What Did You Think

[Winnie G]

The DaVinci Code

I finished reading it and my husband took me to the theater to see the movie.

I liked it but I LOVED the book and now my husband is reading it.

I picked up the Angels and Demons.

These so-called Christian groups if they read the book and seen the movie would now it is entertainment.

Have any of you read the book? I like to hear what you thought of it?

[BenRaines]

Read the book and saw the movie. Read Angels and Demons too. I thought they were entertaining. Liked the movie because it stayed close to the book. Most movies vary from the book. This one did not.

Very entertaining. Looking forward to XMen tomorrow.

[Guest Monica]

I dont find it entertaining to hear talk that Jesus had an affair (which is sin) with Mary Magdeline. Bible shows He was never married and in fact, the Bible says He is betroded to HIS church to marry her upon His return. So rummors. gossip, and inudendos dont entertain me much.

Also I love Da Vinci's work and hate to see it dragged in the mud. Da Vinci's work is all masterpeices, not sources for tabloids. Da Vinci was way ahead of his time. He made a prototype for a helicopter and a camera.

[Winnie G]

Monica

Have you read the book or seen the movie?

Not once does it say it was an “affair” that is the load of horse hockey the Christian nut wings want us to believe.

It never ceases to amaze me that people take what one group or another say with out checking it out for them self’s.

Do you fallow so blindly?

That is what they would like others to believe about members of the LDS faith that we blindly fallow our leaders with out seeking the wisdom of our own understanding.

A few things that those who translated the bible repeatedly to suit their agenda failed to remove were the clues that Jesus was a married man.

Most Jews will tell you that it is as plane as day but people refuse to accept that. The Church of Rome taught and believed in marriage as Christ did until the church no longer wished to support such large families and forbad priests to marry. Doing the whole Christ married to the church line of doctrine.

If you look up the history book The British Epic the first chapters tells of the grate Roman divorce. Not only were the priest forbad from marrying the Church of Rome at the time annulled the marriages of those who wished to stay priests.

There are many clues in the bible that tell us Christ was married.

1. to be called a Rabi you must be a married man,

2. under Jewish laws now and at the time, it was the custom to be betrothed by your 20th birthday.

3 Jewish men did not grow beards until he they married.

4 Since Jesus was a practicing Jew who taught in the Temples he had to have fallowed Jewish costumes.

It also tells that Jesus after his parents found him in the Temple conversing the elders he returned and fallowed the will of his parents. That would include a marriage arrangement.

The last point I like to make is that in order for Christ to be are mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. That could and most likely meant being a married.

Why is that so hard to wrap our brains around? Why would we so quickly assume that he was not?

If you read the book with the knowledge us as members have you would know full out that it was entertainment and could notice not once did it disrespect our savor or the masters of art world.

The book by the way is well researched and leaves the reader to his or her own understanding as to all the meanings, codes, and symbols though out history.

No matter what others may say, the author did his homework.

[prisonchaplain]

Have you read the book or seen the movie?

Time for me to weigh in. First, by way of disclosure, I've not seen the movie or read the book. Then again, I'll only comment on some general ideas referred to in the post and in many reviews and summaries of the book.

Not once does it say it was an “affair” that is the load of horse hockey the Christian nut wings want us to believe.

Okay, here's an exaggeration, meant to make a point. My guess is that if Jesus did not marry, and did get a woman pregnant, then the inference is that he commited a sexual sin. However, most reviewers seem to suggest that Jesus did marry, and the gospels simply don't make note of it.

The phrase "Christian nut wings" strikes me as offensive. Most Christians who have critiqued the Code have done so in intelligent, engaging manners. It's only a few "nutwings" who get the press for make rear ends out of themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that people take what one group or another say with out checking it out for them self’s.

I don't expect you to read or view every critique that gets published about your church. Why should you expect more of your Catholic or evangelical friends?

The Church of Rome taught and believed in marriage as Christ did until the church no longer wished to support such large families and forbad priests to marry. Doing the whole Christ married to the church line of doctrine.

The Catholic Church still approves of large families--just not for the priests. And that rule goes back only the the Middle Ages--not to the time of Christ.

1. to be called a Rabi you must be a married man,

Jesus was not officially a rabbi--though he taught with more authority than they did. He never claimed to be one, either.

2. under Jewish laws now and at the time, it was the custom to be betrothed by your 20th birthday.

It was not Jewish LAW for men to marry by 20. It was a common practice, but hardly universal. There were a few sects that practiced celibacy at the time, and it was hardly scandalous for men not to marry young--despite Brown's assertions.

3 Jewish men did not grow beards until he they married.

Did Jesus have a beard? And, even if he did, my guess is this fits under the "common-but-not-universal" response.

4 Since Jesus was a practicing Jew who taught in the Temples he had to have fallowed Jewish costumes.

Again, common customs do not LAWS make--especially when there are known exceptions, such as the Essenes.

It also tells that Jesus after his parents found him in the Temple conversing the elders he returned and fallowed the will of his parents. That would include a marriage arrangement.

Pure speculation.

The last point I like to make is that in order for Christ to be are mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. That could and most likely meant being a married.

Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, not model family life. There is no New Testament reference to his marriage, to children, etc. On the other hand, single men can surely be tested by the wiles of women.

Why is that so hard to wrap our brains around? Why would we so quickly assume that he was not?

Because Christians believe Jesus, though fully man, remained the one and only Son of God. In essence, God would be having sex with his creation. That's frankly wierd, and has the feel of being sacreligious to most.

If you read the book with the knowledge us as members have you would know full out that it was entertainment and could notice not once did it disrespect our savor or the masters of art world.

Early LDS church leaders did speculate that Jesus was likely married. Many here took a natural liking to some of Brown's notions. His ideas do not ruffle LDS theology nearly as much as they do traditional Christian theology. Brown's portrayal of the Catholic Church, with its assassin-priests would like offend you a bit more, if they had been LDS priests of the Melchizedek order instead.

The book by the way is well researched

No, it's not. It's a fictional novel. Brown admits that his wife did most of the research, and that he merely built on some theories and tidbits of information. This was not, nor does it pretend to be, scholarly research.

No matter what others may say, the author did his homework.

No, I believe his wife did. And, if he'd done such a bang up job, he wouldn't be crying "It's entertainment, not theology!"

[Winnie G]

The "nutwings" remark was meant for those who choose to go over board with evangelical jam it down the throat kind of friends?

I have many relatives who fall in to that category.

I was also raised by a learned man (step-father) who was Jewish.

To the Jewish community there is a under grounded giggle that as Christian we do not see what is in front of our faces. Its like having our faces right up to a mirror so close we can not see the rest of the possibilities.

The Catholic Church disallowed Priest to marry at a turning point of history of history, you can look it up.

It was not until that point that the Church of Rome decided that men and women needed to be separate in order to serve God.

By the way I refer to the Church of Rome instead of the Catholic Church because one was more different then the other.

“Jesus was not officially a rabbi” OK who said? are you so sure he was not?

You keep saying “hardly universal” and “Pure speculation” again are you sure and who said this wisdom?

If you take the bible literally as most evangelical Christian do then you have to take it word of word as the word of god, not as man interprets.

Christ to be our mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life.

He came to understand our lives as well. Yes his focus was to die for our sins but how can you die for sins you have not fully understood in a physical manner.

Your remark “tested by the wiles of women” is a typical man answer since the time of Adam, lets blame the sins of the world on women, she bit the apple giving birth to original sin. Witch is a load of hogwash by the way.

Why would God make “IT” a sin then tell them to be fruitful and multiple? The whole sin and sex thing is a man made sin. Chastity is a God given law and there for in a marriage is not a sin.

The book was well researched, it’s a shame that you find fault that a husband and wife team some how lessons that research in your mind.

Your right on the money when you stated "It's entertainment, not theology!" That was my point.

The author took all the lore since Jesus death and all the “search for the “holy grail” tales and made an amazing fictional novel.

This thread was not meant to debate theology it was to discus a novel. It was entertaining and lead the reader along a more intellectual ride were Indiana Jones did not.

So if you have not read the book or even seen the movie why did you post? If it was to debate theology, you need to start a different topic. This was meant for entertainment.

[Maureen]

So if you have not read the book or even seen the movie why did you post? If it was to debate theology, you need to start a different topic. This was meant for entertainment.

Winnie - You're the one who made the comments about Jesus' marital status. You seem to believe in this marital status even without help from the book. So why complain that PC would want to comment on your opinions regarding this? Are you now making rules about what other posters are allowed to reply to?

M.

[miztrniceguy]

wasn't there already a thread for this movie?

[prisonchaplain]

wasn't there already a thread for this movie?

I believe (could be wrong) the original thread was specifically looking for LDS views on the movie/book. Winnie opened up this thread with a direct challenge to the views of most other Christians. So, I've weighed in.

[prisonchaplain]

The "nutwings" remark was meant for those who choose to go over board with evangelical jam it down the throat kind of friends? I have many relatives who fall in to that category.

The remark was broad–“those Christian nutwings.” I looked and looked, but you did not limit it to a few outrageous folks. If that’s what you meant, then I’d agree–there are a few in the evangelical camp who are “nutwings.” God will either be merciful with them, or they are deluded. But, Winnie, if you’re honest, you’ll admit you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to us evangelical folks.

I was also raised by a learned man (step-father) who was Jewish. To the Jewish community there is a under grounded giggle that as Christian we do not see what is in front of our faces. Its like having our faces right up to a mirror so close we can not see the rest of the possibilities.

First, I’m wondering if your learned Jewish step-father was Torah-observant? Was he Orthodox? I’ve worked quite a bit with an Orthodox rabbi, and also with Lubavitchers. 85% of American Jews on secular–which is why I ask.

The Catholic Church disallowed Priest to marry at a turning point of history of history, you can look it up. It was not until that point that the Church of Rome decided that men and women needed to be separate in order to serve God.

I don’t disagree with you. It happened during the Middle Ages, and to this day the practice is based on tradition, not Scripture.

“Jesus was not officially a rabbi” OK who said? are you so sure he was not?

No, I’m not sure. The New Testament shows people addressing him as such. Perhaps he was officially recognized. Yet, he never declares himself one–preferring to highlight his role as the Son of God, the Son of Man, the “I AM,” and one who can do what only God can do–forgive sins. So, in reality, it’s speculation as to whether he was a certified rabbi, or simply a self-taught teacher who knew more than all the educated rabbis.

You keep saying “hardly universal” and “Pure speculation” again are you sure and who said this wisdom?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html

The above is but one example. To paraphrase its conclusions: Yes, there was a general command for Jews to be fruitful and multiply, and that both rabbis and all Jewish men were under this general obligation. Yet, there were acceptable reasons to delay marriage, there were numerous Jewish prophets who did not marry. At the time of Jesus, the Essenes were a celibate sect.

So, the way I see the bottom-line is that most Jewish men and most Jewish rabbis married, but some did not. There is no indication in the gospels that Jesus married, and based upon his mission (to atone for the sins of humanity), it is likely that he would choose not to marry and bring to widowhood someone that He loved.

Furthermore, again, since he was and is God the Son, there is something quite strange about the notion of God having intercourse with his creation.

Christ to be our mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. He came to understand our lives as well. Yes his focus was to die for our sins but how can you die for sins you have not fully understood in a physical manner.

Jesus did not sin, so He would not understand any sins in a physical manner. He was tempted, but sinned not. He would not have to be married to understand the temptations of lust, unrighteous anger, etc.

Your remark “tested by the wiles of women” is a typical man answer since the time of Adam, lets blame the sins of the world on women, she bit the apple giving birth to original sin. Witch is a load of hogwash by the way.

Did you catch the icon with the tongue sticking out. It was a humorous remark, Winnie. Of course, we’re all responsible for our own sins.

Why would God make “IT” a sin then tell them to be fruitful and multiple? The whole sin and sex thing is a man made sin. Chastity is a God given law and there for in a marriage is not a sin.

Huh? I never said that sex within marriage is sin. In fact, it’s been described as a high form of worship for two, whom God has brought together, to join as one, bring joy to one another, and thus glorify the Almighty.

The book was well researched, it’s a shame that you find fault that a husband and wife team some how lessons that research in your mind.

Brown’s repeated response to inquiries about the books research is, “I’m not a detail person. My wife did the background work. Look, this is entertainment, not theology.” Tom Hanks utters that last part as well.

I’m not against collaborative efforts. However, an author should have some grasp of the research his researcher is doing for him, no? And again, if the author is not claiming that serious research went into this book, why are you so adamant about it?

Your right on the money when you stated "It's entertainment, not theology!"

Then why insist that this is a scholarly, well-researched novel? Why so adamant that Jesus must have been married, when your own church insists that such speculations from the early LDS prophets and leaders do not qualify as Scripture, and do not represent the church’s doctrine?

That was my point. The author took all the lore since Jesus death and all the “search for the “holy grail” tales and made an amazing fictional novel. This thread was not meant to debate theology it was to discus a novel. It was entertaining and lead the reader along a more intellectual ride were Indiana Jones did not.

I suppose it depends on who’s ox is getting goared.

So if you have not read the book or even seen the movie why did you post? If it was to debate theology, you need to start a different topic. This was meant for entertainment.

Well, you made several allegations that I had responses to, from reviews and analyses, both secular and Christian. In addition, you original post did not come across as an invitation to a fun discussion of reviews, but rather made rather pointed accusations about “the Christian nutwings.” I took that as an invitation to defend, at least in general, the non-LDS Christian response to the Da Vinci Code phenomena.

Also, I’ve tried to remain calm and treat this as a discussion–not a debate. Nobody will be allowed or denied entry into the kingdoms of heaven based upon their beliefs about Jesus’ marital status. However, I’m a bit surprised that there seems to be so little understanding as to why Catholics in particular, and most traditional Christians as well, would have some strong disagreements with Brown’s ideas.

[miztrniceguy]

<div class='quotemain'>

wasn't there already a thread for this movie?

I believe (could be wrong) the original thread was specifically looking for LDS views on the movie/book. Winnie opened up this thread with a direct challenge to the views of most other Christians. So, I've weighed in.

my mistake....my deepest apologies

[Bob_oz]

WOW!

I was of two minds to post for fear of being caught out in the cross fire!

First I'd like to go back to the original question.

Yes I have read the book and seen the movie, I have read all of Brown's books and they are a really good read. I am waiting with great interest for the next where it looks like the Masons and maybe we get a good going over!

If I was RC I'd be ticked off that one element of my religion was being taken to task in such a manner, but I thought the RC's really got it bad in Angels and Demons, makes this look almost tame, taken together and I'd not be too happy if i was RC. But there again it sold and sold really well so it has to be ok, right!

Regarding the book I have one big concern of its effect on the minds of those who think they are reading fact in a good story.

In the opening pages of the book right before the story starts there is a page headed: "Facts" that indicates that certian key items in the book are facts, this tends to lead some readers to think that the foundation of the book IS in fact, where the only real fact is that its a darn good read.

Again Brown does this so very well, some facts, a little dressing, a good story and we have a new view on history! But its making him the money, right!

People want to believe in some things, the search for the Holy Grail, the resting place of the Ark etc but as with so many movies or books there is the danger for some that they believe it as "gospel" and for most people reading 600 pages of the code is 600 more pages than they have read of the Gospel, its subtle and it can lead away some less prepared.

After all Brown is not the first, i am sure that there are people who think the "Life of Brian" was more than a good laugh.

Regarding the many points discussed in detail in some posts I'd say that for those who have a mind set towards one view or the other there is plenty of points to make, to my knowledge there is no clear answer in doctrine and the facts as we have seen here can be read two ways. For me I find the answer to be clear in the light of eternal truth.

I will say this, if the Lord was married, if he had children in this life it would be a most sacred, eternal and priceless element of His life and maybe we don't need to know that at this time. We know that we are commanded to marry and have children both of which will be eternal for us if we are worthy. My eternal family are sacred to me, I am sure Jesus family , however you see tham, are sacred to Him.

I did enjoy one comment about having sex with His creation, I am now deeply concerned that I have married my sister!!! (ok, so you don't want to laugh, that was just a joke!)

Maybe the facts are contained in the records of the RC church that we, nor historians are permitted to view or know. Time will tell.

Ok, I will now head back into my bunker before you folks wake up and read this!

Have a great day, after all its today that matters!

Bob

[Guest Monica]

Winnie the movie/book also suggest that Christ did not die on the cross or resserect and that he escaped to France. How can that be entertaining since our salvation hinges on what Christ did on the cross? As for marriage, Paul himself was single and that wasnt frowned upon.

1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

Christ also spoke of people being single in the kingdom.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

One question that no one has answered on any of these Da Vinci Code threads is if mary magdeline is sitting next to Christ in the last supper painting and judas is also depicted in the scene, where is the missing apostle? Count how many people are seated at the table.