The DaVinci Code? More like the DaVinci LIE!!


#1

Common people, im 15 and i know this is a lie, and ill tell you why.

  1. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Hello!!! People look at the Bible, it says the following

“Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).
^ If Jesus was married, why would paul say this?^

And if Jesus was married, WHY would he say this?

“If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10).

And the Early Chruch fathers say NOTHING about Jesus being married, HOWEVER they do talk highely of Mary Magdalene, but they never say she was married, all they say is that she was a good follower of Jesus, if He was married, dont you think they would have mentioned this?
Common people, this is a LIE!


#2

2, Jesus was not a God, Just a man.

I would SWEAR that Jesus said " Who ever has seen me has seen the Lord"

3.They say that the Church Changed Scripture.

Don’t we still have the Origional Greek Text?

4.In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.

Well if she was directed to do this, then WHERE is this Church? Someone please tell me. In the book, they claim that Mary fled to France and gave birth to Jesus’ son, obviously if she was directed to establish the church, she failed to do her Job. Remember it says " And the Gates of hell shall not prevail against it", well obviously it did, because there is not such church.


#3

Ryan,
I think they are talking about the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.
That one didn’t make it into the Bible when the Church Fathers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were putting it together. Annunciata:)


#4

[quote=Annunciata]Ryan,
I think they are talking about the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.
That one didn’t make it into the Bible when the Church Fathers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were putting it together. Annunciata:)
[/quote]

yes, but the books says the following:

he Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.

Thats what im talking about, but i believe that text is FALSE.


#5

[quote=RomanRyan1088]yes, but the books says the following:

he Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.

Thats what im talking about, but i believe that text is FALSE.
[/quote]

Check this out: The Didache

scroll down the page and you’ll see the early Christian writings
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Annunciata


#6

Sorry, I do have to say this. In the olden days, I’d have risked my repuation, but here goes.

  1. It’s a work of fiction. Doubtless there are things that are fictional, but it’s a work of fiction.

  2. It’s a work of fiction. Doubtless there are things that are fictional, but it’s a work of fiction.

3 and 4 are the same; you get it.

More like the Da Vinct FICTION!

John


#7

[quote=Annunciata]Check this out: The Didache

scroll down the page and you’ll see the early Christian writings
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Annunciata
[/quote]

Hello, I have a small question though, Who are we to deny this a Sacred Scriptue or not?


#8

[quote=RomanRyan1088]Who are we to deny this a Sacred Scripture or not?
[/quote]

We as individual Christians or we as the Catholic Church?

The Church determined the canon of scripture long ago.

John


#9

Catholic Church


#10

[quote=RomanRyan1088]Hello, I have a small question though, Who are we to deny this a Sacred Scriptue or not?
[/quote]

If you mean the Gospel of Thomas …it’s early Christian writing but as I said before when the Church Fathers were praying under the guidance of the Holy Spirit about which ones to choose, this one didn’t make into the Bible…


#11

[quote=Annunciata]If you mean the Gospel of Thomas …it’s early Christian writing but as I said before when the Church Fathers were praying under the guidance of the Holy Spirit about which ones to choose, this one didn’t make into the Bible…
[/quote]

Was it written about Thomas?


#12

[quote=RomanRyan1088]Was it written about Thomas?
[/quote]

No Thomas was supposed to have written it.
Didn’t you check out the link?


#13

Ryan,

This is the post I was referring too about that priest Fr. McBrien:

[quote=cestusdei]I watched it. Basically they admit it is all speculation, but then go on to treat it as proven fact. Fr. McBrien makes his usual appearence. Wearing his collar. He ONLY does that when he wants to play priest. He trades on the authority of the collar to convince you what he says is authoritative. I don’t think he ever met a heresy he couldn’t embrace. The anti-Catholicism was not so subtle. Lot’s of our images were misused. They even misuse poor St. Mary Magdalene. She is a CATHOLIC saint folks. Not some gnostic goddess. Maybe if Catholics flew a plane into a big building the media would fall all over themselves to “understand” our faith and learn to “tolerate” it. I really do think the media has lost all sense of irony.
[/quote]

.


#14

The mess and confusion created by this book is, to me, strong evidence in favor of the need for an authoritative teaching office (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) and against those who say otherwise (i.e. Protestants), especially the Bible-Answer-Man crowd. And we Catholics should use it as such.

If the institutional Church has no such authority, then it had no authority to define the canon of scripture, and then who are we to say that the Gospel of Thomas, or the other writings of Peter, etc. are not inspired scripture? If Luther could take stuff out, why can’t we put other stuff in?

Fundamentalists, and alot of Evangelicals, cannot answer this question without addding their own new doctrines of canonical definition, which itself defeats their sola scriptura argument.

And there’s a very practical (if a tad snarky) proof that Jesus wasn’t married. I’m married and have 10-month old twins. I haven’t had time for a simple round of golf in two years, and I’ve even gotten to the driving range twice. What married guy has the time for redeeming all of humanity?


#15

Why do so many people who believe in sola scripture, believe in the davinci code? That is all I have to ask.


#16

Hey folks. The DaVinci code is fiction , why all the fuss. Do you belong to the group that wants to ban Huckelberry Finn; why not bring back the good old days and have some book burning parties.


#17

[quote=hermit]Hey folks. The DaVinci code is fiction , why all the fuss. Do you belong to the group that wants to ban Huckelberry Finn; why not bring back the good old days and have some book burning parties.
[/quote]

I have a better idea…let’s drown them! Annunciata:)


#18

Hey folks. The DaVinci code is fiction , why all the fuss.

The fuss comes from statements made by the author, Dan Brown.
While it is indeed a novel - his intention was along the lines of a historical novel.
Mr. Brown has asserted that the historical references he made in his novel were based on his extensive research, and are therefore “true”.
The plot which revolves around these “historical truths” are the fictional novel part.

If all we do is examine his “truths” concerning Leonardo DaVinci’s painting of the Last Supper - that alone is enough to debunk his premise.
Leonardo DaVinci sketched the Last Supper before he painted it.
In his sketch he clearly labeled which apostles were which.
There were indeed 12 men labeled - no women.
The young beardless figure was clearly labeled as John.
So there goes the notion that Mary Magdalene was in the painting.

Furthermore, Leonardo DaVinci was NOT portraying the moment when Jesus presented the bread and the wine.
He was portraying the moment when Jesus announced that one of them would betray Him.
This explains why the cup is not visible. This explains the expressions on the faces of the apostles.
We know from scripture that at this moment Peter asked John (who was sitting next to Jesus) to ask Jesus who it would be.
Scripture tells us John leaned against Jesus’s chest and asked Him.
This is the moment the painting depicts!!

It had nothing to do with Mary Magadalene, any supposed love child, or the supposed holy grail.


#19

Leonardo Da Vinci would not exactly be considered an eye witness to the last supper either. He painted the last supper around 1500 AD. That is pretty long after Christ. Unless there was something special about Da Vinci, I don’t think he was at the last supper.


#20

Leonardo DaVinci was apparantly using scripture as a guide.
Certainly many details came from his imagination -as they do with any artist.
But the moment he was depicting was a scriptural moment.

Mel Gibson was not an eye-witness to the crucifixion - yet look at the artistic feat he has accomplished.

When artists manage to move your soul they must be good.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.