casting a young 40 year old or even a 35 year old, they cast Howard's best buddy, a 49 year old Tom Hanks. I'm going to see the movie Friday night (bought tickets last week), but I'm dreading the movie.

Aside from Hanks and Howard, the rest of the cast is perfect, except for possibly Audrey Tatou. I would have preferred the original choice, Sophie Marceau, but she was contractually locked into another project.

Suffice to say, I have a feeling that the film adaptation will be weak.

Brock
05-17-2006, 11:27 AM
I'd be willing to bet a dollar that this guy will be in the movie somewhere.

Bob Dole
05-17-2006, 11:31 AM
I'd be willing to bet a dollar that this guy will be in the movie somewhere.

He's not credited if he is.

Strange.

Frazod
05-17-2006, 11:57 AM
Ron Howard's made plenty of stinkers (though I enjoyed Willow very much):

Far & Away
The Paper
Backdraft
Ransom
EDtv
The Missing
Cinderella Man (LAME movie)

All of those movies I listed were boring and predictable, as where the performances. But the second mistake that DVC has made was casting Tom Hanks. Robert Langdon (Hank's character) is described as a very young 40 year old, who swims and stays in excellent shape. So instead of casting a young 40 year old or even a 35 year old, they cast Howard's best buddy, a 49 year old Tom Hanks. I'm going to see the movie Friday night (bought tickets last week), but I'm dreading the movie.

Aside from Hanks and Howard, the rest of the cast is perfect, except for possibly Audrey Tatou. I would have preferred the original choice, Sophie Marceau, but she was contractually locked into another project.

Suffice to say, I have a feeling that the film adaptation will be weak.
I really liked Backdraft, but I confess to having a weakness for rah-rah melodramatic hero movies. The story line certainly had issues. If you didn't like Backdraft, I really hope you didn't bother to watch Ladder 49, which is basically Backdraft without a plot.

Other than that, of the movies you listed, I've only seen Ransom and The Missing, which I would rate somewhere between "passable" and "eh" but not quite stinkers. I certainly won't waste any time defending them, though.

KC Kings
05-17-2006, 12:58 PM
I haven't followed the negative reaction that some churches/church leaders have had to the Da Vinci Code, but shouldn't they be even more concerned with the Koran and other religious texts from other religions? Afterall, the Koran's teachings wrt Jesus undermine those of the New Testament just as directly (if not moreso) than the Da Vinci Code don't they? And it's supposed to be taken as truth, not a work of fiction.

The Koran describes Jesus as a great profit, and leaves it as that. The DVC presents fictional facts and descriptions in a way that makes them seem factual. That doesn't matter to me, but some people can't seperate fiction from reality.

As far as Jesus being married, why would the Bible omit Jesus' wedding and wife, when it directly speaks about other weddings and marrages?

As far as Jesus having sex, show me where in Mishnaic Jewish law, or any other place in the Bible other that Paul's teachings after Jesus' death, that it says it is a sin to have premaritial sex. It is against Jewish law to have sex with a married person or if you are married, and it is against the law to have sex with a maiden (virgin). Jesus could have had sex with a any non-married non-virgin, and it wouldn't have affected his white-as-snow status. I am not saying He did, and don't see how it is relevant even if he did.

Taco John
05-17-2006, 01:09 PM
And Taco proves the point of everyone who is freaking out about this book. Some people actually believe it, or at least some of it.



I didn't say that *I* believed it. I'm a Christian. I said that the author is definitely making claims in this book...

And apparently, so are some of the actors:
http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-05-17-NBCToday.wmv

Bob Dole
05-17-2006, 01:11 PM
As far as Jesus being married, why would the Bible omit Jesus' wedding and wife, when it directly speaks about other weddings and marrages?


Isn't one of the central points that the Bible didn't omit it--the church did?

Baby Lee
05-17-2006, 01:15 PM
He also makes it a point in the book that much of it is factual, including the Priority of Scion,
That, and the Opossum of the Day.

Cochise
05-17-2006, 01:25 PM
As far as Jesus being married, why would the Bible omit Jesus' wedding and wife, when it directly speaks about other weddings and marrages?


A Jewish rabbi would have been married, and it was the cultural norm for a man Jesus's age, but not every man was married. It was not a legal requirement or anything like that. There were those at the time who chose to remain single - fringe Jews who considered themselves more orthodox than the main sects, for example. I think he certainly qualifies there.

But more to the point, he spent his whole life upsetting the existing tradition. I don't think a choice that would be seen as unusual or shameful by the legalistic Jews of the time should be seen as something he wouldn't have done. He also touched lepers, dined with prostitutes, ransacked the most holy place in Israel, repelled criticism of his and his disciples' breaking the sabbath, declared all foods to be clean, and overturned other things that were normalcies or teachings of the day. I think him choosing to remain single is perfectly plausible.

More than anything, the prospect of him being married and a book that is about him written over centuries containing volumous information concerning his geneology completely skipping over that fact to me stretches plausibility past the point of breaking.

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 01:34 PM
Isn't one of the central points that the Bible didn't omit it--the church did?

SOrta, it asserts that the Bible was written by Constantine, so he chose what stayed and what went, ergo he endorsed the Church to put only stuff in there that supported their evil agenda...

...or something like that. Then they burned a bunch of witches and stuff...

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 01:36 PM
I didn't say that *I* believed it. I'm a Christian. I said that the author is definitely making claims in this book...

And apparently, so are some of the actors:
http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-05-17-NBCToday.wmv
Sorry, I guess that came out wrong. I didn't mean to say you specifically.

Ian McKellan or whatever you spell it as...sorta tips his hand a bit there, don't you think?

sd4chiefs
05-17-2006, 02:03 PM
You never know. Cannes reactions are not always an accurate portrayal of a film's worth.

Da Vinci Code is getting hammered on Rotten tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

irishjayhawk
05-17-2006, 02:08 PM
Da Vinci Code is getting hammered on Rotten tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/
Yeah, one guy rated it as really good and then changed it :P

FWIW, Passion of the Christ hovered at 50% for a long while.

FAX
05-17-2006, 02:10 PM
Da Vinci Code is getting hammered on Rotten tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

Owie.

FAX

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 02:21 PM
This one is really good:

"Perhaps an interesting side-piece to those already fanatical about the book, but ultimately a lifeless adaptation that reveals the flaws of its source. So Dark, the Con of Dan Brown."
Click for Full Review
-- Joe Utichi, FILMFOCUS

DaneMcCloud
05-17-2006, 02:37 PM
This one is really good:

That guy is an idiot. Dan Brown didn't produce, direct or write the screenplay. He wrote the source material. If the movie sucks, it doesn't make the source material bad.

I anticipate there were will be several "media outlets" ready to bash this film.

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 02:55 PM
That guy is an idiot. Dan Brown didn't produce, direct or write the screenplay. He wrote the source material. If the movie sucks, it doesn't make the source material bad.

I anticipate there were will be several "media outlets" ready to bash this film.

Unless of course, the source material sucks...

Honestly, as I was reading it, it seems like a better read than a movie, just because there it too much going on for the big screen IMO. These initial reactions are not surprising, but I am sure it will do VERY well at the box office this weekend. The next weekend will be the tell-tale sign.

Brock
05-17-2006, 02:57 PM
The characters were all completely 2-dimensional in the book. I was hoping they'd be fleshed out a bit in the movie.

Doesn't sound like it.

InChiefsHell
05-17-2006, 03:02 PM
The characters were all completely 2-dimensional in the book. I was hoping they'd be fleshed out a bit in the movie.

Doesn't sound like it.

Indeed. It seemed Mr. Brown had too much story to tell to be wasting time developing characters. I found myself not giving 2 shits about the characters or what happened to them, I just wanted to read the story.

Sully
05-17-2006, 03:59 PM
As far as Jesus being married, why would the Bible omit Jesus' wedding and wife, when it directly speaks about other weddings and marrages?



Good question.
Why does the Bible omit a couple of decades of Jesus' life? Did those not occur either?
I'm just saying, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But the fact that it's notin the Bible is hardly proof either way.

DaneMcCloud
05-17-2006, 05:11 PM
Good question.
Why does the Bible omit a couple of decades of Jesus' life? Did those not occur either?
I'm just saying, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But the fact that it's notin the Bible is hardly proof either way.

That's why it's called Faith. There's no real proof of anything, except for stories that were told repeatedly and finally written down, then compiled almost 300 years after his death. There have been many discussions on the 'Planet about the inconsistencies in the Christian Bible. The Christians are putting all their hopes, prayers and faith with the idea that all of the those teachings were real and if they follow all of the "guidelines" in the Bible, they'll go to heaven.

That's why I think that it's ridiculous that no matter what evidence (the Judas Gospel) or another fictional work like the Da Vinci Code can get Christians all riled up and immediately point fingers and say "YOU'RE WRONG". They don't have anything other than the "Faith" that the documents they hold so dear are correct. There has never been absolute proof that Christians are right about the Universe, and the other 5 billion people on the planet are wrong.

Bob Dole
05-17-2006, 06:58 PM
Good question.
Why does the Bible omit a couple of decades of Jesus' life? Did those not occur either?

Which is why Bob Dole cited Lamb earlier in the thread. It does an excellent job of filling in the blanks.

KC Kings
05-18-2006, 07:00 AM
Good question.
Why does the Bible omit a couple of decades of Jesus' life? Did those not occur either?
I'm just saying, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But the fact that it's notin the Bible is hardly proof either way.

Good point. The Bible does speak about Jesus' family after his birth, and when it does it mentions Mary, Joseph, and the siblings when Jesus is 12, but only mentions Mary and the siblings after he starts preaching. Most people assume that since Joseph was a Jew and made the trip to the temple in the past, the ommission of any mention of his name in the later years means he was no longer living. It is an assumption, but a pretty safe one. The fact that the Bible talks about Jesus' family and lady friends but does not mention any wife is enough to lead 95% of all historical Jesus scholars to believe that no wife existed.

KC Kings
05-18-2006, 07:21 AM
Which is why Bob Dole cited Lamb earlier in the thread. It does an excellent job of filling in the blanks.

I read the reviews for the book the first time you posted it, and a lot of people really liked.

The best faith is blind faith, because once you start entertaining the possibilty that everything in the Bible might not be 100% true it can change your prospective on everything you have believed in. For die hard Christians I would not recommend this book, but for anybody else that is looking for a non-humorous story about Jesus from birth to death, "Rabbi Jesus" by Bruce Chilton. The story is obviously fictional because he is filling in the blanks, but he provides a ton of references to ancient documents to support the possibility of all of his theories. He depicts Jesus as the bastard son of a Roman soldier who becomes the Son of God and Messiah, so it would offend a lot of you if you don't care or aren't familiar with any historical Jesus studies, but I thought it was a great book.

The Passion should have been named The Crucifixion, because the movie doesn't allow the character of Jesus to develope, and we just see a man get tortured. Rabbi Jesus might be fictional, (as were many parts of the Passion), but it developes the character Jesus in a way that you are sad that Jesus as a person, (not just a divine part of the trinity), gets crucified.

Jesus
05-18-2006, 07:50 AM
I think I'm gonna write a book. About a writer named Dan Brown, a crack-head she-male prostitute and aspiring author who plagarizes his writing from a midget sex slave he keeps in his basement. Of course, the similarities between those real life facts about Dan and my "fictitious" portrayal of him would be, strictly, a coincident.

InChiefsHell
05-18-2006, 08:06 AM
The Passion should have been named The Crucifixion, because the movie doesn't allow the character of Jesus to develope, and we just see a man get tortured. Rabbi Jesus might be fictional, (as were many parts of the Passion), but it developes the character Jesus in a way that you are sad that Jesus as a person, (not just a divine part of the trinity), gets crucified.

No, what you saw was the depiction of the Passion, from the Garden of Gesthemane to the Crucifixion, pretty much as told in the bible. The movie in its entirety depicts the Passion of the Christ. There is no character development because it is not focused on just Jesus, but on his Passion. If you go to any Christian church around Easter, they are usually doing some kind of Passion play, so this is nothing new. Gibson basically just put it on film.

Jesus
05-18-2006, 08:46 AM
No, what you saw was the depiction of the Passion, from the Garden of Gesthemane to the Crucifixion, pretty much as told in the bible. The movie in its entirety depicts the Passion of the Christ. There is no character development because it is not focused on just Jesus, but on his Passion. If you go to any Christian church around Easter, they are usually doing some kind of Passion play, so this is nothing new. Gibson basically just put it on film.
I think it's clear, Mr. KC Kings hasn't spent much time in Sunday school, or church. This meaning of Passion, in the context Gibson presents, clearly eludes him.

stevieray
05-18-2006, 08:48 AM
In the big scheme of things, theDaVinci Code is a gnat next to the Bible.

Seems it has secularists more riled up than believers.

InChiefsHell
05-18-2006, 09:10 AM
I think it's clear, Mr. KC Kings hasn't spent much time in Sunday school, or church. This meaning of Passion, in the context Gibson presents, clearly eludes him.
Ah, I see. Well, there is that...

InChiefsHell
05-18-2006, 09:12 AM
In the big scheme of things, theDaVinci Code is a gnat next to the Bible.

Seems it has secularists more riled up than believers.

It depends. Some believers are totally up in arms, but many non-believers want to believe the story so bad that they are up in arms. Most of the rest of people are pretty indifferent...:shrug:

KC Kings
05-18-2006, 09:18 AM
No, what you saw was the depiction of the Passion, from the Garden of Gesthemane to the Crucifixion, pretty much as told in the bible. The movie in its entirety depicts the Passion of the Christ. There is no character development because it is not focused on just Jesus, but on his Passion. If you go to any Christian church around Easter, they are usually doing some kind of Passion play, so this is nothing new. Gibson basically just put it on film.

"pretty much as told in the Bible" is very accurate.
1. Jesus was a 'tekton', not a skill carpenter. There is not any scripture to back up Jesus and Mary having a water fight as Jesus invents the modern table.
2. Satans face popping out of a baby and a morbid Satan walking around the crowd isn't in the scriptures anywhere either.
3. People in my Sunday School class talked about how their dislike for Judas increased after understanding how evil he was when his faced turned into Satan's in the movie. This is not scriptural, but ideas that came from the echanted dreams of "Mystic Nuns" Sister Anne Emmerich's, recorded in "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
4. It is also doubtful that Roman authorities would be fluent in Aramiac, so the judgement scene should have been in Greek.
5. Mary's nightmare during the scene when He was being beaten.
6. Common Jews being bribed to provide false testimony against Jesus.
7. Pilate went to his wife once in the bible, but receives messages from her about her dreams in the movie.

This isn't all of the non-scriptural scenes, but enough to show that quite a bit of unscriptural content was added to Mel's Gospel. Saying that Mary 'might' have had a nightmare due to mother's intuition is no better than saying that Jesus might have been married. They are all unsupported assumptions.

InChiefsHell
05-18-2006, 09:43 AM
"pretty much as told in the Bible" is very accurate.
1. Jesus was a 'tekton', not a skill carpenter. There is not any scripture to back up Jesus and Mary having a water fight as Jesus invents the modern table.
2. Satans face popping out of a baby and a morbid Satan walking around the crowd isn't in the scriptures anywhere either.
3. People in my Sunday School class talked about how their dislike for Judas increased after understanding how evil he was when his faced turned into Satan's in the movie. This is not scriptural, but ideas that came from the echanted dreams of "Mystic Nuns" Sister Anne Emmerich's, recorded in "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
4. It is also doubtful that Roman authorities would be fluent in Aramiac, so the judgement scene should have been in Greek.
5. Mary's nightmare during the scene when He was being beaten.
6. Common Jews being bribed to provide false testimony against Jesus.
7. Pilate went to his wife once in the bible, but receives messages from her about her dreams in the movie.

This isn't all of the non-scriptural scenes, but enough to show that quite a bit of unscriptural content was added to Mel's Gospel. Saying that Mary 'might' have had a nightmare due to mother's intuition is no better than saying that Jesus might have been married. They are all unsupported assumptions.


Not to hijack the thread, (I think we already did) but suffice to say that there is a TON of symbolism in the Passion. Some is artistic license, and some is scriptural, just not directly from the Gospel. There are guides to the Passion which will explain each scene in depth if you care to know what the mean or why things were done a certain way.

Taco John
05-18-2006, 10:10 AM
In the big scheme of things, theDaVinci Code is a gnat next to the Bible.

Seems it has secularists more riled up than believers.


On which planet are you talking about? Here on Earth, it's not the secularists who are leading the boycotts.

stevieray
05-18-2006, 10:18 AM
It depends. Some believers are totally up in arms, but many non-believers want to believe the story so bad that they are up in arms. Most of the rest of people are pretty indifferent...:shrug:

I agree, I was referring to the board, sorry I wasn't more specific

Thig Lyfe
05-18-2006, 11:58 AM
What a great read.
Really?

"Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair."

"Sophie felt herself staggering backward in amazement"

"Outside the wind howled in the trees."

Those clunkers were great reads?

Baby Lee
05-18-2006, 12:11 PM
Really?

"Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair."

"Sophie felt herself staggering backward in amazement"

"Outside the wind howled in the trees."

Those clunkers were great reads?
Chapter one
[Fade in]
The camera finds a Tom Hanks-ish professor sleeping sleepily on his bed.
A phone rings. The professor awakes Hanksishly and answers the phone. "Hello? What? You're related to Jesus? That can't be. Jesus never had children"
[To camera]
Or did he??? Dump, bum bahhh!!!

InChiefsHell
05-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Chapter one
[Fade in]
The camera finds a Tom Hanks-ish professor sleeping sleepily on his bed.
A phone rings. The professor awakes Hanksishly and answers the phone. "Hello? What? You're related to Jesus? That can't be. Jesus never had children"
[To camera]
Or did he??? Dump, bum bahhh!!!

ROFL :clap:

Jenson71
05-18-2006, 05:43 PM
Really?

"Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair."

"Sophie felt herself staggering backward in amazement"

"Outside the wind howled in the trees."

Those clunkers were great reads?

You've just copied what a million other scholars and writers have complained about with The Da Vinci Code. Congratulations, Doctor.

The first sentence is long, but you want me to sum up the book using those three sentences?

Cochise
05-18-2006, 05:49 PM
1. Jesus was a 'tekton', not a skill carpenter. There is not any scripture to back up Jesus and Mary having a water fight as Jesus invents the modern table.

IIRC, the word used can mean someone who worked with stone or repaired anything made with wood, so it's possible that Joseph could have repaired ships or something of that nature. I've heard that wood is not very plentiful in that region so the stone hypothesis might be plausible.

keg in kc
05-18-2006, 05:58 PM
I enjoyed the book for what it is, popcorn pulp reading, but the sheer overwhelming number of negative reviews has all but convinced me not to see it.

Although Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/REVIEWS/60419009) liked it.

keg in kc
05-18-2006, 06:01 PM
This isn't all of the non-scriptural scenes, but enough to show that quite a bit of unscriptural content was added to Mel's Gospel. Saying that Mary 'might' have had a nightmare due to mother's intuition is no better than saying that Jesus might have been married. They are all unsupported assumptions.Unsupported assumptions are okay, as long as they meet your particular brand of agenda.

Didn't you get the memo?

patteeu
05-18-2006, 06:34 PM
I enjoyed the book for what it is, popcorn pulp reading, but the sheer overwhelming number of negative reviews has all but convinced me not to see it.

Although Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/REVIEWS/60419009) liked it.

From the Ebert review:

The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as "maso-chastity," not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.

ROFL

DaneMcCloud
05-20-2006, 01:11 AM
Anyone else see it yet? We just got back from an 8:00pm showing. A few things were changed from the book and I thought the casting was good (outside of Hanks). I really liked the way they treated the historical references (greyed CGI). That was particularly cool.

I don't think it was great, however, mainly because Hanks was miscast. I'd give it a solid 3 out of 5.

CoMoChief
05-20-2006, 01:18 AM
I liked the movie alot.

Taco John
05-20-2006, 01:26 AM
Anyone else see it yet? We just got back from an 8:00pm showing. A few things were changed from the book and I thought the casting was good (outside of Hanks). I really liked the way they treated the historical references (greyed CGI). That was particularly cool.

I don't think it was great, however, mainly because Hanks was miscast. I'd give it a solid 3 out of 5.



For some reason, I picture Tim Robbins as Robert Langdon...


http://www.tim-robbins.com/trobbins.jpg

DaneMcCloud
05-20-2006, 01:46 AM
For some reason, I picture Tim Robbins as Robert Langdon...

When I heard that Imagine & Ron Howard scored the movie rights, my biggest fear was that they'd hire Russell Crowe (who I like, but is just oversaturated IMO). Hanks doesn't fit the bill of a charming, young looking 40 year old professor with a swimmer's body. Brenden Fraser, Josh Lucas, Matthew McConauhey, Guy Pearce, Hugh Jackman, Ed Norton, Liev Schrieber - Hell, even Matt Damon would have been better choices than Hanks.

They could have gone the "newcomer" route, like they're doing with Superman Returns. The rest of the DVC cast was outstanding and I'm sure that it wouldn't have hurt the B.O. gross to have gone with an unknown.

FWIW, I'm STOKED about the new 007 - the preview kicked ass.

Tribal Warfare
05-20-2006, 03:32 AM
.

FWIW, I'm STOKED about the new 007 - the preview kicked ass.


The babes are smokin, but the actor playing Bond could disappoint big time

InChiefsHell
05-20-2006, 08:38 AM
The babes are smokin, but the actor playing Bond could disappoint big time

Bond has pretty much sucked since Sean Connery left the role...

...but of course, I will see the new one!! :)

gblowfish
05-20-2006, 08:44 AM
For some reason, I picture Tim Robbins as Robert Langdon...


http://www.tim-robbins.com/trobbins.jpg
This underwear feels kinda sexy...doesn't make me queer though...right?

patteeu
05-20-2006, 12:38 PM
For some reason, I picture Tim Robbins as Robert Langdon...


I pictured a young Harrison Ford because, IIRC, Dan Brown referenced Ford when he described Langdon.

FAX
05-20-2006, 01:48 PM
I saw the movie last night. It's good. Not great. It would have been a lot better if I hadn't known the entire plot before purchasing the ticket.

Gandalf does well. He shaved and he looks a lot younger.

FAX

Logical
05-20-2006, 02:01 PM
Anyone else see it yet? We just got back from an 8:00pm showing. A few things were changed from the book and I thought the casting was good (outside of Hanks). I really liked the way they treated the historical references (greyed CGI). That was particularly cool.

I don't think it was great, however, mainly because Hanks was miscast. I'd give it a solid 3 out of 5.

This is one of the few times that so many people have read the book that having a character match the imagined view of that character was probably important. However star draw power probably still outranks that for boxoffice receipt totals. The athletic bookish look with major star power is not exactly a common combination. If Johnny Depp had been willing to ge his hair cut to a professorial type short he might have fit the bill well given some wire frame glasses.

FAX
05-20-2006, 02:09 PM
This is one of the few times that so many people have read the book that having a character match the imagined view of that character was probably important. However star draw power probably still outranks that for boxoffice receipt totals. The athletic bookish look with major star power is not exactly a common combination. If Johnny Depp had been willing to ge his hair cut to a professorial type short he might have fit the bill well given some wire frame glasses.

I hadn't thought of that, Mr. Logical. But, Johnny Depp would have been an excellent choice for Langdon. Much better than Hanks.

Also, unless he was inside the sarcophagus, I didn't see Ron Howard's creepy brother anywhere in the movie. That was almost worth the entire ticket price.

FAX

KcMizzou
05-20-2006, 02:16 PM
If Johnny Depp had been willing to ge his hair cut to a professorial type short he might have fit the bill well given some wire frame glasses.Sounds like his character in "The Ninth Gate".