by hillbilly 13 Replies latest jw friends
The Da Vinci code was on last night. I saw it once before. I'll paint this question with a broad brush... is any of this story plausible?
The society sidesteps Mary M... and no church really want's Jesus seen as a mere human.What say ye (all) ?
~Hill
No expert here.
But to me, if you believe in the Bible, it would have obviously been recorded if Jesus were married with kids.
If you don't believe in the Bible then who cares?
yes.. but the Bible has been editied for content... by Constatine then others. Part of this story hinges on Constantine leaving the Mary M story out of what we know as the "Bible"
~Hill
Implausible.
Implausible that a man wandered the countryside 2000 years ago healing leprosy and blindness with a touch. Implausible start to finish. DaVinci Code or no.
the Bible has been editied for content
The Bible doesn't say that Jesus WAS NOT married. Mary M. is a highly likely candidate.
It was considered very odd for a 30 year old Jewish man NOT to get married.
The marriage feast at Cana could very well have been a feast at Jesus' wedding (to Mary M.)
Some of the "Lost Gospels" seem to indicate that Mary M. was Jesus' companion, possibly
his wife. The editing and destroying of texts leaves a story that the male-dominated
political and religious structure would prefer.
Many priests and faithful say that if Jesus were married to Mary M. (or anyone) it would not
change their faith. I don't put much stock in Jesus ever being divine (from Heaven) and strongly
feel that he was married or at least human enough to enjoy the company of a woman. As far
as the bloodline stuff goes, I don't think there are any miracle-makers running around, but
certainly there could be descendants among us. Personally, I think the Grail quest was
invented long after Jesus' life, so the stories surrounding it and the myths would also have
been invented long after his life.
It is also possible that Jesus was taken off the cross before he died. He could have fled to
Egypt or someplace else. I don't put much stock in Mary M. being put out in the sea without
paddles to wind up in France, but she might have taken Jesus' child to France (with paddles).
Or Jesus could have died on the cross, and the body was stolen later, and the entire story
about his followers seeing/speaking with him after his death is fictional.
I do believe the Vatican covered up and destroyed many important documents and facts. I
do believe they still have teams assigned to squash rumors and problems. The current Pope,
I believe was in charge of the Inquisition (although it has a different name now). I doubt they
use assassins. They probably just discredit those they cannot manipulate.
Hillbilly
I loved the book and the movie. I had the same thoughts as you did when I read the book. I think if he was married it would have been covered up for sure later on by the church to support their doctrines. I am not sure if we will ever know the truth about that but it sure makes for a very dangerous secret.
There is so much left out in the bible, I often wonder WHY everything has to be such a darn puzzle when it comes to God and what is True.
I found the story plausable in the context of fiction. I enjoy good fiction, and I enjoyed the movie and the book.
If you don't believe in the Bible then who cares?
It doesn't matter to me if it is true, the fact that it could be true is enough. Long shot actually, but interesting and entertaining.
Read the "non-fiction" book that Davinci code was based on, Holy blood, holy grail.
hillbilly:
The Da Vinci code was on last night. I saw it once before. I'll paint this question with a broad brush... is any of this story plausible?
Not even remotely. It's a third-rate thriller based on a ludicrous revisionist version of history, itself based on forged documents, wishful thinking and a heavy dose of imagination and lies. Hell, forget the background; the behaviour of the characters isn't even remotely plausible. They don't act or talk like real human beings at all and the plot is like a sub-par episode of Scooby-Doo.
That's based on the book; I couldn't bring myself to watch the film. I mean, it's got Tom Hanks in it; how could that improve things?
Not even remotely. It's a third-rate thriller based on a ludicrous revisionist version of history, itself based on forged documents, wishful thinking and a heavy dose of imagination and lies. Hell, forget the background; the behaviour of the characters isn't even remotely plausible. They don't act or talk like real human beings at all and the plot is like a sub-par episode of Scooby-Doo.
That's based on the book; I couldn't bring myself to watch the film. I mean, it's got Tom Hanks in it; how could that improve things?
You do a mean imitation of a film critic...
~Hill
