I'm very excited to see the Real Da Vinci Code that the history channel is putting on, on wednesday it looks to be a cool show
Although i've never read the Book if this show prooves to be good i might just go and pick it up!

Any thoughts on the book or show?

Hi

I saw the program and its obviously one of these programs made by people desperately trying to hide uncomfortable truths, it looks like what people tried to do after Michael moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, it makes people uncomfortable when so many people are exposed through the media to the facts, so they go out of there way to try and debunk the facts one by one, its a shame because people end up just as in the dark as they where before. No matter what evidence that is put forward that might threaten the church and what it stands for will always be brutally defended by "the powers that be" what ever means whether they be dishonest or not. Some truths are just to scary for some people to face, so they will defend against them, sometimes even with there lives.

There are facts that cant be debunked by anyone and that is that the early church demonized women, and especially demonized the idea that women had a part in the divine being, they made women spiritually less important than men and to squash the pagan ideas that both men and women where equal, in the early church they preached that women where not even worthy of souls and did not have one, BUT you cant change history no matter how many corrupt or dishonest programs are made, history doesn’t lie.

This program has turned out to be one of them corrupt programs created to deceive the public which makes me sad, because I like Tony Robinson.

I'm sure religious fundamentalists had a say in this program somewhere. I'm amazed how religious suppressers are allowed to influence so much through there bullying.

The program was very interesting but I was expecting to see what was on it.

I copied this from another post i did on a similar subject on this, you can find Here

All the best
Faeden

dont buy the book. try to get it at a library.

its not worth paying for a hardback for the time you will be spend reading it.

I dissagree. It's worth the buy. It's very worth having in your personal library.

Really everyone says it's so good

It is ;P Buy it, read it, keep it in your personal library!

I just want to know how the unbelievers can say there is no evidence for even Jesus living but are quick to embrace this book and the History Channel's documentary because it somehow proves Jesus wasn't God or that he lived through crucifixion or had kids or whatever. It's hypocritical. If there's no proof of Jesus living, then how can you possibly know that he survived and had kids etc..

I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel last week about the life of Jesus and it ended with Him dying on the cross and rising on the third day. Is that true just because it was on TV?

Never seen the programe... and never said Jesus didn't exist.

I do feel, that he was just a normal, mortal man that wanted to make a stand for what he thought was importaint. And honestly, feel that Gandhi might be a reincaration of Jesus.

I can also see him taking Mary as his wife, and the church degrading her by making her to be a prostitute instead of being in the line of royalty.

But hey... that's just me, and a few other people.

yeah i tink Jesus probably did exist and he probably was crucified but i don;t think he had all these mysterious powers and was the son of God.
I don't even believe in god

Hi saucy



No one said he didn’t live, or doesn’t live, I certainly believe he lived, and still lives.

All the best
Faeden

The book is fictional. This is a fast-paced pageturner and a decent FICTIONAL STORY! This is not a book for the gullible as you might find yourself caught up in the unproven facts presented. If you are reading this to get an understanding of Christianity, or Renaissance Art and History look elsewhere. If you are looking to understand the facts and myths of the Holy Grail, this is not the book for you! Some of the seemingly outright attacks on the Catholic Church are also disturbing. There are too many facts in this book that do not hold water, and because they are presented as truth, it is easy to see that some readers may be confused into believing falicies. If you are looking for a fictional story that really does not explain anything factual, this is a decent murder mystery.

Hi P4P3R T1G3R2

Everyone knows the story is fictional, but its based on things that are based on fact, some of it is just made up, but the reason that it appeals to so many people is because much of its content is based on things that make a lot of sense to people, I dont think its insulting to the church, its just that it expresses some of the problems associated with the church that many like to brush under the carpet, but this book has brought some of them things to peoples attention, which will of course make some folk feel uncomfortable, because some things are hard to face, but as you say at the end of the day it is a fictional book, so why do people get so offended by it ?

All the best
Faeden

I really don;t know enough about the Bible and religeon to make a serious comment on this

i guess i see it as recycled literary garbage. nothing involving anything factual about it in that. the book is just like browns other ones and it isnt very involving, no depth to characters etc.
i guess im also too cheap to pay full price for books.

You forgot to mention how pretty ignorant and dumb the characters are. It takes them forever to figure things out.

Ironic...

let me guess... you knew the outcome of everything in the first paragaph, didn't you?


See part of making a plot line, means the charicters don't know the outcome right off... That's where the story comes from. Following the charicters as they go through the writer's plot.

i watched that it sucked

The book is pure fiction based on real paintings and locations. Religious scholars, and art historians largely scoff at the entire thing as such both christian and non. The superb treatment by the History Channel deals directly with several of the many lies and misrepresentations that fill the book. Whats particularly funny is that the original author of Holy Blood Holy Grail the book that started this blood line fantasy appears in the channel special specificly to clarify that the book got the facts WRONG. Man if the other conspiracy theorists won't even back you its gotta be rough. News flash just because a fictional book claims to present facts doesn't mean it does(the statement that it was based on real facts is just more fiction no law or publishing guideline requires such statements to be factual). Second revelation just because some thing decries Christianity doesn't make it true.

Hi Kev



That’s true I agree, and just because Christianity demonized women and made them out to look like whores in the dark ages doesn’t make that true either.

Did you read all the posts in this tread ? We all know its fictional, people have all ready said that on more than one occasion.

All the best
Faeden

There you go running your mouth Faeden. The Early church did NOT demonize women in general and especially not Mary Magdelene in particular. That was the work of the middle ages. Lets consider the decision to consider Magdelene a prosittute for example. It was made in the 5th century by the Pope. He condensed three biblical figures: Mary Magdelene, Mary of Bethany and a prostitute named Mary. Contrary to modern foolishness nothing in his writtings or decision suggests this was an attempt to lessen the role of Mary in the gospels. Quite the contrary his intent was to give her a more important place in Christian ideology by combining three seperate refferences into the same woman. This is further supported by the writings of the early Church fathers. Men like Augustine had a great deal of respect for the Magdelene even going so far as to call her the second Eve. Christ(according to scripture) was the second Adam come to make up for the failure of the first. These authors put forward that Magdalene was a second Eve filling the role the first Eve had been meant to.

This idea that the church demonized Mary Magdelene to support some maniacal agenda makes for entertaining fantasy but it has no historical predicent. People like yourself should spend less time reading fantasys like the Davinci Code and more time actually studying actual texts from the religions you want to comment on. Maybe then you wouldn't have so many foot sandwiches.

Let's see... if a woman was raped, it was her fault. Women were burned at the stake as a devil worshiping witch more then men. Women were nothing more then property, and were only to serve thier lords and or husbands. Because they believed in the whole Adam and Eve deal, women were evil and easily manipulative and needed to be kept under heel. The preistesses were torn from thier temples and beaten....

So yes, the church very much demonized woman. It was not pleasent to be one while the churched ruled back then...

All true but off by a few hundred years. We're talking about the early church not the dark ages. The witch burnings were not the province of early christians by in large.

However, if you want to set that all back.. all but the witch burning is true then. Then when the Middle Ages came about.. happened the witch burning.

Truth is, the Church degraded and demonized women.

Hi all

May I add that "Christians" in some parts of the world still burn women at the stake for witchcraft today. But them "Christians" dont speak for the modern church, so its not the church's fault.

I did an experiment a few years ago, where I went into Christian chat rooms and asked the question 'if burning witches was still legal would they do it?' now most said no, but around 30% I asked said yes. Its not most, but they are still frightening results. They told me that it clearly states in the bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Whether the bible meant poisoner or witch is irrelevant, because some used it to kill 1000s or women through out the world, and still do.

All the best
Faeden

Fea then and now are two different things. Then, the Church was just one. Now Christianity has subdivided so many times, that no, I can't blame the "church" for any modern day witch burning.

And they had done a bit of research, and found that "witch" was either a mistranslation, or purposly worded that way when the bible was translated into england, but they found that the origonal "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" more then likely was "Thou shalt not suffer a herratic to live."

Yeah, it's a matter of semantics... and that to them, witches were herratics.

However, they felt that withc was used to further degrade women and pagans of the land. Witches in and of themselves were preistesses and elderly wise women who knew about herbal healing. *shrugs*

whether or not it's true, I can't say. We can only study what information we have from the past... since none of us were there.

just out of curiosity why would you say that...do you disagree with the books premise or do you think it is horribly written...maybe you agree with the Catholic bishops stance on the subject? Just asking, please don't take offense.

both. i think it is horribly written and i disagree with the books premise.

In history regardless of religeous backround.People did some crazy stupid things.
Although alot of Religeous Falsities have produced some very unnecesary fears

Sorry Silver the things you mentioned are not the province of the early church fathers that incompetents like Brown say "demonized" Magdalene. Do the research the FACT is the early CHruch fathers held her in extremely high regard. You'd think if this nonsense of Constantine editing the bible for implications she was some kind of deity were true he'd have cut her out a lot more. In particular it seems odd that she of all the apostles would be given the privalege of seeing Christ first after the resurection. Do you homework instead of making hasty generaliztions.

Also the word witch in its negative context is not a mistranslation by any stretch. A witch in the English language until quite recently was a term for a practicioner of magic not any specific religious group(of course through the middle ages it would have been an evil magician not simply any one practicing). The word used in the original Hebrew is Khapesh which is a word for a practicioner of magic. This myth of it being a deliberate mistake by King James I has no logical grounds. Consider the context for Heaven's sake. Exodus is an account of Judaism in flight from the Egyptian people. The Egyptians had many sorcerers, diviners, and all other manner of magicians where the Hebrew people have normally avoided such practices(aside from Kabbalah which is considerably more complex then just being a system of magic and divination). It makes sense they'd want to avoid those characteristics prevelant in there long time oppressers. For that matter many of the cultures that have persecuted the Hebrew people through out history were practicioners of magical arts. For that matter bans on magic especialy magic not practiced by the sanctioned priest hood was common through out the ancient world. Individuals who were not recognized as formal representatives of the gods yet had supernatural powers were seen with horror not respect.

No matter what way you look at it, the bible is not even half the story.. Its the part of the story people want you to hear. Its text has been picked at by the church to say what they want it to say..

God gave you the power, to feel what is right. If you do not listen to what god gave you, you are a fool.

Clap, clap, clap, clap

Yeah, that's right, but the Da Vinchi code isn't prt of it at all. I had a quick look through it, and for starters their idea that these cathedral carvings of angels are somehow 'demonic' is pathetic. THAT IS THEIR TRUE FORM. Go do some historical investigating people. Honestly. Try looking up Judaic texts and excluded texts like Enoch, the FULL accounts of Moses, Solomon, Ezra, etc. You'd be amazed at what you'd find....instead of some made up 'Da Vinchi Code'.

Well, let's see, NO. If they looked back on their roots (i.e. JUDAISM) instead of letting everything be cut to pieces and run by romans, maybe just maybe they would know that it the OPPOSITE. In GOD'S actual rule, if a women is raped, even if she induced it or even enjoyed it, but considered it rape, the MAN ALWAYS GOT THE BLAME. No Hebrew ever burned women or men at the stake, another Dark Ages crap idea that used religion as an excuse for their insanity. Women were considered HIGHER than men in the household because she was the mother. ADAM AND EVE were considered EQUAL until the DARK AGES and Augustine took over and came up with some crap idea of original sin which never even existed before it popped up into his little mind.

Magic, Kabbalah magic, was NOT considered a sin before, it was ALLOWED by God, SOLOMON used MAGIC. But some Rabbi came along and misused it to such an extent that it was then considered a sin.