Da Vinci Code poll.

Thanatosx33 · May 2006

Sorry if theres already a poll, but if not...here it is.

F'ing-Foxus · May 2006

My god... IT'S A WORK OF FICTION!

WHY WONT YOU PEOPLE SHUT UP

Thanatosx33 · May 2006

I agree, I just want everyone elses opinion. Yes, it is fiction.

Xexima · May 2006

Yay! another Thread on DaVinci Code! whoo hooo!

Of course it is not true, it is a FICTION book. People need to get over it, they are all idiots.

noname12345 · May 2006

Originally posted by Xexima

Yay! another Thread on DaVinci Code! whoo hooo!
Of course it is not true, it is a FICTION book. People need to get over it, they are all idiots.

It's a historical based fiction. If you read a book on the civil war but the main plot and characters were fiction would you think the whole book is fiction?

mister_GuS · May 2006

eff-ai-see-tee-ai-en

what does that spell??

FICTION!

kaibigan34 · May 2006

The Grail is a work of fiction. It first appeared in french poems in the 1100s. They were called the Grail Romances. Now its considered historical fact.

So no, none of the Da Vnci Code is fact. Its a work of fiction based on a work of fiction.

Kai

Rikimaru_X · May 2006

It's fiction, people who don't know enough about it think it's real.

Harafnir · May 2006

By the way, for all you that think this is real:

Elvis lives. The riddle of Elvis can be found in some hidden away packages of secret recipe Corn Flakes... Yees.. Now go search!

noname12345 · May 2006

Look this book could be false in some areas, I also don't go to this book when I need a fact check, but this book is based off of what many other historians studied/researched.

Vyava · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore

It's a historical based fiction. If you read a book on the civil war but the main plot and characters were fiction would you think the whole book is fiction?

If it was a piece of fiction simply set within a different era...yep gonna have to go with fiction. Historical based means inspired by, not partial accurate story modified for enjoyment in the modern era.

As far as The Davinic Code...I couldn't finish the book even personally didn't seem too inspired overall.

M1sf1t · May 2006

Originally posted by F'ing-Foxus
My god... IT'S A WORK OF FICTION!

WHY WONT YOU PEOPLE SHUT UP

LoL - So true.

noname12345 · May 2006

Okay so you guys will say

Turning water into wine for a wedding feast. - True

Curing a sick child who was near death. - True

Curing a lame man, a man with a virulent skin disease, a paralyzed man. - True

Feeding a crowd of five thousand using only fives loaves of bread and two fish. -True

Walking on water to reach his disciples who were in a boat (and enabling Peter to walk on water, also). -True

Giving sight to a man born blind. -TrueBringing a man (Lazarus) who had been dead for four days back to life. -True

Appearing to Peter, James, and John in a transfigured state, with unearthly, brilliant white clothes, and with Elijah and Moses. -True

Jesus, a parent - BLASPHEMY.

You guys take ALL of that in stride but Jesus being a parent...ALEX YOU'RE CRAZY!

Vyava · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore

You guys take ALL of that in stride but Jesus being a parent...ALEX YOU'RE CRAZY!

No reason for the things to be mutually inclusive or exclusive, they really are not related at all.

kaibigan34 · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore
Okay so you guys will say

Turning water into wine for a wedding feast. - True

Curing a sick child who was near death. - True

Curing a lame man, a man with a virulent skin disease, a paralyzed man. - True

Feeding a crowd of five thousand using only fives loaves of bread and two fish. -True

Walking on water to reach his disciples who were in a boat (and enabling Peter to walk on water, also). -True

Giving sight to a man born blind. -TrueBringing a man (Lazarus) who had been dead for four days back to life. -True

Appearing to Peter, James, and John in a transfigured state, with unearthly, brilliant white clothes, and with Elijah and Moses. -True

Jesus, a parent - BLASPHEMY.

You guys take ALL of that in stride but Jesus being a parent...ALEX YOU'RE CRAZY!

For me its not about if Jesus was a parent or not. Its about the Grail. The so called Cup of Christ. That is where the supposed trail starts. Yet the Grail does NOT exist. Its a work of fiction. Hence the Da Vinci Code is also fiction. Even more so because the thing its supposed to be about is imaginary.

Ever since that infernal book came out you can hardly have a decent conversation about religion. Almost always some yahoo wants to use the Da Vnci Code as fact to support an arguement. "Well in the Da Vinci Code it says...yadda yadda yadda." Oh really? Well that book is not real so give it a rest back in the mental ward where you escaped from you freeze dried whack a loon.....

As for the whole direct bloodline thing I dont know but I seriously doubt it. In the past 300 years we have found out way too much of what is fact and what isnt in the Bible. And I am fairly certain if there was a direct bloodline we would have found it by now no matter how secretive they made it.

Kai

axept · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore

Look this book could be false in some areas, I also don't go to this book when I need a fact check, but this book is based off of what many other historians studied/researched.

I guess you didnt see the 60 minutes show on the book/movie. The "cult" the book is based on AND the first page in the book with the title "FACT" is false.
It was created by a con-man. They even had interviews with people that new them, and one person that owned the original paper on the cult had it analised and it turned out to be only 40 years old or something. Also the language it was written in was "fake" because it was written in moderen spelling/grammar.

Its totaly a fiction book. The arthor is just a victom of the con and he fell for it like many other ppl. Sadly he did not dig deep on the issue. The guy will not even have interviews on the matter any more.

So what historians studied/researched are you talking about, when they all said it was fake?

lardmouth · May 2006

Originally posted by kaibigan34

For me its not about if Jesus was a parent or not. Its about the Grail. The so called Cup of Christ. That is where the supposed trail starts. Yet the Grail does NOT exist. Its a work of fiction. Hence the Da Vinci Code is also fiction. Even more so because the thing its supposed to be about is imaginary.

Ever since that infernal book came out you can hardly have a decent conversation about religion. Almost always some yahoo wants to use the Da Vnci Code as fact to support an arguement. "Well in the Da Vinci Code it says...yadda yadda yadda." Oh really? Well that book is not real so give it a rest back in the mental ward where you escaped from you freeze dried whack a loon.....

As for the whole direct bloodline thing I dont know but I seriously doubt it. In the past 300 years we have found out way too much of what is fact and what isnt in the Bible. And I am fairly certain if there was a direct bloodline we would have found it by now no matter how secretive they made it.

Kai

Heh. That's really my only real gripe about this movie. Everyone is suddenly an expert on secret socities. Obviously, most realize the movie is fictional. However, it does seem there are some who don't realize just how deep the fiction reaches. Not really the authors fault, I guess. I don't know enough about the man to know his personal beliefs regarding Jesus with/without child. Or, if he intentionally directed the movie towards a christian theme to rile people up. More than likely the guy wanted to write a novel involving the greatest historical mystery he could think up. And then wrote in all the fiction he needed to put it all together. I could be wrong, as I haven't felt much desire to read up on the guy. Not a fan. But, boy oh boy, I do wish some of the new 'experts' at my work would give it a rest. Yeesh.

noname12345 · May 2006

You guys missed my point.

anyways...

Da Vinci Code is a rather new book and not all about the research. Books that go in much more detail have been out way before Da Vinci Code. Da Vinci code was a good story and thats why it sold and now hopefully the real ones before it are selling. Well actually there are newer books on the subject that just focus on the research but that's not my point.

I kind of find it funny how so many people like priests and religious folk go and debunk the Da Vinci Code which is a novel. What they should debunk is the books that created the Da Vinci Code like Holy Blood, Holy Grail for example.

Here is a partial bibliography for Da Vinci Code: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/bibliography.html
So nope Dan Brown didn't pull this story from His ass. He probably did more research on the topic than all of you put together. Holy Blood, Holy Grail actually states all their factual mistakes in their revised edition and they fixed it but none of it was the backbone of their investigation mostly just dates and stuff. They got it by the way from people writing letters. So maybe with Dan's revised edition he did fix some mistakes, maybe not.

I'm still looking for a rebuttal to the books where the author doesn't believe Jesus walked on water.

kaibigan34, did you read the Da Vinci Code? He says the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, not a cup. Mary existed.

kaibigan34 · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore

You guys missed my point.
anyways...

Da Vinci Code is a rather new book and not all about the research. Books that go in much more detail have been out way before Da Vinci Code. Da Vinci code was a good story and thats why it sold and now hopefully the real ones before it are selling. Well actually there are newer books on the subject that just focus on the research but that's not my point.

I kind of find it funny how so many people like priests and religious folk go and debunk the Da Vinci Code which is a novel. What they should debunk is the books that created the Da Vinci Code like Holy Blood, Holy Grail for example.

Here is a partial bibliography for Da Vinci Code: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/bibliography.html
So nope Dan Brown didn't pull this story from His ass. He probably did more research on the topic than all of you put together. Holy Blood, Holy Grail actually states all their factual mistakes in their revised edition and they fixed it but none of it was the backbone of their investigation mostly just dates and stuff. They got it by the way from people writing letters. So maybe with Dan's revised edition he did fix some mistakes, maybe not.
I'm still looking for a rebuttal to the books where the author doesn't believe Jesus walked on water.

kaibigan34, did you read the Da Vinci Code? He says the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, not a cup. Mary existed.

Actually Mary's book turned up awhile back. Yes that is right. Mary's Book. The one they removed from the Bible when they were doing the first purge. Guess what? No mention of a child. In fact the only reason Mary was left out after Jesus was crucified was because they didnt want a female priest or possibility of them in the future. Things were still very much male based back then.

Mary was NOT the Holy Grail because the Holy Grail would have had to have existed for it to be a cup or otherwise. There was no mention of the Grail before the Grail Romances. What did they just say "Hey this Grail thing sounds cool. Lets start referring to Mary as the Grail."???? I think not.

The Grail never existed. All these so called "theories" have to start with the Grail as a cup. Since the cup is a fallacy the theories that follow, even the direct bloodline ones are a fallacy.

Now if they came up with a theory based on a direct bloodline that didnt start or have anything to do with the Grail whatsoever, hey there might be an arguement. But that they all start with the Grail as a cup its pure bunk.

Its like driving from Los Angeles to New York. Your given specific instructions on the route your supposed to follow. But wait you are starting in Seattle not Los Angeles and you still have to follow those specific directions as if your starting in Los Angeles. You gonne make it? Nope.

You follow all these theories back to their origin you will find the Grail cup legend as the starting point. Since the cup is just a work of fiction that throws all theories out the window.

Kai

Phoenixs · May 2006

Fiction with some facts about fiction with some facts.

Cowinspace · May 2006

I think the basic premise is possible (that Jesus had a child) after all he was just a man.

The rest of it is an entertaining story, but probably less likely.

Hochete · May 2006

while the overall story of the davinci code is undoubtably fiction, there are some interesting points bought forth.

i personally have no doubt in my head that the church hides ALOT from the world. i mean, just the example of the arabic chap in Israel that found the 'dead sea scrolls' inside a cave near the dead sea.. he had them for like 2 days before he ....... 'gave' them to the vatican. he's now been seen driving around in one of the most expensive mercede's money can buy, and on a side note, the vatican hasn't released 'any' information regarding the scrolls and refuses to do so. why would they? if there is nothing to hide they'd surely have no problem atall with sharing the contents of the scrolls to the world. and if they aren't worth sharing, why pay so much for them?

anyway, with so much history i think it's absolutely innevitable for some secrets to have been kept by the church.

on a side note, the davinci code is a bloody good book, even if it's untrue, it's conceivable none the less, i can imagine such secrets being kept from the masses by the church quite easily.

beautyisin · May 2006

Originally posted by AlexAmore

You guys missed my point.
anyways...

Da Vinci Code is a rather new book and not all about the research. Books that go in much more detail have been out way before Da Vinci Code. Da Vinci code was a good story and thats why it sold and now hopefully the real ones before it are selling. Well actually there are newer books on the subject that just focus on the research but that's not my point.

I kind of find it funny how so many people like priests and religious folk go and debunk the Da Vinci Code which is a novel. What they should debunk is the books that created the Da Vinci Code like Holy Blood, Holy Grail for example.

Here is a partial bibliography for Da Vinci Code: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/bibliography.html
So nope Dan Brown didn't pull this story from His ass. He probably did more research on the topic than all of you put together. Holy Blood, Holy Grail actually states all their factual mistakes in their revised edition and they fixed it but none of it was the backbone of their investigation mostly just dates and stuff. They got it by the way from people writing letters. So maybe with Dan's revised edition he did fix some mistakes, maybe not.
I'm still looking for a rebuttal to the books where the author doesn't believe Jesus walked on water.

kaibigan34, did you read the Da Vinci Code? He says the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, not a cup. Mary existed.

You are immensely naive. Holy Blood, Holy Grail has all of the same inconcistency's as the Da Vinci Code, i watched a documentary the other day with real historians and every single facet of the plot is total fantasy, it is also a subject that i have knowledge of myself and quite frankly the book is a joke, a story that they tell little children at bed time, i though it was very funny when they questioned one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and they put forth a known historical fact and he tried to deny history, these people are intellectually stunted con men, if it stated at the begining of the book this is a work of fiction i could put up with this very badly written book

. As for the holy grail that was the innovation of a french fantasy writer, of which all subsequent stories of the grail are based.

noname12345 · May 2006

Originally posted by beautyisin
You are immensely naive. Holy Blood, Holy Grail has all of the same inconcistency's as the Da Vinci Code, i watched a documentary the other day with real historians and every single facet of the plot is total fantasy, it is also a subject that i have knowledge of myself and quite frankly the book is a joke, a story that they tell little children at bed time, i though it was very funny when they questioned one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and they put forth a known historical fact and he tried to deny history, these people are intellectually stunted con men, if it stated at the begining of the book this is a work of fiction i could put up with this very badly written book. As for the holy grail that was the innovation of a french fantasy writer, of which all subsequent stories of the grail are based.

So is your choice of book the Bible? Or do you not believe in Jesus or think Jesus was just an ordinary fella?

noname12345 · May 2006

Yall wanna just call it a wash? We'll agree to be equal. As many holes/lies you can find in the The Da Vinci code and the other books you can also find them in the Bible. We aren't getting anywhere anyways and i'm sick of it and bored.

Darraess · May 2006

Ok lets see what did the author do?
He takes an extremely highly probable historical event and creates a story around it, why? well there is no doubt so he can make money.
Is his work original? no it isn't
Is his work based on historical facts? no it isn't
But did it rise questions? and did it cause reactions? yes it did.

It is generaly accepted by now that Magdalene was not the rependant prostitute the Byzantine high clergy and rulers made her out to be, but was she an equal amongst men? hardly, the middle east culture was never known to treat women with respect not at the ancient time and not even now, so what was she? simple common sense answers that question and i believe she was Jesus's spouse.

So what is that the book has caused? First of all as far as the clergy is concerned by claiming JC had human desires of love and lust it refuses the divine spirit of him, and second and most important if he actually did have sex with a steady companion he also did have children as back at those times and those places pregnancy was not an unwelcome thing.

So there is a possibility someone on this planet somewhere carries Jesuc Christs DNA, secret societies and royal families throughout history claim their right to supremacy or elitisism because of their bloodline, there is no denying this and although the majority of people don't really give too much credit to them anymore they still hold ruling or important positions even today, so you see someone of JC's bloodline can not be allowed to exist.

The church Christian, Muslem or whatever religion you want has allways had one and only one reason of existance, and that was influence and power, they allways used their divine given right and connection to that divine to send people to fight to their deaths in order to increase their influence and their power over the world, and men did it and still do it as willingly and as easyly as sheep go to the butcher.

So is this what the book or the movies does? does it awaken men and women to the falacy religion is? well all those who oppose it really think so but the truth is that neither has that much power or persuasivness what all these religious fools don't realise is that the fact this book and this movie can be distributed and advertised means that their oppresive and criminaly fasist methods are dead and that people have realized that even if God does exist he probably doesn't give a shit about a planet full of insects, if he has even aknowledged our existance that is.

Howdy, Stranger!

Da Vinci Code poll.

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Da Vinci Code poll.

Comments