Da Vinci Code (movie)

Discussion in 'Spam Heaven' started by wizardangel, Apr 20, 2006.

  1. Raziel

    Raziel Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Geez, it's just a movie. Even if you're really religious, as long as you don't believe any of that you shouldn't worry.
     
  2. I.08

    I.08 Member

    Posts:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    I'd say show it, I just want to watch the movie cause I'm too lazy to read... lol.
     
  3. JpQ

    JpQ Well-Known Member

    Age:
    32
    Posts:
    466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Even though im not that of a religious person, I still want to see it because i want to know what it is all about. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Quote

    Quote Member

    Posts:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Lol, doby21 was the only negative post.
    Everyones all for it. (even those who havn't heard of it coming out)
    I'm all for it, another dvd for my collection :D
     
  5. .parfekt//

    .parfekt// Senior Member

    Age:
    32
    Posts:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I want to see it, looks so good, read book too, gotta go get it again and re-read :D:D
     
  6. Xeruan

    Xeruan Member

    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    i voted yes, been raised christian but am more agnostic

    not a big fan for censorship either if someone wants to see something let them, its their choice and their own consequence, not mine
     
  7. Zohair

    Zohair Formerly zohBOT

    Posts:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Location:
    Cave
    Damn you guys are curious :P
     
  8. Beets

    Beets Well-Known Member

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    I really really wanna see this movie but its not out here yet :(
     
  9. balances

    balances Active Member

    Posts:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Good book hopefully good movie.
     
  10. Ekasra

    Ekasra Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    I'm a christian, and i plan on seeing it the first weekend its out. I still don't see what the whole fuss is about
     
  11. Quote

    Quote Member

    Posts:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    This film wasn't aimed to displease the religious folk
     
  12. BryaBer

    BryaBer Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    i dont care because i dont know what it is...
     
  13. FawkinFresh

    FawkinFresh Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Im a christian and i want to see it.
     
  14. craggyp

    craggyp Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    it was ruled that it wasn't plagiarized. also, a bunch of priests and ministers are trying to sue him for using the bible without permission. my question is: who do you need permission from to use the bible? and he wasn't saying the bible was his own work, he was quoting it... some people are idiots, I tell ya...

    now for my opinion! I can't wait to see it. I loved the book, and the movie looks like it should be a decently faithful representation of the book. I have a feeling they're gonna try to downplay the religious part to appease the masses, but you can't do that too much without taking away the entire premise of the book: what if it's all a lie?

    also, just so everyone who's worried about this can rest easy: the book is NOT truth. it is merely a new way of looking at certain evidence. dan brown took what he wanted from ancient texts, the bible etc. and used that to paint a picture of jesus as a family man. certain things are true (gnostic gospels, for instance) but there is no definitive proof that this is reality. it's just a really interesting premise and an excellent work of FICTION.

    enjoy the movie everyone! :D
     
  15. AKW

    AKW Senior Member

    Age:
    34
    Posts:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Location:
    Athens, Tennessee, USA
    I would like for you guys to read this very carefully (because you may not understand the words / ROFL!). Because, there is a very good point made here and at the end, where I have highlighted, you will see what I TRUELY have to say about this. Collin has summed this up very well with one LAST sentence that I would like to point out. Though, to make this as knowing as possible I would encourage you to read all of this statement or review:

    Collin Hansen states:

    "If only a more worthy work could have prompted such attention. Brown first grabbed the headlines and prime-time TV in 2003 with his theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. But The DaVinci Code contains many more (equally dubious) claims about Christianity's historic origins and theological development. It's left to the reader whether these theories belong to Brown's imagination or the skeleton of "facts" that supports the book.

    Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.

    Watershed at Nicea
    Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.

    Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.

    In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."

    In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."

    The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios.

    The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.

    In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons.

    The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.

    "Fax from Heaven"?
    With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ.

    Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat. Brown correctly points out that "the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." Indeed, the Bible's composition and consolidation may appear a bit too human for the comfort of some Christians. But Brown overlooks the fact that the human process of canonization had progressed for centuries before Nicea, resulting in a nearly complete canon of Scripture before Nicea or even Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 313.

    Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments.

    Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon.

    By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church—a good sign, they felt, that such books were inspired Scripture. The results speak for themselves: the books of today's Bible have allowed Christianity to spread, flourish, and endure worldwide.

    Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudohistorical claims of a modern novel can't make it false."
     

Share This Page