The Da Vinci Code (1 Viewer)

[roxy]

Phew! Rant over. Now breathe..........

You call that a rant, Wil?

Go away.

 

[LMD64]

more of a runt, really

 

[spectraljanitor]

No Jane, see, the whole impetus behind the book is the fact that Da Vinci was one of several famous people down the centuries who was a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, a group which believed that the Bible was an untrue account of happenings, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that he intended her to continue as head of the Church, that Peter was jealous of this (hence Da Vinci depicting his hand reaching out across her neck in a slash slash motion) and that women were thus denied their intended vocation as leaders of the Church. Oh and that they had a child called Sarah and therefore there exists a bloodline ascended directly from Jesus.

The point is just that Da Vinci belived in this theory and he hid codes in his art depicting his beliefs. And The Last Supper is just one of them.

I don't really think there is much doubt that the figure at Jesus' right hand is meant to be Mary.

Anyone read any of Brown's other books? I want to read the one on the Bavarian Illuminati. Crazy muddas.

conspiracy theories are just another form of religious belief.

 

[c4o]

But what about the extra hand hmm hmm..

 

[Theseus Mock]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/05/19/books.davinci.code.ap/index.html

ah bollix, there's a sequel. There's another day and half of non-stop reading.

 

[Wilbert]

You call that a rant, Wil?

Go away.

Its as much of a rant as I can muster for something as daft as religion.

 

[Wilbert]

more of a runt, really

Comedy gold. Changing 'rant' to 'runt'! Where do you get your ideas?

 

[kreature]

Forget that Da Vinci shit.

This is hardcore

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146675/

 

[egg_]

Anyone read it?

I'm looking at Egg

Ho ho I'm flattered
No I haven't read it.
It's not relevant to me if Jesus had children, to be honest ... and it seems mad that it became an article of faith that he didn't. Do you even know whether Buddha or Mohammed had children? I don't

If you want to really learn about theology, read The History of God by Karen Armstrong, or some other book that takes the long historical view - very illuminating.

 

[jane]

Ho ho I'm flattered
No I haven't read it.
It's not relevant to me if Jesus had children, to be honest ... and it seems mad that it became an article of faith that he didn't. Do you even know whether Buddha or Mohammed had children? I don't

I agree with you completely on this one. Alert the presses! The idea that we can 'prove' or disprove ancient 'facts' as if they were intended to be facts is silly. The Bible was 'prophecy historicised', not fact. Theologians of the real sort will tell you that kind of thing. It's like jumping through hoops to prove that 'Twas the Night Before Christmas is not a factual account because in paintings by someone who lived 1500 years after Santa, he is shown without flying reindeer. There isn't any point.

1500 years is a long time, you know. Just because we think of it as 'a long time ago', as if the people in the 16th century are somehow closer to the knowledge of the world of B.C. doesn't mean that they were. In fact, we probably know more now about what things were really like than they did then; Da Vinci and his secret club knew no more about what 'Jesus' wanted than my postman does.

How is there 'little doubt' about that figure being Mary? Sorry, but among whom? People who read about conspiracy theories?

What bugs me most about the way-out-there theories is that by focusing on them, we actually miss out on the really interesting things that really were. The past is mysterious enough without Von Daniken's aliens and Brown's Maries. Personally, I think it's more interesting to look at why it was common to depict men as effeminate -- what with women being perceived as 'lesser' beings and all -- than to engage in some pointless and unfounded debate over whether that image is actually Mary or not. But, whatever, that's just me.