A Jew comments on The DaVinci Code

[Lorarose]

I don’t undertsand why it’s such a big deal who is “really” portrayed in the Last Supper. It’s a painting by a guy who (not sure if this actually true) was allegedly a homosexual and a humanist with an obvious agenda against the Catholic Church. Just because Leonardo painted a picture of one of his wacked out beliefs, doesn’t make it true. Why is daVinci an authority on this?

Leonardo DaVinci wasn’t my point. I don’t consider him an authority at all.
My point was Dan Brown’s claim that the historical aspect of his novel are true. This is what Brown is claiming.

So…one major premise of this story has to do with that painting - only it turns out Brown was historically WRONG with his facts about the painting.

Brown was wrong on many other historical “facts” he included - but claims are true.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t have the freedom to write his novels.
But we should also have the right to debunk his fraudulant claims to accuracy when we spot a bunch of hooey.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Zippy:

In homily 33 Pope Gregory identified Mary as a prostitute…this is clearly not true.

In 1969 the Vatican FINALLY corrected this infallible error…

Zippy,

Which Pope Gregory – there have been 16 of them? St. Jerome writes of Mary Magdalen

The unbelieving reader may perhaps laugh at me for dwelling so long on the praises of mere women; yet if he will but remember how holy women followed our Lord and Saviour and ministered to Him of their substance, and how the three Marys stood before the cross and especially how Mary Magdalen–called the tower(2) from the earnestness and glow of her faith–was privileged to see the rising Christ first of all before the very apostles, he will convict himself of pride sooner than me of folly.
Letter CXXVII: To Principia

Deacon Ed

 

[Lorarose]

The church clearly mis-portrayed Mary Magdalene for CENTURIES. What other reason would the church do this other than to undermine the status of women?

Some people in the Church linked her with the prostitute - some did not.
That means some people may have been mistaken - and some may not have been mistaken.

It was never official teach teaching that this was the case with Mary Magdalen.​

BTW if memory serves me correctly the church retracted this lie after some 1400 years….so much for papal infallibili

Ahhh…I love it!!
Another catholic-basher claiming to be an expert in church history AND the doctrine of infalliblility!

One problem …it is clear from your posts you have no clue what the doctrine of infallibility actually IS.

If you are going to debunk something you really ought to first understand what it is you are debunking.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

puzzleannie, you posted:

thanks very much, knew we could rely on SSV for balanced view on what in this book is problematic from the standpoint of Jewish history and belief. Your exposition is very clear an informative.

Thank you!

In most of sources I have read from Christian writers and from historians debunking TDVC, I have seen charges that it is anti-semitic, and that the principal sources Brown used (or plagiarized from, depending on POV) were anti-semitic. In your opinion, SSV, is this an accurate statement?

We gave the book back to the friend we borrowed it from so I can’t check Brown’s sources.

Since you brought it up, I would also very respectfully solicit your opinion on The Passion movie by MG, is it in your view anti-semitic, or liable to be used to inflame anti-Jewish prejudices?

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=384289&highlight=Passion#post384289 (posts #26 & #29) & please let me know what you think.

Cestusdei, you posted:

It is good to see the Da Vinci code being lambasted by those of other faiths. It deserves reprobation from any religious person.

If I don’t speak up when I see others’ faith being misrepresented (at best)/libelled (at worst), I can’t expect others to speak up when my own faith is misrepresented (at best)/libelled (at worst). We “religious person” all speak a similar language, albeit in different dialects.

Ghosty, thank you for informative reply.

Scott, you

There was a recent Ask an Apologist thread on this. There was a great point made: If someone had written a novel which revealed that the Holocaust was a hoax, few would be whining, “it’s just fiction!” but rather calling it anti-Semitic agitprop (and they would be right).

are absolutely right!

Be well!

ssv

 

[Peace-bwu]

1. Judaism does not, in any way, denigrate or disparage the role of women (as Brown insinuated more than once). A common (and very condescending) liberal fallacy is that because a traditional faith like orthodox Judaism believes that men & women are different and have different roles, that we necessarily believe that women are inferior; people confuse uniformity with equality & mistake the absence of the former for a lack of the latter…

I agree, the Catholic Church is accused of the same degradation of women, I would specualte that the role of women is similar in both religions.

I also wondered where DBrown would get the idea that the Jewish faith would give a hill of beans about the geneology of Mary Magdelene, LOL.

Thank you for giving us your viewpoint on this book. I’m not for censorship,(extreme pornography excluded) but I wish Mr Brown were more forthright in his “fact page” and that “trusted” networks like the history and discovery channels were more educated and honest in their portrayal of the story. I think it is irresponsible propaganda under the guise of “historical thriller” and I find it hard to believe the intent was not to undermine and bash the Catholic Church, adding more fuel to the anti-Catholic sentiment historically present in America, which I experienced first hand in a mostly-protestant high school. I would not have a problem with it if it were either historically accurate or his fact page were more accurate, although I see no benefit in spreading misconceptions about any religion, even for entertainment purposes. I would not have supported a historically inaccruate portrayal of The Passion and do not blame the Jewish religion for his death.

I like that still small voice of yours, very interesting!
Thanks
Peace Be With You.

 

[Peace-bwu]

Genesis315:

I don’t undertsand why it’s such a big deal who is “really” portrayed in the Last Supper. It’s a painting by a guy who (not sure if this actually true) was allegedly a homosexual and a humanist with an obvious agenda against the Catholic Church. Just because Leonardo painted a picture of one of his wacked out beliefs, doesn’t make it true. Why is daVinci an authority on this?

I studied Art History in college (art major) and religous art at this time used symbols and “types” to allow the viewer to understand the story. The young john has always been portrayed as the youngest of the apostles. He was portryed without a beard. Only a person uneducated in basic art history would say “Hey thats a woman” I have no doubt that Leonardo DaVinci was simply painting John according to his “symbolic type”

Some other examples of “types” to look for: John the Baptist is always pointing up,usually dressed like a wild man in animal skins, Mary Magdelene is usually portrayed as a beautiful, long haired minx, each of the Gospel writers has a type, look for a long second toe, that is symbolic for “wisdom” Portraits of Mary from this time period usually have a second toe that is longer than the big toe. There are hundreds of examples of these symbols, it makes art history fun! Look in any traditional book of saints, they usually have their identifying symbols with them. I would be willing to bet tha this is where we get the saying “a picture tells a thousand words!”

 

[catsrus]

Looks as though the zipster has left the building. Nothing shoos them away like the truth. He’s probably off to some other thread to present himself as “an angel of light”.

 

[Zippy]

Lorarose:

Some people in the Church linked her with the prostitute - some did not.
That means some people may have been mistaken - and some may not have been mistaken.

It was never official teach teaching that this was the case with Mary Magdalen.

Ahh but one of your popes preached it, and taught it, and it took the church nearly 1400 years to correct his error…I know, I know, you’ll defend his actions by twisting the truth, but the facts are the facts.​

Lorarose:

Ahhh…I love it!!
Another catholic-basher claiming to be an expert in church history AND the doctrine of infalliblility!

One problem …it is clear from your posts you have no clue what the doctrine of infallibility actually IS.

If you are going to debunk something you really ought to first understand what it is you are debunking.

The problem is that the catholic church invokes infallibility ONLY when it benefits the church, and poo poos it when it will expose the church’s mistakes…

I understand fully that infallibility is a concept that the catholic church picks and chooses when it will invoke, or skirt by saying that ‘a particular instance doesn’t fit into our twisted definition of infallibility’. It’s quite a slick control tool that the church uses VERY effectively.

 

[Zippy]

catsrus:

Looks as though the zipster has left the building. Nothing shoos them away like the truth. He’s probably off to some other thread to present himself as “an angel of light”.

“the Zipster” is alive and well. Nothing confuses people like the spin that the church puts on the facts. The last thing I expect to find here is the truth…but it is interesting to see how many of you are so easily able to dismiss the radical inconsistancies of the church.

 

[Ghosty]

Zippy: The definition of infallibility is very clear and not at all wishy-washy. Do us all a favor and look it up before continuing your arguments.

As for the prostitute argument, there is no evidence that the Pope made a mistake in the first place. He taught that Mary was a prostitute, others disagree which is their right to do. Both views are perfectly orthodox. There was no error to correct.

 

[Lorarose]

Ahh but one of your popes preached it, and taught it, and it took the church nearly 1400 years to correct his error…I know, I know, you’ll defend his actions by twisting the truth, but the facts are the facts.

Sigh…I’ll try this again.
You would have to show us a specific pope who declared this Ex Cathedra or officially defined it in a council.
Again…your misunderstanding of infallibility is very evident.​

The problem is that the catholic church invokes infallibility ONLY when it benefits the church, and poo poos it when it will expose the church’s mistakes…

Wrong…the Church invokes infallibility when a pope defines doctrine Ex Cathedra or ratifies official doctrine that had been defined in a council.
But don’t take my word for it…look it up for yourself.​

I understand fully that infallibility is a concept that the catholic church picks and chooses when it will invoke, or skirt by saying that ‘a particular instance doesn’t fit into our twisted definition of infallibility’. It’s quite a slick control tool that the church uses VERY effectively.

Maybe it seems “slick” to you because you never bothered to learn the particulars here.

I’ll say it again. If you’re going to debunk something, you first have to understand what it is you are debunking.
The problem you have here is that the catholics you are addressing here DO understand when infallibility applies. They HAVE studied the particulars and requirements.

You haven’t

 

[Joseph_Romero]

Participants;

Start your Papal Infallibility issue on a new thread, preferably in Apologetics. Otherwise, keep this topic on Jewish DVC interpretation.

God Bless,

 

[Zippy]

Ghosty:

As for the prostitute argument, there is no evidence that the Pope made a mistake in the first place. He taught that Mary was a prostitute, others disagree which is their right to do. Both views are perfectly orthodox. There was no error to correct.

so the church’s stance on whether Mary was or wasn’t a prostitute is…both? sigh…I should have figured that.

 

[Ghosty]

Zippy: No, the Church doesn’t have a stance, that’s my point. The “correction” you’re referingto is merely a statement that there is no definate stance either way; the Pope’s opinion is merely that, a single opinion.

 

[Lorarose]

There are many examples of issues that have been discussed, debated, pondered about throughout the history of the Church - without the Church actually taking an official stance, ie Ex Cathedra statements or councils.
Such is the case with Mary Magdalene.
It has been discussed, it has been debated - people have taken sides…but the Church (as an institution) never officially took a position on this.

 

[Zippy]

Ghosty:

Zippy: No, the Church doesn’t have a stance, that’s my point. The “correction” you’re referingto is merely a statement that there is no definate stance either way; the Pope’s opinion is merely that, a single opinion.

You see that’s the problem with catholicism’s tradition on infallibility. The pope can have an opinion that he voices, as was the case in 591, if he speaks, then, since it is purported that he is Christ’s spokes person on earth, it should be Christ’s position as well.

I’ve read about and understand the catholic view of infallibility, but it makes no sense. One should take the pope’s words with a grain of salt unless he says, I’m speaking on Christ’s behalf…again, catholicism having it both ways…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Zippy,

Maybe you missed my question. You made a claim that “Pope Gregory” referred to Mary Magdalen as a prostitute in “homily 33”. I had asked which of the 16 popes named Gregory this was. I’m still curious about this.

Deacon Ed

 

[Lorarose]

I’m speaking on Christ’s behalf…again, catholicism having it both ways…

Hey Zippy - if you’re so sure you’re right about this then start your own thread. You’re trying to hijack this one.

 

[PeterC]

Genesis315:

I don’t undertsand why it’s such a big deal who is “really” portrayed in the Last Supper. It’s a painting by a guy who (not sure if this actually true) was allegedly a homosexual and a humanist with an obvious agenda against the Catholic Church. Just because Leonardo painted a picture of one of his wacked out beliefs, doesn’t make it true. Why is daVinci an authority on this?

I was about to say …

I think the debate regarding the identity of the person sitting to the right of Jesus in the painting is totally ridicules. Imagine if Leonardo DaVinci painted the scene in which there were only four people at the table. Would there then be some who would argue that eight were not invited or eight refused to attend?

But you said it so much better.

 

[Zippy]

Deacon Ed:

Zippy,

Maybe you missed my question. You made a claim that “Pope Gregory” referred to Mary Magdalen as a prostitute in “homily 33”. I had asked which of the 16 popes named Gregory this was. I’m still curious about this.

Deacon Ed

Pope Gregory the Great in 591: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark,”

Do you need me to spell out the seve devils of which he refers?