The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Davinci code Spoiler (Don't look unless seen it) (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
Ellen Kotzin
View Profile
Loyal user
UPSTATE, NY
280 Posts

Profile of Ellen Kotzin
Anyone see it...? I found it long and didn;t understand what ian mckellen wanted to do exactly...
expose that Jesus was married or protect it? Also, the cop was connected with the bishop how??
The albino guy--was he protecting the secret and trying to get rid of anything telling it??

I tried to understand the links but even it being slow, I couldn't understand the story line well.

To those who saw it--what did you think??

Ellen
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Ian McKellen wanted to expose the secret, but he worked anonymously with the church under the pretext that he wanted to protect it. The cop was a member of a sub-group within the church, Opus Dei, as was the Bishop. The bishop lied to the cop to get the Hanks character out of his hair. The albino was loyal to the bishop for taking him in after his family (and everyone else) had mistreated him because of his albino-ness, so he was working to guard the secret at the bishop's behest.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Corey Harris
View Profile
Inner circle
Kansas City, MO
1229 Posts

Profile of Corey Harris
I saw it and loved it. But it differs from the book quite a bit. I reccomend reading the book, It is much easier to follow. It also has tons more in it.
Dorian Rhodell
View Profile
Inner circle
San Francisco, CA.
1632 Posts

Profile of Dorian Rhodell
After reading the book and seeing the movie, I found that it's more interesting to read actual theories from some of the world's leading experts on who Mary Magdelene was, where she came from, what her relationship was with the other apostles, etc. Even though they are theories and not proven, for me it's a more interesting read.

Best,

Dorian Rhodell
cardone
View Profile
Special user
855 Posts

Profile of cardone
Ever read" Holy Blood Holy Grail"?,......great read on the subject.....
Cory Gallupe
View Profile
Inner circle
Nova Scotia, Canada
1272 Posts

Profile of Cory Gallupe
To anyone interested in this, I suggest reading the book, THEN watching the movie. It will be a lot easyier to understand. I only read about three chapters in the book, but I will finish it soon. I am starting to do my reasearch. I am also taking a look at the book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" It is a book with a bunch of names of families, kings, queens, relatives, and all sorts of stuff, dating back to Christs time. If mine, and my moms theory is correct, there should be a 50/50 chance that Christ did indeed have a wife, and children. If so, then there WAS at one point a blood line. And, it is very possible there still may be. Like I said, if we are correct, the chances just may very well be 50/50.

There has been church meetings at a church around here, where the priest tells the facts/myths about the Da Vinci Code. People get to ask questions, and he (tries) to answer them. My mom, however, has done tons of research, and she was by far the smartest one there. She was like a lawyer asking him questions, that he simply could not answer. He knew that she was right, but he couldn't say so. Anyway, this is very controversial, and I don't want to get into it in greater detail. I will just leave it as it is. If you want to find out for yourself, do research and lots of it.
-Cory.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3989 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
The DaVinci Code's assertions of historical accuracy with regards to church history and documents are easily refuted, and they have been. It is a work of fiction, and why Dan Brown tried to assert differently is anybody's guess. Same with "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

It was surprising to me that the movie, with Ron Howard directing T-Hank and
I-Mac (maybe they can go into sports after they retire from acting!), really took it on the chin from a lot of critics.

One of the themes I have heard many times re: the movie was that it was hard to follow, at times. Haven't seen the movie yet, myself. After all the hullaballoo regarding the book and movie, it would almost seem anti-climactic!
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Scott Cram
View Profile
Inner circle
2677 Posts

Profile of Scott Cram
What cracks me up is the flurry of news stories and documentaries about the history presented in the Da Vinci code. Many have titles like, "Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?" Let me settle that right now by taking these people to the bookstore and showing them which section the book is in: Fiction.
Daegs
View Profile
Inner circle
USA
4283 Posts

Profile of Daegs
I read the book and I thought the movie was well done.

The only thing I didn't like was Hanks constantly blabbering on about "Well that's just your position and there is no proof", whereas the character is much more accepting of the idea's in the book, and it seemed like they only threw it in there to appease the nuts that get upset over things like that(ie presenting it totally one sided even though its a movie).

I still think that Angels and Demons is a way better book and would make a way better movie... imho Davinci code only gained so much popularity because of the controvesry, angels&demons(read it if you havent) was very similer, and its still the only story line between the two I can actually remember.

When looking at other book->movies, this really was a treat imho.
Donald Dunphy
View Profile
Inner circle
Victoria, BC, Canada
7418 Posts

Profile of Donald Dunphy
Quote:
On 2006-05-22 20:39, themagicman101 wrote:
There has been church meetings at a church around here, where the priest tells the facts/myths about the Da Vinci Code. People get to ask questions, and he (tries) to answer them. My mom, however, has done tons of research, and she was by far the smartest one there. She was like a lawyer asking him questions, that he simply could not answer. He knew that she was right, but he couldn't say so.


Sound like her intent was to embarass and humiliate someone in public, at his own workplace. I see nothing to be proud about in those actions.

- Donald

P.S. I don't claim to be a know-it-all, either. I never passed any walking-on-water classes at the YMCA.
Donald Dunphy is a Victoria Magician, British Columbia, Canada.
Brandon Delgado
View Profile
Loyal user
St. Louis, Missouri
293 Posts

Profile of Brandon Delgado
Quote:
On 2006-05-23 08:33, Daegs wrote:

I still think that Angels and Demons is a way better book and would make a way better movie...


I agree with that one, Daegs. Those ambigrams were crazy, especially the last one. If they ever made it into a movie, though, I don't want to see Tom Hanks as Langdon. I like him as an actor overall, but didn't think he was the right guy to do it, though I'm not sure who would be.

As for The Da Vinci Code, I thought it was a good novel, and I would definitely say read it before seeing the movie—it goes into much more depth (obviously), and everything is tied together very well. It's funny because my wife had commented that someone who hasn't read the book might find the movie a bit confusing. The movie was not bad at all, but it would make much more sense once you have read the book.

Brandon
Ellen Kotzin
View Profile
Loyal user
UPSTATE, NY
280 Posts

Profile of Ellen Kotzin
Thanks for clearing it up!

Ellen
RobertBloor
View Profile
Inner circle
The Socialist Republic of the USA.
1051 Posts

Profile of RobertBloor
Definitely read the book first. I had no trouble following the movie whatsoever.

In fact I think the movie was really well done. Although I always imagined Robert Langdon would have some sort of accent. Don't know why.

The whole thought of Jesus being married and having a bloodline only "challenges" his divinity if our human nature allows it. If indeed he did marry, and had a child, that doesn't change his acts, miracles, and message.

It would only change the stories that man wrote and passed down in The Bible.

To say it is "impossible" for Jesus to have married is imposing our own self-doubt, and limitations on him.

What Jesus "could" or "couldn't" do by our standards is not for me to challenge.

Robert
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence
Donald Dunphy
View Profile
Inner circle
Victoria, BC, Canada
7418 Posts

Profile of Donald Dunphy
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 10:50, RobertBloor wrote:
The whole thought of Jesus being married and having a bloodline only "challenges" his divinity if our human nature allows it. If indeed he did marry, and had a child, that doesn't change his acts, miracles, and message.

It would only change the stories that man wrote and passed down in The Bible.


This brings to mind two thoughts.

If He did marry, that negates his purpose for coming to earth. His primary purpose was to come and die on the cross for man's sin. That was his vision throughout his whole life.

Training his followers was another part of his purpose.

If the Bible has stories that are changed or simply man's interpretation, then the message is that the Bible is flawed (not inspired), and he was only a good teacher, not divine.

He has to be divine in order to die for sins, and have that sacrifice be meaningful.

A website I've heard about, but haven't explored yet: http://www.crusade.org See question #1.

Sorry for my part in allowing this thread to move in a religious topic direction. Maybe it will have to be moved to the gospel magic section of the Café.

- Donald

P.S. A thread, with a link to a Da Vinci code parody film: Funny DaVinci Code Parody.
Donald Dunphy is a Victoria Magician, British Columbia, Canada.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3989 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 10:50, RobertBloor wrote:
The whole thought of Jesus being married and having a bloodline only "challenges" his divinity if our human nature allows it. If indeed he did marry, and had a child, that doesn't change his acts, miracles, and message.

It would only change the stories that man wrote and passed down in The Bible.

To say it is "impossible" for Jesus to have married is imposing our own self-doubt, and limitations on him.

What Jesus "could" or "couldn't" do by our standards is not for me to challenge.

Robert


Of course, we must remember that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate Christ married, and much to indicate that he was not. Then we need to ask the question, "Why is the suggestion that He married and fathered a child being put forward when there is nothing to support it?"
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 16:15, Chessmann wrote:

Of course, we must remember that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate Christ married, and much to indicate that he was not. Then we need to ask the question, "Why is the suggestion that He married and fathered a child being put forward when there is nothing to support it?"



Of course we must also remember that there is not one shred of evidence that Christ ever existed in the first place either. Not that I myself doubt he did as there must have been a pretty dynamic individual to base the various myths and legends around. However there isn't a single piece of primary documentation written in period that mentions the existence of Christ so of course it would be equally impossible to prove that he was married either. It all has to be taken on Faith and faith alone.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3989 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 17:11, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 16:15, Chessmann wrote:

Of course, we must remember that there is not one shred of evidence to indicate Christ married, and much to indicate that he was not. Then we need to ask the question, "Why is the suggestion that He married and fathered a child being put forward when there is nothing to support it?"



Of course we must also remember that there is not one shred of evidence that Christ ever existed in the first place either. Not that I myself doubt he did as there must have been a pretty dynamic individual to base the various myths and legends around. However there isn't a single piece of primary documentation written in period that mentions the existence of Christ so of course it would be equally impossible to prove that he was married either. It all has to be taken on Faith and faith alone.


Payne, there is *plenty* of evidence that Christ existed, as opposed to *no credible evidence* of Christ's marraige and fatherhood.
This is absolutely beyond question - you even mentioned a kind of evidence yourself, strangely enough (the "dynamic individual" evidence).

Other than that, you seem (correct me if I am wrong, as you are the only arbiter of your own beliefs) to equate acceptable evidence for the existence of Christ (at least, other than what you already mentioned above) with only one standard - "primary documentation written in period that mentions the existence of Christ" - the one which isn't available. This is not really surprising, considering the fragile nature of papyri. However, no legitimate historian would say that there is not one shred of evidence that Christ existed. Rather, it could be said that isn't primary documentation written in period that mentions the existence of Christ. But this doesn't really carry much weight.

I could mention the Gospels, written by contemporaries of Christ, as primary documents. In order to eliminate those as evidence, one must make the claim that the authorship is not attributed correctly. There is no basis to do this, however, nor were there efforts amongst the ancient church to question the authorship of the Gospels. The only thing left is to state that the earliest Gospel manuscripts found were dated to after the authors deaths. But again, I am more surprised that we *have* ancient papyri than at not having it.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Donald Dunphy
View Profile
Inner circle
Victoria, BC, Canada
7418 Posts

Profile of Donald Dunphy
Payne -

If you are looking for evidence, seek out Josh McDowell's two books, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" (Volumes I and II). He documents everything very well, including historical evidence.

Of course, other apologetic materials are out there as well.

- Donald
Donald Dunphy is a Victoria Magician, British Columbia, Canada.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2006-05-27 22:01, Donald Dunphy wrote:
Payne -

If you are looking for evidence, seek out Josh McDowell's two books, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" (Volumes I and II). He documents everything very well, including historical evidence.

Of course, other apologetic materials are out there as well.

- Donald


Go here for a comprehensive rebuttal to these books http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
rossmacrae
View Profile
Inner circle
Arlington, Virginia
2442 Posts

Profile of rossmacrae
To everyone who simultaneously (a) believes "creation science" and (b) gets terribly upset that many people give an inexplicable amount of credence to this "Da Vinci Code" nonsense:

THE ONLY FAIR THING TO DO IS 'TEACH THE CONTROVERSY'!

So THERE - how do you like it when that idiotic statement gets thrown back at you?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Davinci code Spoiler (Don't look unless seen it) (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL