DaVinci Code on 20/20

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCPhoenix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
this is an encore presentation of this program. i saw it last Easter. I wasn’t impressed then so i know that I will not be impressed now…

the basis of their argument is that DaVinci’s depiction of St. John in his “Last Supper” is actually a woman vis-a-vis Mary Magdalene. and somehow they are able to extrapolate that Christ and Magdalene were husband and wife and had children…
 
40.png
frdave20:
this is an encore presentation of this program. i saw it last Easter. I wasn’t impressed then so i know that I will not be impressed now…

the basis of their argument is that DaVinci’s depiction of St. John in his “Last Supper” is actually a woman vis-a-vis Mary Magdalene. and somehow they are able to extrapolate that Christ and Magdalene were husband and wife and had children…
Click to expand...
What was the reason for a beardless St. John? That he was the youngest of the apostles, hence he was depicted as beardless to show his youth?
 
Thankfully I missed that show, I don’t watch much of anything on TV especially if it’s concerning religion. As far as Jesus being married, I find it hard to believe that such a momentous event would not have been mentioned by someone writing of the early church history. Some have suggested that the wedding at Cana was actually Jesus’ marriage, but as we all know, that happened before Mary M. began following Jesus.Jesus became man for the express purpose of dying on that cross to redeem us and all sinners. Marriage and children are a human endeavor, Jesus was not destined for that, he was destined to much greater good and fulfilled that mission with a strength and love none but the true Son of God could have. Some people write and produce things simply for their provocative nature and to fuel controversy. It brings them fame and makes them feel important. Now more that ever, we must pray, pray, pray for our families, our cities, our country and our world.
 
Hans A.:
Wat’s sad is the 20/20 episode in question is a re-run from last year.

Hans
Click to expand...
I saw it before. Poor Jennings, I think he is searching but he looks in all the wrong places. Mainstream media is mainly a carnival show. Consider the premise of this show in commercials.

Jesus could have been married to Mary Magdelene.

Not much of an argumentand certainly not evidence of anything.

As usual, when I need the proper perspective, I go to GKC:
“And as I turn and tumble over the clever, wonderful, tiresome, and useless modern books, the title of one of them rivets my eye. It is called “Jeanne d’Arc,” by Anatole France. I have only glanced at it, but a glance was enough to remind me of Renan’s “Vie de Jesus.” It has the same strange method of the reverent sceptic. It discredits supernatural stories that have some foundation, simply by telling natural stories that have no foundation.”

GKC Orthodoxy dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/ortho14.txt
 
Yes, Ron Howard is going to put out the movie, and I’ll bet it will be Miramax or one of the other labels that Disney uses on their movies. This just points out how the culturewar is multifaceted:a “news” outlet (ABC) treats a book in documentary style, while the parent company prepares the movie. This happens all the time in the media.

And yes, boycott Disney. They are doing badly enough financially that if Catholics did boycott them, they would go under. And good riddance.
 
Well, I did read the book. I bought it for my friend for her birthday, because she kept going on and on about wanting to read it. She’s not Catholic or Christian…and I told her about what a bunch of **** it is beforehand. Anyways, I read the book before I gave it to her. What I find so strange about the whole thing over this book, is that it is just a plain BAD book. Ridiculously bad I thought. I mean, at one point, it gets so ridiculous, that I could crack these ‘codes’ myself. They were that easy. One example being that there is one ‘code’ written in the book, and you can see from just looking at it that it is JUST BACKWARDS WRITING. I knew it instantly, because DUH Da Vinci wrote backwards in his notebook. Now, it took a symbologist, a cryptologist AND a Da Vinci expert, like at least a few pages to figure this out!!! I couldn’t believe how moronic it was.
I watched the show on ABC. I knew it was a rerun. But I missed the first showing. It was just idiotic. They kept saying all the time, we asked all these experts in this certain feild, and we can only find ONE who thinks that this **** has any merit. And then they had em on camera. There was one that was just a weirdo and you could tell it from just seeing him for two minutes. The one who said he never said he believed his own theory. And Dan Brown? I set out to disprove this but became a believer, LOL. Yeah I would too if I only read the junk he did for his 'research'. They also never mentioned what I have read numerous times, that those priory documents are forgeries. They just said, 'nobody knows where they came from'. Is this journalism? I think not. At least they let a couple of people say on camera that the book is full of it though. If bad writing is any indication of bad research and a bad premise, then......well you get the point ;)
 
BTW - Leonardo DaVinci did a sketch of the Last Supper prior to painting it. He clearly labeled the young looking/beardless apostle as John in this sketch.

The moment he was depicting was not the actual event of presenting the bread and the wine.
The moment he was depicting was the moment he declared that one of them was about the betray him. That explains the expressions on their faces.
According to scripture Peter requested that John ask Jesus who it would be. Scripture tells us that John leaned into Jesus and rested his head on his chest when he asked.
This is clearly portrayed in the painting.

And that is why the actual painting has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene - or the supposed holy grail.
 
well golly day! I didn’t use any bad words there! I didn’t know you could use the word that starts with c and then r and then a and then p?? well whatever. just letting people know i wasn’t cussing there.
 
40.png
Lorarose:
BTW - Leonardo DaVinci did a sketch of the Last Supper prior to painting it. He clearly labeled the young looking/beardless apostle as John in this sketch.

The moment he was depicting was not the actual event of presenting the bread and the wine.
The moment he was depicting was the moment he declared that one of them was about the betray him. That explains the expressions on their faces.
According to scripture Peter requested that John ask Jesus who it would be. Scripture tells us that John leaned into Jesus and rested his head on his chest when he asked.
This is clearly portrayed in the painting.

And that is why the actual painting has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene - or the supposed holy grail.
Click to expand...
Wow, you just answered alot of my questions about the painting, thank you!!
 
Hi - there is a great book out called The Da Vince Hoax, by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, this is published by Ignatius Press, and it really debunks this novel that everyone is taking as fact. The footnotes and bibliography is GREAT. I have found it very helpful in answering questions that family members, that have read the DeVinci Code have, and what I usually do is pass this book around and say, You read the fiction, now read the facts.
 
I’m sure this book will sit proudly next to other works that the poorly deluded accept as truth…ie… Holy Blood Holy Grail, Chariot of the Gods, A Course in Miracles, Seth Speaks… 😛
 
Hi Folks!

How many of you are going to write in a complain?:hmmm: Really all these posts should be gathered and sent in or you should do it under your own individual power.

God Bless,
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
 
40.png
Oren:
One example being that there is one ‘code’ written in the book, and you can see from just looking at it that it is JUST BACKWARDS WRITING. I knew it instantly, because DUH Da Vinci wrote backwards in his notebook.
I watched the show on ABC. I knew it was a rerun. But I missed the first showing. It was just idiotic. They kept saying all the time, we asked all these experts in this certain feild, and we can only find ONE who thinks that this **** has any merit. And then they had em on camera. There was one that was just a weirdo and you could tell it from just seeing him for two minutes. The one who said he never said he believed his own theory. And Dan Brown? I set out to disprove this but became a believer, LOL. Yeah I would too if I only read the junk he did for his ‘research’. They also never mentioned what I have read numerous times, that those priory documents are forgeries. They just said, ‘nobody knows where they came from’. Is this journalism? I think not. At least they let a couple of people say on camera that the book is full of it though. If bad writing is any indication of bad research and a bad premise, then…well you get the point 😉
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the way Da Vinci wrote a mirror image, not just backwards?

Why get all up in arms about this anyway, it doesn’t matter, unless it is true.

Peace
 
I fail to see the difference? Thats what I meant. I used to write like that when I was little, I just say backwards, but you could read it in a mirror…whatever.
 
They're also compring Jesus to normal men! Jesus was NOT a normal man...He is DIVINE!!!!!! The rules which bind the rest of us have never bound him!!!:
It was said long ago in the end men would have a form of godliness but deny His power, sounds like the time’s we are living in, but we know better!

Praised be Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection!!!
Click to expand...
 
Michael Howard:
...He is DIVINE!!!!!! The rules which bind the rest of us have never bound him!!!:
It was said long ago in the end men would have a form of godliness
Click to expand...
but deny His power, sounds like the time’s we are living in, but we know better!

Praised be Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection!!!

Actually Jesus is bound by man in Matt 16:18. Since you probably are just using logic, that may explain why you came to that conclusion.

And to hold that Matt 16:18 doesn’t bind Jesus puts one outside of the church since that is the cornerstone of the church’s authority.

Peace
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ricatholic:
Why get all up in arms about this anyway, it doesn’t matter, unless it is true.
Click to expand...
It matters because of the the fact that it isn’t true, and Truth matters. It is a sad but true fact that many uninformed and lazy people get their history, theology, morals, and social values from pop culture–TV, novels, pop music, movies, etc. How a person is formed in all these areas influences them in what they believe and, as a result of that, how they live. If what this book claims about Jesus is true, then one can conclude that Christianity is false. Time to search for something else to believe in, with one belief system being as good as another.

This is the path toward eternal death. This is why, even if the DVC is a lie–especially if it is a lie-- it matters.

(For a short but great analysis of the current seemingly concerted attack on the truth of the Faith, see Catholic Exchange link here:catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=24797
 
40.png
cazayoux:
I bought and read “Cracking Da Vinci’s Code” … it gave me some ammo, but there was also a good bit of anti-Catholic comments ([aggravation]).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the warning. I just borrowed the audio book from the library and don’t need to waste time listening to it. There is too many less objectionable debunkings available out there out there.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
… If what this book claims about Jesus is true, then one can conclude that Christianity is false
Click to expand...
How does anything in DVC change what Jesus taught?

What Jesus taught is the only really critical part of Christianity.

That is what our faith should be about. The actual “status” of Jesus will never be know until it is too late for us to do anything about it. So why dwell upon it?

However, I will admit that if by “Christianity” you mean the established corporate churches, then their might be some egg upon some faces. But, that said, so what?

It isn’t any particular church that saves us, it is Jesus.

Peace
 
40.png
ricatholic:
How does anything in DVC change what Jesus taught?

What Jesus taught is the only really critical part of Christianity.

That is what our faith should be about. The actual “status” of Jesus will never be know until it is too late for us to do anything about it. So why dwell upon it?
Click to expand...
ricatholic,

The canonical gospels contain a lot that Jesus taught, including His own revelation as to His true identity. The very premise of DVC in fact challenges the identity and authority of Jesus.

The Anglican writer CS Lewis has perhaps said it best: either Jesus is who He says He is (as recorded in the canonical gospels, written by those who knew Him best), or He was a lunatic or a liar. Ultimately, there are only three choices:
  1. He is in fact who He says He is, the only-begotten Son of the Father;
  2. He only thought He was God’s Son because He was delusional; or
  3. He knew he wasn’t divine, but only wanted to convince other that He was (making Him a liar).
If He was either a lunatic or a liar, then nothing that He taught has any real merit. Only if He is in fact the God-Man does His words carry any real authority or truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top