Members Elliott Damage Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 not terrible, not great. I give it a C+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members seifukusha Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 i went to go see and i got to the theatre and saw it was 3 hours long. i went starbucks instead,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 my wife read the book... i didnt. i was totally lost in the middle. the best part of the movie was when the catholic church banned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Robbert Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by Elliott Damage not terrible, not great. I give it a C+ C+ is pretty bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members StompboxMan Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 The movie is not based on true fact. The Author of the book says some of it is true. I heard those who say his truths are not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members book_of_lies777 Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 it's fiction BASED on fact Check out the book "Holy Blood Holy Grail". I live in Massachusetts, and there's been a different priest on local news every single day talking about how the Di Vinci Code will fade away into obscure pop culture, as if this whole Jesus-Mary Magdelene thing hasn't been going on for the last 2,000 years... due a google search on the Nag Hammadi Library 99.9% of Christians have no idea that Jesus wasn't even considered an earthly manifestation of God until a vote was taken at a council 300-400 years after his death. The word 'messiah' had no mystical connotations at the time of Jesus' life - it simply meant 'king'. He, as a descendant of David, WAS in line for the Jewish leadership. And, since Rome was running the show at the time, they didn't want this young rebel upstart to get things organized... so they had him whacked. Trust me - this is nothing new - the Church WAS the State, and so if you crossed the Church, you were committing treason to the King as well - good way to keep the peons in line, wouldn't you say? There is some truth to ALL religions - it's the lies & oppression that the Catholic Church has engaged in for so long that has resulted in millions of deaths. It's all about POWER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluez4u Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 jesus was actually clark kent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ThomasH Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall jesus was actually clark kent. No, stupid. Clark Kent never actually existed. He was just Superman's alter ego. Sheez! Some people have no sense of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 There's an old saying about how the winners write (or re-writer) history. It's been done since the beginning of time. We'll know the truth when we finally invent time machines that can go back and see what really happened. I'm sure 20 years from now the Republicans will re-write history and say that W Bush was one of the best Presidents of all time just like they're trying to do with Reagan (who really is one of the WORSE of all time after Nixon and W Bush). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beezdeez Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 I heard the Jesus and Mary Chain did the soundtrack. How was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nico de Roode Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Some people say the bible is based on facts, and is the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gorebuc Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 I saw it...it was fun, but nothing extraordinary. Just a new extension of the Grail legend. As far as its concepts being fact, there is no way anyone knows for sure. Histories and biographies written before the Enlightenment were not that concerned with absolute fact. The writers had a purpose; none of the Gospels can be trusted as being the historic "truth," so to speak. That said, we post-Enlightenment Westerners are also concerned with using the scientific method as evidence to support our faith. Its called "apologetics," and, as a professing Christian, I find it to be, as it is used today, totally useless. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, not because it is backed up by imperical evidence, but because it, as it is today, is beautifully congruent for a text that combines works written over thousands of years. Such order can only be divinely inspired; whether it was manipulated by the church or not doesn't matter... Its about faith in something above humanity, that was the final point of the movie anyway, not to prove the presented theory. I'm glad the Bible is what it is, rather than something that can be totally proved through reasoning. As Aristotle said, "Poetry is greater than history..." Well, thats that...don't know why I posted it, but I enjoyed the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KBN Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by Kestral There's an old saying about how the winners write (or re-writer) history. It's been done since the beginning of time. We'll know the truth when we finally invent time machines that can go back and see what really happened.I'm sure 20 years from now the Republicans will re-write history and say that W Bush was one of the best Presidents of all time just like they're trying to do with Reagan (who really is one of the WORSE of all time after Nixon and W Bush). Thank you Canada! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ultra.Fuzz Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by Elliott Damage not terrible, not great. I give it a C+ So it is just like the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeremy Skrenes Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 I haven't seen it yet, but what I find kind of disconcerting is that people get killed and put themselves in harm's way in a battle to either expose or cover up some sort of truth, and at the end one of the lines is "what's important is what YOU believe." It just doesn't make sense that people would go to such extent to support subjectivity. I'm not saying that either side in the movie, or in real life, is right, I'm just saying that when people go to such lengths they usually do so for something outside of, or beyond themselves. That's the part I find the least palatable. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by blackmoreisgod it's fiction BASED on fact. Sure, some of the film is based on fact. There really IS a city called Paris in France, and people really DO die if you shoot them. Most of the organisations involved (Opus Dei, The Knights Templar, the Catholic church, the french Police) DO or did exist, but don't necessarily believe in what Dan Brown says, haven't been involved in the events he suggests, etc. Originally posted by blackmoreisgod 99.9% of Christians have no idea that Jesus wasn't even considered an earthly manifestation of God until a vote was taken at a council 300-400 years after his death. Not true. A friend of mine who is an Oxford theology graduate, told me that the section of the film concerning Constantine (who DID exist) and the Council of Nicea (which DID take place) is pure fabrication. Yes, Church leaders met, but they did not decide Christ's immortality by a vote, it was already agreed on. The council was concerned with a little-held belief that Jesus was a separate deity, not God's earthly manifestation, which was what the majority of the church already believed. All the accepted gospels predate this event, and clearly show Jesus resurrection, document his claims that he would rise from the dead and rule in heaven etc. and state that at the time of Jesus baptism, Yes, there is mention of several "gospels" which differ from those in the Bible, but 2000 years worth of bible scholars have declined to accept these as genuine. Why do they exist? Well, consider how much Star Wars fan literature exists, featuring alternative plot-lines, characters and events to what George Lucas intended, and that's only been around for 30 years. Is Jerry Springer- The Opera or South Park going to be included in he Bible now because it features Jesus? Originally posted by blackmoreisgod The word 'messiah' had no mystical connotations at the time of Jesus' life - it simply meant 'king'. He, as a descendant of David, WAS in line for the Jewish leadership. And, since Rome was running the show at the time, they didn't want this young rebel upstart to get things organized... so they had him whacked. Literally translated, "Messiah" may mean simply "king", but it wasn't purely the use of the word that got the authorities upset. Jesus refers to himself as the fulfilment of various Old Testament prophecies regarding the Son of God and the salvation of mankind, and it was THIS that so offended the religious and political establishment. Jesus himself said that his Kingdom was not in this world, hence not Israel. I can only hope the book is a little clearer in explaining the theories behind the story, because I was utterly confused by the time the movie was halfway through.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fernmeister Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 well unless the censors change their mind, I won't be seeig it till i leave india. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eddie Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by english_bob Yes, there is mention of several "gospels" which differ from those in the Bible, but 2000 years worth of bible scholars have declined to accept these as genuine. Why do they exist? Well, consider how much Star Wars fan literature exists, featuring alternative plot-lines, characters and events to what George Lucas intended, and that's only been around for 30 years. Is Jerry Springer- The Opera or South Park going to be included in he Bible now because it features Jesus? Actually, it's not 2000 years worth of bible scholars...AFAIK, some of the other gospels (e.g., Thomas, Mary, Judas) have been discovered within the last centuries (or century). I doubt we'll get a true picture of the story as it occurred 2000 years ago, but new evidence and scientific study can shed some light IMO. Still, religion is an act of faith, not of scientific knowledge. I do like the more scientific approach to clarify history and to try to get as close to the source as possible. By the way, I did not read the Da Vinci Code and don't intend to. I may see the movie. It is indeed a fictional story, and the historical facts are not accurate. For example, the Priory of Sion did not exist at the time of Leonardo's life. It is a 20th Century hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 There was a curious book [set] published around 1908, limited edition of 500 copies, titled "Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World". It was written by one of the worlds top Egyptolgists at the time. The last 2 books [there were 14 books in all I believe] dealt with the "Jesus Myth" and traces it back to the Egyptian Isis, Horus and Osiris myths from around 9,000 BCE. Israeli archeologists who have looked say they've found no evidence of the christian "Jesus" or "Joseph" but have found lots of Jesus and Josephs since those were the 2 most popular names at that time. The previous post about the Council of Nice circa 325 CE is valid in that it was during that meeting that the church fathers "voted" on which set of dogma they would adopt and put an end to the Aryan schism. While Arius lost history holds that what he was supporting was actually what the original church was based on, but those are details easily buried from view of the vulgar. The cross is one of the oldest symbols extant and it wasn't until around 1400 CE that the church of rome started hanging dead bodies from it. Once you start doing some serious due diligence, this whole "Jesus" thing comes up wanting, to say the least, but I do love that Dubya maintains this figment of imagination is his most highly respected philosopher. I've read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and while some of their theories have some merit, the proposition of a mythical character being married and having babies exists, I submit, in the realm of mythical fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members murtaghstyle Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 They did butcher the book a little bit. I didn't like that. Movie was Ok I guess. I liked Angels and Deamons better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluez4u Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Any nudity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 Originally posted by ThomasH No, stupid. Clark Kent never actually existed. He was just Superman's alter ego. Sheez! Some people have no sense of history. was all just rumors and untruths used to sell comic books. Clark kent was real. Lex Luthor needed a nemesis... didnt you see it in that movie with bruce willis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ultra.Fuzz Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 I think the good thing about this book/movie is that it can make people think a bit. It is contraditory, a lot of things are just made up, but that's to be expected from a book that sells like this one did/does. The bad part is that we have a lot of "church anger", which is just people that actually don't care about "the truth" telling the "blind" ones to protest. I don't really have a problem with principles and doctrines 'cause they're often very good, "peace oriented", "healthy" things. Taboos and dogmas make me wanna go though. Religion is all about principles, doctrines, taboos and dogmas... It's just a human thing after all... Thankfully "God" is above all the bad stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted May 21, 2006 Members Share Posted May 21, 2006 here's my review: it's a perfectly good waste of one Audrey Tatou disclaimer: i have not seen the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.