The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?

Most of the non-Catholics I know - are "theologically conservative". That is to say - they reject the attempts to insert humanism above Christianity and a literal acceptance of God's word. So - for example, they reject the humanism of evolution's mythologies over the Bible, they reject the humanist revisionists that would have Christ be "married" instead of living as the Bible describes Him.

And since the Southern Baptist association is the single largest non-Catholic group - and IT is also conservative - I find it hard to believe that "most protestants" are happy with the list of points you gave that are in direct contradiction to what the Bible says.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

I agree with your post. I do not know one Protestant or non-Catholic who believes that Jesus was married to any of the women mentioned in the N.T. I have gone to a Bible College and sat in three seminaries and no student or professor believed this rediculous idea.

I have heard that Mormons believe that Jesus was married to either Mary or Martha. We have always considered this a very, very dangerous thought to even think.

 

This is an old one. I remember someone did a paper on the theory of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene. He traced the family to Gaul, (now France/Belgium)and had a certain bit of "evidence" that some of the royal families of Europe were related to Jesus' offspring. He claimed that the Last Supper was actually a feast celebrating that Mary was with child. All totally hogwash, it was thoroughly discredited in class. The closest is that a relative of JOSEPH may have been the one who migrated to Gaul.

 

Dr. Gerald Click
The book in question probably was "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

"The closest is that a relative of JOSEPH may have been the one who migrated to Gaul. "


I know the (mostly fictional) Legenda Aurea places Mary of Magdala and Martha in southern France, but relatives of Jozef?

"And since the Southern Baptist association is the single largest non-Catholic group "

 

Why do you have this "feeling?" I know of no Protestants, at least non-ultra liberals, that hold to any of these things you mention. In fact, all that I know would vehemently deny these.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I am going to watch the program later today on ABC about this very thing at 8:00pm eastern. In the commercials, it looks like a Catholic priest (notice, "looks like") that they have saying, "It is possible that Jesus was married." I do not believe Catholics teach or believe this, so no one jump all over me, please. Just pointing this out since Justified Saint seems to think it is Protestants who would embrace these ideas. I feel that neither side would embrace these things and would together stand against it. That said, Brown (the author of the book in question) seems to have an interest in the Catholic Church. I am reading his other book, Angels & Demons, and he deals with the Catholic Church in it.

 

"Harmless fiction" tend to become religious tradition where Catholics are concerned...

 

Like the Left Behind hoha?

 

No, like Mary being included as part of the Trinity...

 

Isn't false witness still a sin?

 

Oh A_Christian, you humor me. Oh wait, you were seroius? Okay, now I'm scared.

Seriously, who buys into garbage like that? The fact that you even give the slightest credence to Mary being part of the trinity (which, if she, a human being, was included, would make the godhead four parts, and thus not a trinity) assures me that you don't know the first thing about Catholic doctrine, but only the false misconceptions that you have been indoctrinated with.

I challenge you to find one single Catholic work that includes Mary in the trinity, or you need to recant and apologize.

 

The misconception about Mary being elevated above mere human beings lies with the fact that Catholics do pray to her. Now the Bible is clear that there is only one mediator between God and men, which is clearly stated in I Timothy 2:5 (quoted below).

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Then I trust that you refuse to pray for someone when they ask you to, afterall you would be taking on the role of intermediary, if you did.

LaRae

 

My dear friend, and fellow Christian, let us not confuse the concept between praying to and praying for. When people pray to Mary, and expect Mary to intercede on their behalf with the Lord Jesus, that is going against Scripture. That is what I was alluding to.

 

And what, pray tell, do you think that you are doing when you ask another to pray for you?

I pray thee, understand that you make a distinction without a difference.

In beseeching another to pray for you, you ask them to intercede on your behalf, placing an intercessor between yourself and God.

 

trying2understand, why is it so difficult to grasp the bottom line here? Mary is not God, therefore we do not pray to her! Interceeding for another to God is not quite the same as praying to Mary and then hoping that she will convey my prayers to God, the Father, through Jesus, the Son.

That is why we must make the distinction between praying to another human being (albeit a Saint in heaven) or praying for another fellow believer, to God directly.

 

But that is not the way it really happens is it?

You do ask others to pray for you.

You ask others to be an intercessor for you, between yourself and God.

You simply can not deny this fact.

 

LaRae:

There is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE in the BIBLE ANYTHING, that would even remotely suggest that any person, once they have departed this world has any ideal of what is happening to their dearest friends yet living let alone total strangers whom they NEVER met.

I might add that I don't accept visions of Mary as
anything more than finatical and emotionally misdirected hysteria of a degenerate nature from an generation looking for signs.

 

It sure didn't take long for this thread to turn into ugliness.

Come on folks, try to stick to the topic for a change...

One writer has described the book "The daVinci Code" as the "spiritual successor" to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," which was largely generated by 1960's French pulp fiction and what can best be described as "urban myths and legends" about the French (and other European)royalty and their lineal descent from the "priest-king who never ruled" (their depiction of Jesus).

I will allow that there are many facts encomapssed within the book, but the conclusions arrived at from twisting those facts are... well... a matter of "faith" - or some sort of faith, anyway. If you like fiction and jumping over chasms to conclusions without foundation, these are the books for you.

In short, The daVinci Code and the one hour special which ABC is promoting as a "news" special (thereby implying some basis of "fact") are shameless promotion of a myth for monetary gain - nothing more. I also have no doubt Satan is laughing and encouraging them.

For what it's worth, that's my editorial opinion.

Dan Stiles