DaVinci Debate

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

In the Davinci Code, it states that Mary Magdelene and Jesus got married and had kids. Do you believe this to be true? Explain why you chose your answer.

Yes, I believe it to be true.
2
9%
No, I believe it is NOT true, even if I think it was possible, I do not believe it.
13
59%
I don't know.
7
32%
 
Total votes : 22

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Tue May 23, 2006 6:57 pm

intowiz wrote:If there was a jesus than


Jesus WAS a real person. There is evidence that he lived in things that have been written by people who weren't christian & by people were against him/didn't believe he was the on of god. we did about it in RE. Just not everyone believes that he was the son of god.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby Hermionefan5 » Wed May 24, 2006 2:56 am

chocolatefudgecake wrote:
intowiz wrote:If there was a jesus than


Jesus WAS a real person. There is evidence that he lived in things that have been written by people who weren't christian & by people were against him/didn't believe he was the on of god. we did about it in RE. Just not everyone believes that he was the son of god.


Yup. I've talked to some Jewish and Islamic people who believe he existed. The Islamic people believe he was a prophet and the Jewish people believe he was just a man.
Image is from "Gilmore Girls" Season 1
"You are the same as everyone else."--"Forrest Gump"
"I want you to go out there and skate for these people like I have seen you skate."--"The Cutting Edge"
User avatar
Hermionefan5
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: The United States of America :)

Postby parnassus » Wed May 24, 2006 11:04 am

Jesus WAS a real person. There is evidence that he lived in things that have been written by people who weren't christian & by people were against him/didn't believe he was the on of god.


That is correct. His name is mentioned by the Roman historians and sociologists of the time (only they probably didn't call themselves by those names!) who were recording events in and around Judea. The primary Roman scholar was a man named Josephus, followed by Tacitus.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Bladen » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:32 pm

You'd get more information and evidence from "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" it has research and stuff to prove the debate. It's not impossible for the historical figure Christ to have descendents today. That's all I'll say.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby parnassus » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:41 pm

You'd get more information and evidence from "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" it has research and stuff to prove the debate.


It has no info and no evidence. That book has been laughed at and scrapped by serious historians and scholars of all religions and none, as it is based on a belief that the Priory of Sion actually existed. In reality the whole thing was a hoax that was exposed by a BBC television documentary in the 1980s. There was no secret society. No priory.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Bladen » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:58 pm

Not a priory of that sort, but a priory of that name existed at one time. The book has alot of interesting things and researchm the conclusions are well done from the research. Usually anything that is blasphemous is laughed at, anything of this sort is laughed at, that never stopped grail hunters and historians who never had their heads in the dark take interest in the book and see where they were coming from. The Da Vinci Code was a good read but I found Holy Blood and Holy Grail more interesting.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby parnassus » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:25 am

Usually anything that is blasphemous is laughed at


The historians who are doing the laughing are not Christians. They are secular. Although most of Britian is nominally Christian, the majority of people are only paying lip-service to the religion and don't seem to care one way or the other. Blasphemy is no longer a big issue. The problem here is weak research and poor scholarship.

One mistake that Leigh and Baigent make is the assumption that the disciple seated next to Jesus in the painting of The Last Supper gives us an important clue as to the role of Mary Magdalene in the early church. Even if that painting does show Mary sitting next to Jesus (which art historians doubt) we have to remember that Da Vinci painted that picture some fifteen hundred years or more after Christ's death. He wasn't a member of the first-century paparazzi, snapping photographs at the scene. No one knows who sat where at the Last Supper. There are no documents to tell us. Da Vinci was using his imagination. So how can two people claiming to be researchers base a substantial part of their theory...on another man's imagination?

Here is an article on what the Priory of Sion really was:

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/es ... dson1.html

Conspiracy theories are interesting. They make good money. But they are rarely watertight.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Radioactive_hairgel » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:23 am

I don't think anyone's ever really going to find out for sure, so could be true, but then again it could not be. I put i don't know in the poll! :D
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. --Will Rogers

www.myspace.com/marthaduncanmusic
Radioactive_hairgel
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:42 am

Postby rachel » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:20 am

its just a flim
User avatar
rachel
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:32 pm

Postby Bladen » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:31 pm

not just a film. A book. But it's been a massive debate since Da Vinci himself was around, maybes before. He was ana amzing and intelligent man, way ahead of his time. I could go against the debeate and make the thing utter crap by saying something alon these lines: You see Leonardo was a slight homosexual and painted young men to look slightly feminine. It's a matter of choice, I respect Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln's works and research, they put alot of effort into finding the stuff out, the type of stuff I'd love to do it myself if given the chance.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby parnassus » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:57 pm

I respect Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln's works and research, they put alot of effort into finding the stuff out, the type of stuff I'd love to do it myself if given the chance.


You could do that kind of thing if you wanted. There are loads of history courses on offer. Some take place during the summer holidays.

I can't respect the research of Baigent and Company as it has been proven false. Once again, The Last Supper is an imaginative representation of a historical event. You can't use someone's imagination as historical evidence, especially when the imaginative work emerged fifteen hundred years after the historical event. And that's only one thing that's wrong with Baigent's book. The other major flaw is that there was no secret society called the Priory of Sion. It has been exposed as a hoax. The rumours of its existence were spread by the use of forged documents.

Ultimately, it's a conspiracy theory. A good story. But nothing more.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Page » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:19 am

As a Christian, I find the whole concept in general offensive.

Long before the movie came out, I did my own research to satisfy my curiousity about the grail legend, (my research indicates that the grail is not, in fact, the body of Magdalene, but is in reality a symbol of human enlightenment. To call the grail 'holy" is a self-contradiction since it is closely related to new age teachings which I did not go into since such things are not for a Christian to study. interestingly enough, an altermnate method of achieving the grail apart from new age-style meditation involves the use of psychoactive drugs, which were a part of many pagan religions predating Christianity by centuries. The concept of the grail is much older than what people give it credit for) and the Priory of Sion and it's ties to the Merovingian bloodline (which several European families, including Sinclair (or saint-clair), habsburg, and plantard are a part of).

It all ties together nicely. The purpose of the Priory was to ensure the survival of the Merovingian bloodline over the centuries. Each one supports the other. The purpose of the merovingian bloodline was to produce a future world leader (regarded to be the antichrist, who could fraudulently claim descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene).

It is hard to ascertain at which point all this strays into myth, but what I've found makes sense in a strange sort of way.
User avatar
Page
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:54 am
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Postby parnassus » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:00 am

The purpose of the Priory was to ensure the survival of the Merovingian bloodline over the centuries.


There never was a priory. It was a political hoax concocted by a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard. He compiled a fictional list of grandmasters for the society and forged documents about it. No real historian accepts that there ever was such a priory, much less that it had a purpose. The hoax was exposed in a BBC documentary called The History of a Mystery way back in 1996 - long before Dan Brown's novel was even written.

Regarding the forged documents and non-existent secret society, Plantard wrote, "Alors je me sentirai tout a fait a l’aisle pour me declarer l’unique auteur de cette plaisanterie … Que si aujourd’hui je ne serai qu’un demi-faceur, j’en serai bientot un complet."

("Therefore I feel completely free to call myself the sole author of this joke...If today I am only a half-prankster, then shortly I will be a full one")
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby mattie » Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:09 pm

The Da Vinci code is a great read if you don't take the storyline too seriously. Most of it is so far-fetched, that I couldn't help but laugh on numerous occasions.

As a work of literature, it's certainly not a classic. If, however, you accept it as merely a work of fition, ideal for the ordinary person, then it is quite an exciting read IMO.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Kentigern » Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:54 pm

As a book the Da Vinci Code is a page turner and nothing more. Dan Brown knows how to write in a style whereby you can't put down the book. The contents of the book though are outrageus, unbelievable and disrespectful. A poor conspiracy theory on a par with the man-never-walked-on-the-moon one!

Gordon
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron