You Can’t Be Serious

Does this moron know that The Da Vinci Code is, in fact, a work of fiction?

Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code
Sun May 7, 2006
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – In the latest Vatican broadside against “The Da Vinci Code”, a leading cardinal says Christians should respond to the book and film with legal action because both offend Christ and the Church he founded.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called “The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception.”

Arinze’s appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film.

Do I really have to say it again? OK, fine: The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough.

Indeed. I hear the Iranians have developed a good policy for dealing with blasphemous novelists.

“Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget,” Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs.

Forgiveness was the last thing that Jesus would have wanted.

“Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others,” Arinze said.

“This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected,” he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

Uhm, suh-suh-suh-suh-sadly, no. Freedom of religion means that you have the right to worship whomever you choose without interference from the government. It doesn’t mean you the right to stop other people from disliking your beliefs. Here, let me break out a nifty diagram to illustrate the point:

“Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you,” Arinze said.

This appeared to be a reference to protests by Muslims around the world over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

And anyone who torches an embassy because of a Modammad cartoon is a fucking asshole. Is that really what you want to emulate?

Last month, another broadside against “The Da Vinci Code” was launched by Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year.

Amato urged a boycott of the film and Arinze, like his fellow cardinal, also blasted the credibility of the book.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally. (How many more times do I have to say this?)

“‘The Da Vinci Code’ presents (Christianity) wrongly … any film produced on the basis of that book is already in error from the word go, no matter how interesting it might appear,” Arinze said.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Catholic group Opus Dei has told Sony Pictures that putting a disclaimer on the movie stressing it is a work of fiction would be a welcome show of respect toward the Church.

Thank you for making my point, guys. I’m glad I didn’t have to say it a fifth time.

 

Comments: 171

 
 
 

The Catholic Church should take more serious action against the homosexual agenda than against a book.

The fact is that homosexuals have infiltrated their church, serving in numerous positions of power, leading to numerous abuses on children.

They should work on cleaning their house of evil influences before they start whining about a book.

 
 

Boy, that is just sad. I mean, plumb pitiful. It wasn’t even that good a book. You would think that with all the misery in the world, of poor and opressed and hungry and homeless, the scions of Christ could find something more substantial to occupy their time.

Just…damn. It’s sillier than the whole “war on Christmas” thing.

 
 

Has anyone read both The Da Vinci Code and Foucault’s Pendulum? If so, is Brown’s book as much a rip-off as it sounds like it is?

 
 

Gary, an as yet unproveable opinion is not a “fact”. Sorry.

Maybe the Vatican hates the book because Browns book of fiction has outsold theirs?

Really disgusting for this cardinal “man of Gawd” to threaten terrori…er violence and intimidation. Wasn’t planning on seeing the movie but, if it pisses this cretin off, I’ll be standing in the ticket line when it opens.

 
 

OK, I’m not going to defend the book because I think it’s shite, but there are numerous families whose genealogies do appear to support the premise – that Jesus left heirs when he died. My family among them. I was shocked as hell when I came across it in reseraching my own family history, but there it is. Frankly, I wasn’t sure what to do with it, but since I’m pagan I had probably less trouble with it than say, my devoutly Catholic mother.

The Catholics as well as all other stripes of Christianity are piss-scared that there’s something to this, some document out there that hasn’t already been supressed, because it means the house of cards they’ve been proping up for 2000 years will finally collapse under the weight of its own absurdity. I’m kind of hoping it is true. But in the meantime I’m not going around telling people i’m related to Jesus, ‘cuz you know they put people in rubber rooms for doing stuff like that πŸ˜‰

 
 

If Jesus wants to sue the filmmakers (or Dan Brown) for slander, he can hire a lawyer. If he wants to smite Dan Brown for being one of the worst writers in human history, I’ll stand up and cheer… but Cardinal Arinze (who is also a major homophobe BTW) has no standing to bring a lawsuit on Jesus’ behalf unless he proves Jesus is an incompetent who needs a legal guardian. And somehow I don’t really see Jesus thanking the Cardinal for that.

 
 

What I want to know is, where are the links to “Buy it Now” or “Get Tickets” to see The Da Vinci Code on Malkin’s website?

She’s more than happy to provide a link to the Prophet cartoons. I am wondering why she’s not waging a jihad against religious leaders challenging The DaVinci Code.

 
 

My family among them. I was shocked as hell when I came across it in reseraching my own family history, but there it is.

Bwahahahahahaahahaha!!

Thanks, I really needed a good laugh. πŸ˜€

 
 

How do you know you have a quality troll? When the mere mention of “Catholic Church” in any context causes a pre-recorded message from “Dr.” Paul Cameron such as, “The fact is that homosexuals have infiltrated their church, serving in numerous positions of power, leading to numerous abuses on children.”

I know I shouldn’t feed them, but I can’t help it. They’re so cute.

 
 

Foucault’s Pendulum is infinitely better than Da Vinci Code. Think of Dan Brown as the stupid hollywood version of Umberto Eco.

 
 

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

So is the Bible.

 
 

AA, tried to tell you this awhile back but you were too lazy to look it up. I believe you said “I don’t care if you worship pink unicorns”.

Enjoy your laugh, just don’t cry too much when Jesus doesn’t turn out to be the guy you think he was. Just like Judas, as it turns out. Damn those ancient scrolls and their truthiness!

 
 

If you edit Gary’s post a little, it actually makes sense. Just take a few words out, and you get this:

“The Catholic Church should take more serious action than against a book. They should work on cleaning their house of evil influences before they start whining about a book.”

I’m with you, Gary!

 
 

For such omnipotent and loving beings, God and his kid sure are whiny little bitches. Jesus is “offended” by the DaVinci code now? Quit yer whinin’, Jesus. I’m offended by the 700 Club and that Mel Gibson movie about you getting your ass whooped, but you don’t hear me threatening lawsuits. I just change the channel. Turn the other cheek, bro.

 
 

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Tell that to Dan Brown. During the lawsuit with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, each side refused to admit that the basic premise of both books–that Jesus married and fathered children with Mary Magdalene, the descendants of which still live in France–was fiction.

Cost the Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors the suit.

 
 

Pagangirl, you’re a dolt. There are TONS of ancient scrolls, scripture, whatever. Are you saying they’re all true?

You’re almost inspiring me to write an article on fluffbunnies. πŸ˜€ Silly girl.

 
 

AA: sorry babe, not gonna bite. Can I have your stuff come the Rapture?

 
 

But Gary, isn’t the undermining of Christian principles that’s part of America’s heritage what’s causing all this social decline and the molestation of children? So wouldn’t the success of Dan Brown’s book be something the Catholic church should address in order to save America from “the left?”

 
 

Somebody ought to hand these people a copy of Robert Graves’s King Jesus. Now there’s a book that makes DVC look like the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Seriously, if you’ve never read it, do. It’ll make your antennae tingle.

 
 

It’s all fiction.
http://www.thegodmovie.com/

 
 

I’m not your “babe.” And no, you can’t have my stuff. Don’t you have anything nice of your own? Maybe next time I go through my closets I can send you a few things, as an act of charity.

 
 

As a proud, cafeteria Catholic who wouldn’t shed a tear if the whole edifice of the Church came crashing down, I know there is in fact a huge element of the Church hierarchy that is living in mortal fear right now, which is why we’re hearing more from the paranoids like Mel Gibson and Opus Dei these days.

 
 

AA: by the way, do you have a clue how the final four Gospels got chosen? You should check that out sometime. It was a bunch of guys locked in a room, and punches were thrown by guys advocating “their” Gospel. Google “Synod of Whitby” and get a freakin’ education. Every single one of those ancient documents is inconsistent. How can one (or the four chosen) be considerd more “true” than any of the others?

They were written by men, and men were the ones to choose which were compiled into the final version of the New Testament. Men purporting to be transcribing the word of God. Best propoganda play in history, if you ask me.

 
 

Opes Dei. πŸ˜€ Hehehehe. They’re total nutbars, I used to post on a site with one of those guys. He’s more or less force everyone to hate him and then call persecution and have a big fit for a while then he’d get tired and cry.

It was beautiful. πŸ™‚

 
 

LOL@pagangrrrrrrrl. πŸ˜€

 
 

…sorry, meant to say Council of Nicea, which occurred much earlier, not Synod of Whitby (which was when the Celtic Christian church was qeashed by the Roman Catholics).

 
 

I second JK47. The bible is a work of fiction.

 
 

Don’t all movies have disclaimers on them saying they’re works of fiction?

 
 

Haven’t read the DaVinci Code and didn’t plan on it. But if it’s pissing off the Catholic church this much, I might just have to go see the movie.

 
 

The Davinci Code is fiction!?!

That’s it! I’ve had it! I’m getting my application materials together and I’m off to Hogwarts. And after I’ve passed my Ordinary Wizarding Levels, I’m going to Star Fleet Academy.

I’ll show you! I’ll show EVERYBODY!

 
 

Celticgirl, wanna talk about propaganda plays? Cos Holy Blood Holy Grail sure counts for me. I have to say, when I heard the argument that “Jesus left heirs” that just happened to be members of European royal families, it sounded like an extremely tardy claim to legitimacy. Like as in, Oh shit, the divine right of kings is out, why not the Jesuitical right of kings? I’m with you that Jesus isn’t the person that the Bible says, etc., but I’m inclined to think that Jesus, like the Da Vinci Code, is fictional.

 
 

That’s it! I’ve had it! I’m getting my application materials together and I’m off to Hogwarts.

There are all sorts of levels of ridiculousness in the Christian community. For some, the DaVinci code gets them all riled up. But for others, it is Harry Potter and his mates that are the real danger.

 
 

CG – If you haven’t read it yet, you might enjoy The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. It’s a brief, well-written history of the early years of Christianity.

(Although you seem to have a good knowledge of the subject already.)

 
 

Why shouldn’t she just read the Nag Hammadi texts? As well as Against Heresies and the other works of the early church fathers?

She can find what she is looking for herself, she doesn’t need Pagels to do it for her.

Unless she’s lazy.

 
 

cranky: Yep, read it. I’ve actually read most of the material on the “heretical” gospels. I’ve also read “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, but that’s not where I found my family connection, just saw that it was included there and repeated. It turns up in a number of books on the subject. My family was ancient nobility that lost their lands and titles, but never in any position to claim any divine right to kingship,so I don’t know about that assertion. I find it a curiousity more than anything.

I’ve spent a lot of time in master’s level divinity courses as well (though not as a student); well, that and discussing religion with my step-dad who was educated at a Benedictine college and loves to debate this stuff with me.

 
 

What is so bad about the idea of Jesus marrying and having kids? He was totally human as well as totally God (according to orthodox teachings, but that’s another story)

 
 

CG – The history of Christianity is a fascinating topic that I wish I knew more about. But as a math person, I find it very difficult to read and absorb as much history as I would like.

But, of course, the burning question of the moment is: Have you actually read the Nag Hammadi texts, or are you just lazy? : )

 
 

“This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected,” he said,

Lo, as it is written in the Book of Kartmann:

Respect mah authoritah.”Respect mah authoritah.”

 
 

I have to say, when I heard the argument that “Jesus left heirs” that just happened to be members of European royal families, it sounded like an extremely tardy claim to legitimacy.

Not to mention, if Jesus had left heirs, guess how many they’d be at this point. It’s been about 100 generations. Let’s be conservative and say it’s just everyone in the Middle East, half of Asia, Africa and Europe, and lots of people everywhere Europeans have been sowing their oats.

 
 

Ooh, the sting, it burns!

Yes, I have read the Nag Hammadi docs too. Not lazy, just out of practice ;)- I can’t just cite stuff off the top of my head like I used to.

But remember this kids: there’s literally thousands of scrolls and other documents out there that have never seen the light of day – yet. That Judas gospel is just one example. The Gospel of Mary Magdeline is fascinating as well. So is the Gospel of Thomas. And what I wouldn’t give to get into the Vatican Library! THAT’s what the Christian and Catholic clerics are worried about – something popping up that they don’t know about. They know all about Nag Hammadi – fer chrissakes, it’s taken more than 30 years to translate and compile them? Not bloody likely. They’ve only shown the world the documents they want us to see…

 
 

The Gospel of Mary Magdeline is fascinating as well.

Hehehehe. πŸ˜€

 
 

If I was going to boycott the DaVinci Code, it would be over all of those weird character introductions that are phrased like obituaries. What is up with that?

 
 

Umm…unless I’m mistaken, films like The Da Vinci Code usually have this line in the credits: “The events and characters depicted in this motion picture are entirely fictional, and any resemblance to real events or persons is coincidental.”

For some odd reason I found nothing like that at the end of “The Ten Commandments”. Since my real name’s Moses but my mom never threw me in a reed basket when I was a baby and sent me down the river Jordan, I’m suing Hallmark’s ass.

 
 

I hate to say it, but I’m this close to throwing up my hands and saying it’s Brown’s own fucking fault for insisting his damn book was based on OMG FACTS and getting waaaaaay too many people to think his poorly-written nonsense was historically sound. Yes, there are some legitimate historical threads in the thing, but most of it is bunk, and not even very well-thought-out bunk. I’m all for a good alternate history or imaginative historical novel, but don’t sit there pretending your work is the thriller equivalent of a groundbreaking historical treatise.

That said, this cardinal needs to shut the fuck up, because even a shitty novelist has the right to disrespect religion if he wants.

 
 

A friend at work lent me that book, raving about how great it was and what a page turner and blah blah blah.

That book sucked ass. One useless and boring plot “twist” after another, Dan Brown shoving his beliefs down the reader’s throat every 20 seconds, and “mysteries” that a fucking moron could figure out twenty pages before the protagonists.

“Oooohhhh It was backwards text, I should have held it up to a mirrior!” Real original asshole.

As far as the jesus debate, I think Jesus likely existed , and was a really cool guy, not some semi-god, just manufactured into one by leaders of the day, and misused by hateful spiteful assholes.

 
 

annie, Mary Magdeline was not a prostitute. If you read your Bible you would know that.

 
 

Funny thing this: Have you every noticed that the much more interesting books are the ones that get much less popular notice?

Take DaVC, it is way too popular, considering the quality of writing and material presented.

Whereas Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins is much better. The actual body of Jesus, a secret sect of Assassin Monks sanctioned by the Vatican, a flea circus… Great book! Highly recommended.

 
 

Mary Magdeline was actually (gasp!) unmarried and NOT a virgin!! Then (like now) made her a prostitute. I guess some Christian morals actually didn’t change…

 
 

This shit about respecting people’s beliefs is really starting to frighten me. For fuck’s sake, in Britain the government even tried to pass a law making it a criminal offence to ridicule a relgion. Look, if you think my beliefs are ridiculous, go ahead and say so. I don’t want respect for them. I want debate.

 
 

This shit about respecting people’s beliefs is really starting to frighten me. For fuck’s sake, in Britain the government even tried to pass a law making it a criminal offence to ridicule a relgion. Look, if you think my beliefs are ridiculous, go ahead and say so. I don’t want respect for them. I want debate.

Yeah, the same people who hate “political correctness” are the first ones to cry foul when someone insults their precious Jeebus.

 
 

Jesus Christ, where to start? I really love you peeps.

Ok, Christianity? Look, people don’t have virgin births–it’s impossible. Similarly, snakes don’t talk. This is just another silly mythology, just like Thor and Zeus. But it has acheived a level of inexplicable legitimacy. In europe, it’s dwindling, but here in Imperial America, a harsh, dominating form of religious dogma is ascendent. PLEASE read “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. Quickly!

Dan Brown was a third rate Tom Clancy, writing extremely unlikely “technothrillers” until Davinci came along. Actually, as a writer, I admire him. He knew he was a fairly shitty writer, but he had the courage to try a different genre, and let’s face it, with what? 150 weeks on the NYT Bestseller list and a movie deal, he’s set for life. Gotta tell ya, that’s my goal too. I reckon it doesn’t bother him a whole lot when we call him a crappy hack writer…

mikey

 
 

I read an interview in which some idiot (I forget who) stated that it would take a “real leap of faith” for someone to believe that Jesus married and had children.

And it doesn’t take a real leap of faith to believe that this man called Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead three days later? All this after having been given birth by a virgin?

The only difference between the Bible and the Da Vinci Code is that the former was written a few years earlier.

 
 

Ummm, when did I say Mary Magdeline was a prostitute??

I’d like you to show me, because I know I didn’t say that.

You owe me an apology.

 
 

Wow.. this thread ROCKS!
Celticgirl—is she a new pseudo-troll?
If so, brilliantly done. If not..um, not so brilliant.
There is a moron who lives near me who has similar beliefs—that he is descended via the Knights Templar to the Jews that converted to Christianity in the 1st century A.D.
Yeah, right.
And in a past life I was a boy prostitute at an early Christian temple. Big whoop.

 
 

*watches with interest*

 
 

Marky – Annieangel is actually the resident pseudo-troll here.

CG is a pagan warrior princess. Don’t mess with her.

 
 

Actually, here is the “official” line on Mary Magdalene..
Luke 8:2 “and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmitiesÒ€”Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons”

I’ll leave it up to your imagination just what those seven demons did while in Mary’s body….

Come to think of it, this makes a lot of sense, we know that Jesus preferred hanging out with demons, maybe there is something to this Jesus fucked Mary story after all. I just wonder if she was hot… (or if she was like everyone else at the time, dirty, smelly, unbathed, and hair growing from every naughty place….

 
 

Oh come on…MM was defintely teh hot!

 
 

Ah, thanks Cranky.
Is annie the one that SadlyNO was praising a few weeks ago? If so, I’m very impressed.

 
 

Can we try a Turing test on Gary? I used to get a lot of spam with subject lines that had stolen a few words from my most recent google search or my “copy” reservior or whatever. Gary’s a lot like that.

You know, the Catholic Church may have a point. Having grown up in the Catholic faith, I can say that they do have a tendency to believe stuff just because they’re told to, and a good number of them are, well, not that smart.
This makes them different from many Christians in exactly no ways.

So I can see why the Cardinals are concerned.

 
 

cranky,

Do you remember that green-eyed girl who played Mary, mother of Jesus in the 60’s Jesus of Nazareth (I think it was).. Now she was ur-teh hot!

 
 

I am impressive and I have been praised. Bask in my glory, looser.

Pagangirl is a fluffbunny but we like her. You be nice to her or Jillian wil make us all sit in a circle and listen to her many stories about something very boring. πŸ˜€

 
 

D.

You know who confounds me most? Those people who are otherwise quite intelligent, but they still believe in myths and fairy tales — otherwise known as Christianity.

 
 

AA,
marky did not say YOU were impressive, rather he said that he was impressed that you and the sublect of S,N! a couple of weeks ago are the same person.

You, are, in fact, impressive, just not in any good (or preferred) way…..

 
 

Are you referring to Anne Bancroft (defintely teh hot) in the 1970’s version of the film?

(And, interestingly, my therapist is almost the spitting image of Anne Bancroft.)

 
 

could be, to be honest I haven’t seen it since high school, and that was a long time ago.

 
 

I agree, Jeff-perado.
We should all accept the obvious truth of Islam, right?

I had a conversation with a very nice (really) Palestinian last night who was explaining that cutting the hands from thieves was a really well thought out policy.
Then, when I was pointing out the flaws of relying only on eyewitness testimony to determine guilt in a crime, he said “well, the system is great, it’s just that people misuse use it. You can’t blame the system”.
Yeah, and George Bush is not a true conservative. Real conservatims is just peachy.. uh huh.

 
 

Gack! Sorry – A quick IMDB search reveals that Olivia Hussey played Mary, Mother of God. Anne Bancroft played Mary Magdelene.

 
 

OK, I’ll try the link one more time…here

 
 

You should spend as much time searching for Jesus, cranky.

 
 

The Bible is a work of fiction. It is not meant to be taken literally.

 
 

You should spend as much time searching for Jesus, cranky.

Annie, is there some version of google for Jesus? Google Jesus? ‘Cause I find that searching for Jesus takes a lot more effort than plugging Olivia Hussey into a search engine… but maybe for you, it was different, neh?

 
 

Jesus F. Christ. Are you people still letting “annie angel” hang out? You must be the only blog in cyberspace that hasn’t banned her troll ass. Oh well, whatever. I guess she has to bother someone, otherwise she ceases to exist.

I think Catholics should riot in the streets over this movie. Such sacrelige! And stone Dan Brown and then burn a bunch of stuff too. Perhaps they could start with their pedophile priests, tied to the stake. Yeah, they like that sorta thing, don’t they? Oh waitÒ€”if they did that, there wouldn’t be anyone left to terrorize the Third World into believing they’re going to hell if they use condoms. That would be a real bummer, wouldn’t it?

 
 

Actually, Your Grace, googling “Jesus” takes 0.06 seconds to return search results, while “Olivia Hussey” takes 0.10 seconds.

I’m afraid she’s got us on this one.

 
 

0.06 seconds per soul search cranky? Isn’t there something faster? I mean that’s only like 16 conversions per second. At that rate, it’ll take almost 12 years to save everyone on Earth…

 
 

MzNicky, I think we’re keeping her around as the poster child for Mental Healh Month. By seeing her example, we hope to encourage people to seek screening for signs of mental illness early.

Please, friends and neighbors, don’t wait. Treatement options are improving constantly, and no one neecd suffer aa’s fate, unless they really want to.

Please, think of the children.

As far as The DaVinci Code goes….it sucked back when it was Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so I’m sure it still sucks now.

 
 

You know who confounds me most? Those people who are otherwise quite intelligent, but they still believe in myths and fairy tales — otherwise known as Christianity.

Y’know, I am one of those fallen-away Catholics that still believes in God and whatnot, and I never get tired of hearing about how I would be otherwise intelligent if I would just stop believing that nonsense!

Look, buddy, I don’t give a shit what you do or don’t believe. I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong. Could you maybe extend the same courtesy?

 
 

Markey, annie’s our cute little Christian lady troll. She gets bitchy like this when she’s off her meds.

CG’s in the club here. annie just got by the bouncer, is all.

 
 

Sjofn,
You go right ahead and believe in God, if it makes you happy. That, however does not change the fact that magical, mythical beings do not exist. Believing in such is no different than believing the tooth fairy is real, or peter pan, or thor. And believing that the tooth fairy is real is no sign of intelligence.

Pure and simple.

P.S. Please, go on believing. I won’t stop you.

 
 

Brad loves me. Deal with it!!!!

 
 

AA, does Shoelimpy know about your affair with BradRocket??

 
 

There’s actually a guy kicking around today who claims to be the “official” descendant of the late J.C. Lives in France, of all places. Way the story goes, when Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Mary’s Little Boy, he…well, he screwed him over, slipped off and started a family with Mary Magdelene. Not what you’d call cricket, but hey, when you’re the Messiah, I reckon you can get away with stuff like that.

Funny thing – well, one of the funny things – is the idea that the Swingin’ Nazz was a family man isn’t a new thing,n ot by a long shot. The Knights Templar based their whole deal around the idea, and it’s been a part of scholarly speculation and fiction for quite a while. One of the reasons the Holy Blood, Holy Grail guys lost their lawsuit is because the idea wasn’t new. D.H. Lawrence wrote a story based on the idea. Hell, Parsifal is basically about it.

That’s what really makes this all so…sad, frankly. For one, Leonardo da Vinci was undoubtably one of the smartest crackers to ever stomp the terra, but he had little use for religion in any form and absolutely had no “code” whatsoever. Apart from that, most of Brown’s history in The Code is legit, more or less, but one still has to consider the history of Christianity reads more like the Triumph of Public Relations than any sort of revealed “truth”.

The Council of Nicea has already been mentioned, and Biblical scholars are pretty much agreed that it took at least five different authors to cobble together the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament), which is Genesis, Noah’s Ark and the whole Moses thing…none of which there’s the tiniest shred of archeological evidence.

Then there’s the Apocrypha, the so-called “Lost Books of the Bible”, that were dumped in favor of the 27 books of the New Testament we all know and love. I’m blanking on the cat’s name, but those were chosen solely to cement the idea that salvation led not through works or spiritual advancement, but through subjegation to church authority. My personal favorite of these in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which portrays the Little Jesus as quite the rapscalion, whacking his playmates when they displease him.

On that thought, Anne Rice – the woman who turned vampires from the ultimate evil to foppish whiners – recently found God and is pounding out books that basically boil down to “The Young Adventures of Jesus Christ, Boy Messiah”. And that could be a very funny read indeed.

And then, there’s all the heretical sects that flourished before the Council of Nicea and Constantine put the smackdown on such nonsense. There’s the Marcionists, who thought that sin was non-existent and salvation came via the Serpent in the Garden (i.e., revealed wisdom); the Donatists, who thought all the sunshine Christians who popped up with Constantine were heretics and forced the hand of St. Augustine to basically define Christianity for the rest of history (and thus, the infalibility of the church); the Carpocrates, who thought it was every Christian’s duty to systematically break every single Old Testament law; and my favorite the Circumcellions, who helped others find grace by beating the living shit out of them.

*Whew*…the early history of Christianity is pretty fascinating, especially when you consider that all we “know” about Jesus’nem was decided by committee nearly 300 years after he supposedly lived (remember: not a shred of contemporary historical evidence for the late J.C.’s existence). It’s also interesting to not that the earliest complete Bible – complete as we know it – the Vulgate, was compiled in the 6th Century, riddled with errors and felt the heavy hand of editoral monkeying.

So…right from the start, Christians have been getting it all wrong and sticking their fingers in their ears when someone points that out. So, yeah…this is all nothing new.

 
 

As I am a still-occasionally attending and moderate-to-orthodox on most stuff Catholic, I’m not going to go near the anti-Church stuff and simply state that “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right or wrongness aside”.
But, to the topic at hand:
This kind of stuff from the Vatican makes me sigh on several levels- on the one hand, they are totally overreacting to a so-so book (I admit- I was entertained by it up until the endgame section). On the other though, the request for a disclaimer at the beginning saying “this is based on a work of fiction” isn’t too much to ask considering that there are a lot of stupid people in the world- be they Protestant, Catholic, atheist or anything else- who would smugly come out of the theater believing themselves to be privy to some new “truth” from this film or use pieces of this stuff in debate. Tragic? Sure… but honestly, it will happen even with any disclaimer they might choose to add (if at all).
Of course, I’m still not entirely convinced that this isn’t a publicity thing by the Church to drum up interest because they know that this will stir up interest in early Christianity- They know damn well that publicity equals interest (see: Passion of the Christ).
Only the Curia knows for sure.

 
 

Okay, that was bad sentance progression.
“Only the Curia knows for certain the true nature of this protest.”

There, better.

 
 

Shoelimpy and I are apparently not speaking.

 
 

On religion: meh. I honestly don’t care if you worship the flying spaghetti monster, Gud or nothing at all. I just want the freedom to believe as I do and have discussions about it when I feel like it, not on someone else’s (especially the government’s) wish.

 
 

On the other though, the request for a disclaimer at the beginning saying “this is based on a work of fiction” isn’t too much to ask

Hey, you know where a disclaimer like that would be really useful?

 
 

Religion is completely ridiculous.

But most human beings are ridiculous about something. It’s part of the charm of being human.

The problem is that most people take themselves far, far too seriously to ever admit they’re being ridiculous about anything.

 
 

“there are a lot of stupid people in the world- be they Protestant, Catholic, atheist or anything else- who would smugly come out of the theater believing themselves to be privy to some new “truth”

Sad but true.

I recall back in 1976 (/) or 77, whatever (I’m too lazy to look it up) a co-worker came into work after having seen Star Wars for the 4th or 5th time and after praising the movie as the greatest thing to hit the planet, looked at us a solemnly intoned, “And, you know, the idea of the Force is actually very close to my own personal religious beliefs.”

 
 

“Shoelimpy and I are apparently not speaking”

And who could blame him?

 
 

Most of this thread is proof of the left’s hatred of Christianity.

 
 

What’s the part that’s not?

 
 

Most of this thread is proof of the left’s hatred of Christianity

Hey Gary! I heard you joined the Marines. Good on ya, mate, it’s good to stand up for what you believe in, and sound Christian morals are you.
Speaking of which, have you had a chance to sodomise any detainees yet, or is that only for after you’ve graduated from tearing out their fingernails? I hear Syria’s solitary confinement is beautiful this time of year…

 
 

Yes, because this one small (with all due respect to the mostly-fine operators) niche interest blog is a microcosm of the American left- puh-leeze.
Even Kos is lightyears away from being representative of the Democratic voter demographics.

 
 

Gary: Most of this thread is proof of the left’s hatred of Christianity
GG: Yes, because this one small … blog is a microcosm of the American left- puh-leeze.

I’m not prejudiced against Christians, it’s not true at all. I hate all religions equally.

 
 

I thought you were a furriner anyway, elendil (or am I confusing you with someone else? If so, my bad).

 
 

I read through this whole thread, and the only thing I came away with is that not only is celticgirl a pagan warrior princess, she’s also Jesus. And that is damn cool.

 
 

I thought you were a furriner anyway, elendil (or am I confusing you with someone else?

Wow, I must have been really drunk. I don’t remember admitting that here.

… oh wait, you mean a foreigner. Why yes, I’m an Australian.

 
 

[quote]Most of this thread is proof of the left’s hatred of Christianity. [/quote]

Nah, this thread is mostly proof of how much fun we sane people have in pissing off Gary Ruppert.

 
 

I despise brainless, mean-spirited fanatics of any type. But I save my utter contempt and viciousness for my own co-religionists. You should see the correspondence I had with the Bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry when he dared to intervene in our poltical process regarding the civil marriage debate. I got him so riled up he ended his last e-mail to me with “Take your complaint the Holy Spirit!”

Nice mouth on you, Excellency. Do you kiss your wife with it? No, I guess you don’t…

 
 

You know, oddly enough most of the left *is* Christian.

The liberals I know who are more opposed to Christianity than to any other religion, (and they are not common; most of us are either fond of or unfond of religions generally) were raised as some form of Christians and bear animosity towards that specific sect.

As for myself, I tend to think all religions are kind of silly, including my own, and that a good percentage of all religious people are kind of stupid, including those who follow my own.

Gary, if you’re going to accuse people of kneejerk positions, try not to make it a kneejerk habit.

 
 

[quote]Most of this thread is proof of the left’s hatred of Christianity. [/quote]

Nah, this thread is mostly proof of how much fun we sane people have in pissing off Gary Ruppert.

 
 

not only is celticgirl a pagan warrior princess, she’s also Jesus

Blasphemer! There is only one Warrior Princess, and that is Xena: Warrior Princess (although I agree “pagangirl” is cool).

 
 

Pagangirl is a great example of how a little knowledge is a really funny thing. πŸ˜€

 
 

I can’t wait until they do a movie of Preacher, yet another work of fiction that uses the “Jesus had kids and the vatican is hiding it” angle.

In Preacher the descendant of Jesus is an in-bred retard who ends up getting squashed to death by a 600 pound cardinal who was pushed out of a helicopter.

If they think The DaVinci code was bad, I really want to see them react to that.

 
 

Personally, I think it’s completely plausible that Jesus was married and had children. It would have been expected of him at that time. But we certainly wouldn’t want the good Christians to think that their god fornicated. The shame!

Those people who are otherwise quite intelligent, but they still believe in myths and fairy tales — otherwise known as Christianity.

Bah! Don’t forget the Pagans. We have a lot of really good fairy tales…Oh wait, it’s just the Christians that are stupid. Ok, then, nevermind.

 
 

Hey, christopher, what’s Preacher? a novel? Cool!

“Pagangirl is a great example of how a little knowledge is a really funny thing. :D”

And this (annieangel) is an example of a really fucked up nasty bitch.

I finally figured out who annieangel reminds me of. She’s the Kathy Bates character in “Misery.”

 
 

Hey, pagangirl is nice, I like her! But she is a fluffy by choice, don’t get pissed at me because of it!

 
 

Yeah, especially when there are so many other reasons to hate her!

 
 

A couple of points. Firstly, the Catholic Church trying to sue Dan Brown is completely ridiculous.

That said, to say that “Da Vinci Code is fiction and not meant to be taken literally is not quite true. While the book is obviously a novel, and as such the specific story depicted therein (murder mystery, etc.) is fictional, Brown purports to believe that the stuff about Jesus getting married and all that is true. This material is largely derived from a purportedly non-fiction book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

I’m not sure how one is to judge a novel of this type. A similar example might be LaHaye and Jenkins’s Left Behind trilogy. While LaHaye and Jenkins would obviously admit that the events depicted are fictional, in the sense that they are imaginings of what will happen in the end days, and characters like Rayford Steele aren’t actually real people, they would also say that their book provides a relatively accurate description of what the apocalypse will look like, and is based closely on biblical prophecies. As such, it is perfectly fair to criticize their views as they express them in their novels, as Fred Clark has been doing for the last couple of years. I don’t see why criticizing Brown, whose project is in some ways similar (using a novelistic form to reveal information that is supposedly “true”), is absurd, but criticizing LaHaye and Jenkins is not.

My second point is the constant claim that somehow it was “the Church” that selected the New Testament books, and that this selection was based around the criterion of shoring up the power of the Church. In terms of the Gospels, this is simply completely bogus. There were a lot of Gospels written, but there is no evidence whatsoever that any mainstream Christian (let’s ignore Gnostics here, since Gnostics were never in the mainstream of Christianity) church father accepted anything but what are now the four canonical gospels as, well, canonical. The other gospels were pretty universally rejected, and they were rejected at a time when there was no effective church hierarchy to officially declare things one way or the other. The process of canonization of the New Testament was a long and drawn out one, and was certainly not effected at a single swoop by the Council of Nicea. By the time of the Council of Nicea (that is to say, already by the time of it), I think it was quite clear that the four Gospels, Acts, and the canonical Epistles of Paul (not including Hebrews, iirc) were considered canonical. No other gospels were considered canonical by anyone. Some apocryphal letters of Paul were occasionally recognized, and Hebrews was sometimes called a letter of Paul and sometimes now. There was considerable dispute about the other epistles, especially James and 2 Peter, and some dispute about Revelation. The Apocalypse of Peter was apparently also sometimes considered canonical. Other later works, like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas were also sometimes seen as canonical.

Why these various books were mostly rejected seems to be because they were viewed as not actually by their purported authors. And the same holds true for the many apocryphal gospels, none of which was ever viewed as canonical, that appeared over the course of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

They were, as far as most modern scholars are concerned, right. A few of the apocryphal gospels may be based on early traditions (the sayings gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Peter, which is just a passion account, seem to be the ones with the most support as being independent of the canonical gospels), but there seems to be a fair amount of consensus that the canonical gospels were the earliest written. With the Epistles of Paul, it seems clear that none of the apocryphal ones are by Paul. If anything, the church fathers were too generous, including epistles like 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus that are almost certainly not by Paul, and others like Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, that many scholars are uncertain of.

And the idea that the canonical New Testament presents some kind of uniform picture of the Christian religion is absurd. There’s tons of contradictions and differing emphases.

A final thing is that I genuinely don’t understand the modern attraction to Gnosticism. I’m not a Christian, and I don’t find Christianity terribly appealing as a religion, but it’s infinitely better than Gnosticism, which was the ancient equivalent of Scientology – eternal life can be gained through possessing secret knowledge, secret knowledge that one has to pay for. Early Christianity emphasized that the good news was out there for anyone to discover, even (maybe especially) the lowest of the low, and that all one had to do was believe in Christ to be saved. Gnosticism taught that salvation came through possession of esoteric knowledge that could only be gained by paying a wise teacher to teach it to you. I personally don’t believe in salvation at all, but I find it hard not to find the early orthodox Christian position more attractive than the Gnostic one.

 
 

I just want the rapture to come so those of us left behind can finally have some fun.

 
 

John,

I don’t have the info in front of me, but I think the way it works was Nicea didn’t so much decide the cannon, merely it pretty much formally cannonized what everyone who made decisions on such things were calling cannon anyway. I’ve read that it was in response to splinter groups, such as the Gnostics and Donatists, but more of a politcal nature rather than spiritual. Sorta like the Church’s actions against the Cathars and the Knights Templar a couple centuries later.

And though I don’t think you’re being quite fair comparing Gnosticism with Scientology in such a sweeping manner (which I’ll get to in a bit), the main problem with the modern fascination with Gosticism is that it lumps in a whole lot of relatively unrelated stuff into one massive lump of mystic hoo-hah. I’ve heard guys like John Dee and his peers refered to as “Gnostics”. It reminds me of your modern Pagan thought, picking and chosing various nifty bits while ignoring the ugly stuff, and pretending it’s an ancient school of thought. But it has the added bonus of ties with Christianity and, more specifically, Jesus. Instead of being the stern father figure with unpleasent connections to fundie whackjobs, Jesus is a swingin’ nature boy with super powers. Plus, there’s that whole New Age-y thing of “releasing your inner power”, the God within us all, all on your own and not having to do the whole church thing. Lots of folks dig on spirituality but don’t dig on bureaucracy. Hell, the Theosophists said the late J.C. was a “master”, and certain Buddhists and Hindu sects have claimed him for their own, as well.

Best I can tell, the for-real old school Gnostics were probably healers and teachers, which probably benefitted from a bit of slight-of-handery and secretivness back in them days.

 
 

Speaking of movies that feature a descendent of JEsus in its theme, we have:
Dogma (the bethany character)
And also I believe The Seventh Sign, the retarded murderer on death row was also supposed to be a descendent of Jesus as well.

 
 

I genuinely don’t understand the modern attraction to Gnosticism

Maybe a lot of the people interested in it are recovering Christians? It’s familiar, but its interpretive approach and acknowledgment of the apocryphal nature of the texts is a nice way to get used to not being a fundamentalist. This is modern Gnosticism, of course, which is much more open than what you describe the ancients doing (Sophia bless the Internets).

I personally enjoyed the Gnostic idea that the God of the Old Testament was the half-maker, or what Jesus referred to as “God of this world”. I thought it was a neat explanation for why He was such an arsehole all the time — slaughtering Midianites, raping women — why he was such an egoist, and for why He wrote that ignorant and schizophrenic text. It was through considering this that I figured out who the Author of this misery really was.

You don’t even have to give me $5, I’ll share my gnosis with you free of charge.
(*trumpets*) BEHOLD!! (*trumpets*) His True Name!! … (whispers) … homo sapien

 
 

That Jesus sure got around, especially for a fictional celibate virgin!

On the other hand, it just points out to me that even Jesus gets more action than I do, which is a terribly depressing idea.

 
 

jesus was a jew, jesus was a rabbi (or he’d have been stoned outright for attempting to preach anything, rather than tried by the pharisees). rabbis had to be married back then. people got married at 12 back then. the idea of an unmarried, 30 year old man being taken seriously by anyone of that time is laughable.

secondly jesus was swarthy, “feet the colour of burnt brass”, the earliest depictions of jesus on roman coins show a man with an afro, described as being like lamb’s wool in the bible. the presence of a very dark line of royalty in lily white europe would have been something remarkable. european claimants to jesus’ genealogy should first present some dark european nobility.

in short, jesus ain’t your daddy, unless you’re ethiopian, in which case he still probably isn’t, but there’s a much better chance of that being true.

 
 

disclaimer

assuming he even existed

/disclaimer

 
 

I cannot believe I am getting into this conversation here.

The Gnostics actually were the mainstream of Christianity in the first half of the first century. It wasn’t until after the Jewish rebellion, and the Jewish wars of 66-72AD and the destruction of the Temple in 72 that “traditionalist” Christians began to emerge. These Christians are the ones who formulated the living Jesus of Nazareth who died sometime in the second quarter century (25-50AD). Paul and his contemporaries never ever, once, mentioned a Jesus of Nazareth. They only ever spoke of a “Jesus Christ” who died and was resurrected in another realm (the third heaven — see 2 Cor 12:1-4). Paul was a Gnostic and he told of this incredible knowledge being learned in heaven. This cannot be the story of a human Jesus then, according to Paul, who would have been a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth.

As for the various gospels and epistles floating around at the time. Each church had its own documents (“relics”) that the church leaders used to prove that their teachings were valid. These connected their beliefs to the divine word handed down. It was not until centuries later (as we have discussed here) that some of these were thrown out and others kept. The reasons are varied and complex. but the best way to explain it is that the Church had moved from pagan “mystery” religions, to a literal human religion (thus shedding the deeper mysteries, in favor of only the outer, human stories).

Mark was the first of these, and the most widely known. Matthew and Luke each copied Mark, and added the beliefs of their own people (church) to the story. John, on the other hand, had had a different view of Jesus altogether, and was later spliced with a human Jesus. You can see that clearly when you read John — Jesus is almost a schizophrenic person in John, showing two nearly incompatible sides, a teacher and a redeemer.

All the other gospels written varied widely from this, and that they included things just too increduluous to believe (like the gospel of Peter and his 50ft tall cross) or contradicted the most widely accepted stories, ala gospel of Judas.

Actually when you compare Paul to the Gospels, you see that they differ widely on theology and history. So the Nicea Council had no choice but to include Paul, because he was known to ALL Christians and could not be easily cast aside. This is why you witness the truly bizarre story of the acts of the Apostles. It was the last book written and was written solely to bring PAul into the new fold — that of a human Jesus.

That is a brief synopsis of the backstory of the formulation of the New Testament.

 
 

Okay, serious question: just how stupid do Cardinal Francis Arinze, Opus Dei and all the rest of the schmucks raising this ruckus think the public in general, and Americans in particular, are? Do they honestly believe that everyone is so brainwashed by video games that they can’t distinguish between reality and fantasy unless explicitly told 50,000,000 times in 100 different languages?!

 
 

“feet the colour of burnt brass” … an afro, described as being like lamb’s wool in the bible

Sadly, No. That’d be hair that’s white like wool.

As much as I like the idea, Jesus wasn’t exactly a paragon of racial tolerance. An improvement over the rest of the Bible, true, but then so was Hitler.

But really, who cares. We have brains, we have conscience (well, maybe not Gary, but most of us do), we can make our own minds up. I, for one, whole-heartedly support the idea that the Black race is just as capable as any other race of producing crazy motherfuckers who think they’re the Son of God. Here’s to Equality!

 
 

Speaking of movies that feature a descendent of JEsus in its theme, we have:
Dogma (the bethany character)

Technically, she was only supposed to be his neice – a blood relative, but not a direct descendant.

Of course, it’s not like anybody other than the church cared about Dogma’s plot anyway.

 
 

Wheee! You all have been having fun while I was asleep on the other side of the world!

Elendil: I would NEVER try to usurp the title Warrior Princess from Xena – she totally rules (though from my study I’m quite sure she is based on the Celtic woman warrior Scathac). I like to think of myself more along the lines of Boudicca. Now that girl kicked ASS!

*sigh* As for the whole Jesus bloodline thingie, let me make this clear: I think it’s pretty interesting -unusual even- that people, including my anestors, believed it so strongly that they officially included it in their geneaolgies. And I’m talking from WAY back, at a time when it would have been punishible by death for heresey for doing it. I can’t see where they had anything to gain by it, so why did they do it? I can’t answer. As I said before, I think it’s an interesting curiosity, that’s all. If I ever say “Hey, I’m better than you because I’m related to Jesus” please bitch-slap me. No, seriously.

AA still tries to bait me by calling me a fluffy. Sorry, I’m not going to go there. What I believe is too sacred to share with the likes of you. I’d also appreciate it if you’d stop calling me names. The only thing I’ve ever called you is “troll”, and I think there is a general consensus about that here anyway.

As for great Jesus reads, if you haven’t read “Lamb” by Christopher Moore, you simply haven’t lived. Too. Fucking. Funny.

 
 

Good lit pick, cg (even if you are a heathen, I still like you :wink:). Belief, religious, philosophical or otherwise aside, it’s terribly bad form to lose one’s sense of humor over oneself.

As a “weird geneology thing” aside- I expect I’ve got some Merovingian in me (as I’m from a Bavarian noble family on my dad’s side, I’d say it’s absolutely probable), and they, of course, are the most famous ones attributed to have the bloodline o’ Jesus and Mary in ’em.
Some people, I guess…

 
 

GG: Ah hah! See, admitting that wasn’t so bad, was it? Remember, most of the royal families of Europe intermarried anyways, so yes, there are a lot of “us” out here πŸ˜‰

 
 

They should just embrace my position.

If it isn’t labeled…its fiction.

If its labeled “based on a true story”…its 75-90% fiction.

If its labeled “a true story”…its 50-75% fiction.

If its labeled “a documentary”…its 25-50% fiction.

 
 

GG: Ah hah! See, admitting that wasn’t so bad, was it?

Naturally not- my mix of nationalities is what got me interested in history in the first place πŸ™‚

 
 

They should just embrace my position. If it isn’t labeled… If it’s labeled…

I disagree. I say we just take the disclaimers, the warning labels and the safety labels off everything. Then, with time, the problem of stupid people will sort itself out.

 
 

GG: What’s even funnier is that you and I are probably related!

 
 

Elendil: Fundies say they don’t believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but I wonder if they’re not terrified of Natural Selection for the reason you just cited…

 
 

I’d like to imagine Dan Brown and Umberto Echo having dinner together.

Brown talks and talks, while Umberto smiles and pretends to listen, all the while mentally editing page 345 of his next novel, and contemplating the decollotage of the 23 year old woman at the next table.

At the end of the meal, Dan Brown tells Umburto what an honor it’s been to share thoughts and bread with a worthy colleague. Umberto thanks “Mr Black” for a most thought-provoking evening, while mentally making a note to tell his publisher to never give his number to another author again,and navigating his way to the chick with the hot tits.

 
 

GG: What’s even funnier is that you and I are probably related!

Quite probable… though if I allowed such thoughts to stop me, I’d probably stay celibate for the rest of my life (instead of “lying in wait” as I currently style myself).

 
 

I wonder if they’re not terrified of Natural Selection for the reason you just cited

Doesn’t make much sense to be. I’m pretty sure they go straight to heaven even if they die by stapling themselves in the face multiple times, or setting their own clothes on fire with the iron (“Warning — do not iron clothes while wearing them”. I shit you not, I really saw an iron with that written on it). I don’t recall anything about being too stupid for Jesus.

I often come across fundies who think that evolution (with emotive taglines like “survival of the fittest” and “selfish gene”) means that the biggest selfish bastard wins. I can understand why they’d object that, but I also think that, if you’re going to criticise the theory on those (somewhat spurious, considering it’s a scientific, not a moral, theory) grounds, it might be a good idea catch up on the past 70 years or so of research.

 
 

I don’t recall anything about being too stupid for Jesus.

…and then there’s just too stupid to live (which probably includes the above anyway)…

 
 

“”feet the colour of burnt brass” … an afro, described as being like lamb’s wool in the bible

Sadly, No. That’d be hair that’s white like wool.”

a 30 year old man with white curly hair. at a time when wool wasn’t white, seeing as how they didn’t have modern bleaching techniques to make it white? fair enough.

i won’t bother going into how raw wool is actually brown, or that its texture definately doesn’t resemble arab or european hair in the slightest.

can we at least agree that a man born in the middle east at the time would not have been a blue eyed swede?

it isn’t about being humanitarian or about jesus as some saint or whatever, it’s a matter of what evidence fits best, assuming the biblical discriptions are accurate and of a person who someone actually saw. why would it even matter what colour he was?

 
 

I’m afraid, ridur, the text is quite clear on the color in question: “Caput autem eius et capilli erant candidi tamquam lana alba tamquam nix et oculi eius velut flamma ignis”
Translates to:
“And his head and his hairs were white as white wool and as snow. And his eyes were as a flame of fire”

With that said, this description comes from the vision of John of Patmos, which (if true, as a peon to you non-believers out there) and not a first person viewing or description. I think the “flaming eyes” bit is fair testement to that, no?
Jesus would have had a rather more normal appearance in life, I think it is safe to say.

 
 

ah, latin, the language of the jews. did you know that a shoddy latin translation lead to michaelangelo’s statue of moses having horns? i understand it was supposed to read ‘blazing eyes’.

let’s get away from the bible for a second. Josephus, writing in the first century, around 34AD, describes Jesus as short, dark with an undeveloped beard. the first images of jesus (in europe no less) are of a dark man with tightly curled hair. he is depicted on the obverse of roman coins, with emperor justinian on the other side for contrast, as a broad nosed man with tightly curled hair. no flaming eyes, though that would be kind of cool.

but enough of my paltry evidence. what do you think he looked like and why?

 
 

Dude- like I said, it’s John of Patmos’ description from a vision in Revelation; he wrote in Greek (much more easily translatable to Latin). As it was from a “vision”, then if can hardly be indication of Jesus’ actual appearance.
Jesus would have most certainly been quite Semitic in appearance, as in the examples you note.

 
 

alright, sorry if i misread. a correction though, josephus’ description of jesus is hotly disputed, something i didn’t convey. the coins and other images are not.

 
 

Much of Josephus’ description of early Christianity is disputed in authenticity.
The historiography is so weird saying “it is” or “it isn’t” is unprovable, though to be on the safe side it generally isn’t used as a primary source without qualifacation (at least in the circles I run in- or behind, rather, as a student).

 
 

Remember, most of the royal families of Europe intermarried anyways, so yes, there are a lot of “us” out here πŸ˜‰

Remember that most of the royalty in Europe probably boinked a peasant at one point or another, or even if they didn’t, had loads of insignificant relatives with nothing better to do than make war and boink peasants. So there is some of ‘you’ in each of ‘us’.

And anyways, tracing ancestry from any dude living 2000 years ago to only some few select people living today is silly. Two to the power of 100 generations makes lots of potential cousins out there…

Personally, I’d prefer not to descend from Jesus or any sort of inbred royalty at all, but can’t argue with genetics – anyone who had descendants thousands of years ago, and still has descendants now, will have millions of them.

 
 

Sorry, Brad, but just because DVC is a work of fiction doesn’t mean Brown can’t be sued. You can libel people in fiction. If I wrote a novel with a character in it called, say, “JK Rowling” who was a highly successful female author and addicted to heroin, then the real JK Rowling would be quite entitled to sue me for defamation, and she would win, and if I argued that “it was only a work of fiction!” the judge would laugh in my face.

 
 

“Oooohhhh It was backwards text, I should have held it up to a mirrior!” Real original asshole.

Hmm… I learned that trick reading Encyclopedia Brown. Maybe Encyclopedia’s real first name is Dan?

 
 

Windy: you’re absolutely right, I couldn’t agree with you more (well, except maybe about the inbread part).

But I think you miss my point: why would a prominent family add something like that to their official family documents when discovery of it would have gotten them literally burned at the stake for their trouble? I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to that question. If it wasn’t true, why make it up, considering the risk? Not all of the “royal” families you refer to were major players; mine certainly wasn’t. In fact, by the 1600s they were all but peasants themselves. They had lands named after them in Ireland and a coat of arms, but lost everything else (they were “Cromwelled” – being a Catholic was a dangerous business back in those days.) I suppose they were lucky to get away with their lives. That bloodline, however, was originally from Fance where they also had a minor ancient kingdom that bore their name.

Anyway, you’re right. The nobility did dally much with the peasant class and many illegitimate children were the result. So, if true, there would be literally millions of people that are part of the so-called holy bloodline.

Hell, I’m not saying I’m special, or royal, or holy – I just find the whole thing incredibly interesting. The fact that I’m a pagan just makes the irony ever so delicious…

 
 

And if it’s an Italian “mondo” documentary, it’s 100% fiction. Or 10% fiction with 90% smart-alecky voiceovers making what you see on the screen seem like something else entirely. Example: “This primitive tribe, shut off from the civilized world, sees the statue as a god…” (“primitive” clearly has a wristwatch, cigarette, and transistor radio)

 
Ginger Yellow
 

g: Preacher is a graphic novel (comic if you prefer), written by Garth Ennis and drawn by Steve Dillon. It fucking rocks.

Christoper: the movie adaptation of Preacher has been stuck in pre-production for years, and it’s unlikely to get made while the Christian right are flexing their muscles, and now that the Da Vinci Code has usurped the whole “Catholic Church concealing Christ’s bloodline” plot angle. Given that they had James Marsden lined up for the Jesse Custer role, I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing.

 
 

**Catholic group Opus Dei has told Sony Pictures that putting a disclaimer on the movie stressing it is a work of fiction would be a welcome show of respect toward the Church.**

Don’t fictional movies almost always have such a disclaimer anyway?

 
 

Elendil: Fundies say they don’t believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but I wonder if they’re not terrified of Natural Selection for the reason you just cited…

Unfortunately, whatever selective pressures there may be against stupid are mitigated by the fact that the truly stupid cannot even figure out the wordless schematic that comes on the inside of a box of condoms.

Stupid may not breed true, but it does breed frequently.

 
 

annieangel, rapier-like: Bask in my glory, looser.

I’d rather bask in your glory, tighter. Quick! To the kegel kave!

 
 

Pagangirl is a great example of how a little knowledge is a really funny thing.

And annieangel is a great example of how absolutely no knowledge is hilarious. But not in a good way.

 
 

OK, I really hate do disagree with the whole “Jesus had kids thing”, but I do. Or, I should say, there’s no evidence for it that predates the French hoax of Pierre Plantard. Like someone up above said, how convenient that Jesus sired the crowned heads of Europe!

Now, some royal genealogies do claim a relation to Jesus, but not actual descent.

At least with the Welsh, the earliest genealogical table I’ve found (Harleian MS 3859), the rulers of Gwynedd, Rheged, etc., claimed descent from Beli Mawr, son of Anna, cousin of the Virgin Mary. Of course, it turns out Beli Mawr is probably the Gaulish god Belenus, while Anna is Anu/Danu/Don, the Celtic mother of the gods (though it’s more complicated than that). Of course, the Irish texts claim St. Brigit was wetnurse to Jesus. It doesn’t mean she actually was–it was just an attempt to legitimize the reign of kings, to give them that Biblical edge–which is why the Irish claimed to be descended of Japhet, and why they rewrote their own history (i.e. the Lebor Gabala Erenn) to link it up with the Bible.

Seriously? I don’t care if Jesus had kids, with Mary Magdalen or anyone else. But the “proof” so far offered isn’t proof at all, but a lot of forgeries, 19th century “British-Israelism” nonsense (the idea that the Brits were related to the Lost Tribes), and a whole lot of wishful thinking.

Honestly? Almost no one in academics takes the idea seriously, specifically because the proof offered isn’t proof at all.

As for the Templars, their history is a lot less esoteric and much more political than people realize. Some good history books have been written on the subject, though I recommend looking up the original documents on the Internet Medieval Sourcebook.

Secondly, the Grail stories makes it very clear that the Grail Kings are usually related not to Jesus directly but to Joseph of Arimathea or are descended from King David–not from Jesus himself. The “Vulgate” version (ca. 1210) gives a very silly genealogy for Lancelot and Galahad which is a mishmash of Celtic and Biblical names.

Sorry, but everyone keeps saying to me:
a.) read it! oh, you love the Holy Grail, you should read it!
b.) This book is totally true, you know.

Well, it’s neither. And damn it, when I try to get people to read Foucault’s Pendulum, they say “but that book’s too hard!”

GRRRR.

 
 

See, now I’m curious, celticgirl–how old are the documents? When do they make this claim of descent? And how do they trace this descent? Because I’d like to write a history on the subject–European royalty claiming Biblical lineage–and I want to see how far back this belief goes.

 
Umberto Ecco's Ghost
 

Has anyone read both The Da Vinci Code and Foucault’s Pendulum? If so, is Brown’s book as much a rip-off as it sounds like it is?

Posted by: tigrismus | May 7, 2006 09:05 PM

…si.

 
Nancy in Detroit
 

Whereas Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins is much better.

I’ve not read that one – for some reason I have a hard time finding Tom Robbins in the library. However, I can highly recommend Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates.

Also, remember when The Last Temptation of Christ pissed everyone off?

 
 

Another Roadside Attraction is fine, but for my money, there ain’t no finer Tom Robbins than Jitterbug Perfume and Skinny Legs and All.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Retard-a-Thon.

 
 

Sorry, I meant Retard-a-Theaun.

 
 

Princess Diana was killed once she had played her role as Royal incubator. It’s true, I read it on the net!!!!! See, she was a Sinclair, and everyone knows that’s the Holy line. πŸ˜€

 
 

Mary: I’ll contact you direct at your site…

 
 

Thank you, celticgirl, I appreciate that.

 
 

Jeff-perado – your version of early christian history is one given only by a tiny extremist fringe. Most scholars accept that Paul’s epistles, for instance, are not Gnostic, and that Jesus was a historical personage who “suffered under Pilate.”

Josephus, writing in the first century, around 34AD, describes Jesus as short, dark with an undeveloped beard

Huh? Josephus doesn’t describe Jesus at all. Here’s what Josephus says about Jesus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

It is widely thought that the explicitly Christian parts of this passage were interpolated by a later copyist. Some would say the whole thing was forged. But there is, at any rate, no physical description of Jesus in this passage. Josephus also mentions Jesus’ brother James in a later passage, but again there is no discussion of Jesus’ physical appearance. Also, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 AD, not 34.

 
 

When “The Last Temptation…” came out, the only theater in my area that would play it was the Columbus, which was at that time a porno theater. The local paper had a picture of two nuns with a gaggle of parochial school kids there buying tickets.

And Robbins rocks, even if I have issues with theory that sexual frustration is part of the key to immortality. (And it’s probably the only passing resemblence to Catholic clerical policy you’ll find in his books!)

 
 

“Jeff-perado – your version of early christian history is one given only by a tiny extremist fringe. Most scholars accept that Paul’s epistles, for instance, are not Gnostic, and that Jesus was a historical personage who “suffered under Pilate.”

John, there actually is not one single record of Jesus suffering under Pilate; Josephus aside. The problem is that most of the scholars who study this are Christian. Consider the Jesus Seminar a year years back.

As far as “tiny extremist fringe” goes, they used the information at hand and came to this conclusion. One book on this is “The Jesus Puzzle” by Earl Doherty. After all, being non-Christian and studying Jesus is a “tiny” group indeed. But that does not make it wrong.

 
 

Maybe Encyclopedia’s real first name is Dan? It was Leroy.

Dan Brown writes fluff. There is nothing wrong with that. I like fluff. I like Eco too, but I, for one, have to cut my intellectual reads with fluff like Dan Brown. The fact that the Catholic Church is up in arms about a fluff novel frankly says a lot about the literary mediocrity of their cardinals.

 
 

Christianity is bullshit. So is any other belief system that posits that some invisible dude in the sky runs the universe. Believing in the Sky Fairy makes no more sense than believing in the Tooth Fairy. Sue me, Frank.

 
 

As far as “tiny extremist fringe” goes, they used the information at hand and came to this conclusion. One book on this is “The Jesus Puzzle” by Earl Doherty. After all, being non-Christian and studying Jesus is a “tiny” group indeed. But that does not make it wrong.

The historiography for the “Jesus question” is insufficient to provide a definitive answer either way.
All of the secondary evidence (naturally) supports the “Jesus as Real” side, though the “Jesus not real” faction will generally argue that it is irrelevent, as it was written ostensibly by Christians (Tacitus and Josephus aside) and thus, for certain indivuduals, “bad sources” (never mind that if we discounted everything that was written by a non-objective group or person, we wouldn’t have a whole hell of a lot of anything in history).
Believe He was divine or no, but denying He actually existed is pedantic scholarship with no less of a motive than those Christian historians who believe He existed.

 
 

what do you think he looked like and why?

I imagine that he looked like the standard-issue Jew of those times: olive skin, dark hair and brown eyes. I think that because:
(1) I figure it’s my safest bet,
(2) because none of the scriptures mention anything unusual about his appearance,
(3) because I think it’s unlikely that he would have displayed racism against the syrio-phoenecian woman in a manner typical for Jews of the time if he had been black himself.

Here’s a picture of the coin, btw. It’s from 700AD, and it’s highly stylised. I don’t know anything about Josephus.

Look, I don’t give a fuck what colour he was. I’m an atheist, and typical for atheists, I feel obliged to say something when I see shoddy evidence. I’m simply pointing out to you that, as far as I can tell, you can’t use that Revelation quote to support your theory. If you’ve still got other evidence to support your theory, then good for you. My work here is done.

 
 

And I should add the addendum that I’m not sure on (3). Maybe GuinessGuy will know something about that?

 
 

Well, elendil, my NAB (Catholic Bible) footnotes the passage in question as such:

“Jewish authors sometimes used the term “dogs” of Gentiles to express their scorn of paganism. Because the woman’s subtle response acknowledges her dependance on the God of Israel, whom Jesus represents, He cures her daughter.”
While it may be a racist comment, it is generally taken to be a subtle test on Jesus’ part to ascertain the woman’s level of faith. While He may or may not have healed the child anyway, it would have done Him little good from a PR standpoint to have Canaanites taking him for a (more or less random) folk curist, instead of one who derives his healing directly from the Divine.
Obviously, it’s subject to broad interpretation, though the latter explaination tends to fit more with the character ascribed to Jesus in most of the rest of the Gospels (though the first would be a fairly common Jewish reponse, I expect).

 
 

Thanks for the response. Your observation that “the latter explaination tends to fit more with the character ascribed to Jesus” is a fair one. It is my understanding that Samaritans were a despised minority, and that his use of them in his parable of the good Samaritan was to show that actions are more important than outward appearance, ethnicity and religious dogma.

I only regret that Jesus didn’t the forsight to also make the Samaritan a queer.

 
 

No problem, elendil.
Your observation about the Samaritans in general is quite true- the parable of the “Good Samaritan” was aimed at those (most people) who prejudged them in a poor manner.
And yes, it is unfortunate that a few poorly translated bits of Paul and some very specifically applied laws of the tribes taken out of their context has led to such misplaced hatred.
Those who are afraid will hide behind the most convinient philosophy, religious in nature or not, and bend it to their needs so as to cloak themselves in so-called “legitimate” hate.

 
 

Well there you go, an atheist and a Roman Catholic in agreement. We should save this thread for posterity.

 
 

(comments are closed)