S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
I'm not a subscriber to that belief but there are some very big indicators that give the theory legs.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
M
Mr. Laxative
Guest
Yeah, I sort of go with the theory that Jesus was well.... gay!
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
Like what? I've seen documentaries on it before, and most of the "substantial" sources have been proven false.
T
The TRUTH
Guest
I saw the movie last week and thought it was great
It's been well over a year since i had read the book, and from what i can remember, alot of the movie (mainly the first half) was very accurate to how i had envisioned it in my head
It's been well over a year since i had read the book, and from what i can remember, alot of the movie (mainly the first half) was very accurate to how i had envisioned it in my head
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
There are countless books on the matter.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
I'd like your informed opinion...or at least what actually sells the theory to you. I know there are countless books, articles, radio programs, ect. on both sides. What persuades you to abandon your Catholoic upbringing and embrace a heretical presumption? No offense. I just like a good debate. Uhm...ammendment...a good educated debate.
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
It's just not a theory I subscribe to.
I am well aware that the Holy Bible is a carefully selected choice of stories. I would love to get into that library under the Vatican (it does exist) and read the chapters that have never been released. Whether or not these chapters were true or not, I don't know. Are the ones we have today true or not? Again, who can be sure?
I just know I've been brought up to believe in them.
I'm a Catholic but I am quite an open minded one, I won't brand anyone a heretic for having different beliefs or interpretations to me.
I just don't see how the clever scholars didn't secretly get across the message in the bible that Magdoline was special. She's portrayed as a whore. Surely there were more than a few select people who noticed this supposed association between Jebus and Mary Magdoline? Yet only one account has ever been made.
The world is a big place, but surely this final resting place of Magdoline should have been discovered now.
Da Vinci left some good messages, that one being quite strong. But as far as I'm concerned this theory just doesn't have any legs.
I am well aware that the Holy Bible is a carefully selected choice of stories. I would love to get into that library under the Vatican (it does exist) and read the chapters that have never been released. Whether or not these chapters were true or not, I don't know. Are the ones we have today true or not? Again, who can be sure?
I just know I've been brought up to believe in them.
I'm a Catholic but I am quite an open minded one, I won't brand anyone a heretic for having different beliefs or interpretations to me.
I just don't see how the clever scholars didn't secretly get across the message in the bible that Magdoline was special. She's portrayed as a whore. Surely there were more than a few select people who noticed this supposed association between Jebus and Mary Magdoline? Yet only one account has ever been made.
The world is a big place, but surely this final resting place of Magdoline should have been discovered now.
Da Vinci left some good messages, that one being quite strong. But as far as I'm concerned this theory just doesn't have any legs.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
Bravo...well put. Thank you.
While there are loads of other books, the canonization of the bible as we know it (the book selecting bit always atributed to the council of Nicaea) was already sort of done before that point...Heritics and Relgious leaders a like (and I use the word heretic loosly, more from the political point of view) had already settled on various "Testaments" that were being widely dispersed throughout Europe and Asia Minor at the time.
The controversy that really brought everything to light was the splitting of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholics. The EO's believed in a "oneness" of God, whilst the RC's believed in the trinity (3 in 1). This debate was the first time that the definition of Christs divinity was brought about (not that he wasn't viewed as divinity, but atcually defining how he was divinity). Even by the time of the writing of the biblical books the Apostles were confronting heretical writings of gnosticism. So the controversy starts there.
People are all to willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in this story.
Mary Magdeline? The bible is pretty upfront...it is believed that she was the woman by the well, and therefore branded a prostitute. Did she take a special role in Christs life? Yes, her and her sister and her brother (Lazurus...raised from the dead). If anything the eastern culture from which christianity grew from would supress the role of the woman (as most middle-eastern cultures still do), yet the bible is chock full of examples of women taking leadership roles and saving the day. It (the bible) I believe broke the mold on sexist viewpoints.
While there are loads of other books, the canonization of the bible as we know it (the book selecting bit always atributed to the council of Nicaea) was already sort of done before that point...Heritics and Relgious leaders a like (and I use the word heretic loosly, more from the political point of view) had already settled on various "Testaments" that were being widely dispersed throughout Europe and Asia Minor at the time.
The controversy that really brought everything to light was the splitting of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholics. The EO's believed in a "oneness" of God, whilst the RC's believed in the trinity (3 in 1). This debate was the first time that the definition of Christs divinity was brought about (not that he wasn't viewed as divinity, but atcually defining how he was divinity). Even by the time of the writing of the biblical books the Apostles were confronting heretical writings of gnosticism. So the controversy starts there.
People are all to willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in this story.
Mary Magdeline? The bible is pretty upfront...it is believed that she was the woman by the well, and therefore branded a prostitute. Did she take a special role in Christs life? Yes, her and her sister and her brother (Lazurus...raised from the dead). If anything the eastern culture from which christianity grew from would supress the role of the woman (as most middle-eastern cultures still do), yet the bible is chock full of examples of women taking leadership roles and saving the day. It (the bible) I believe broke the mold on sexist viewpoints.
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
You make some fabulous points.
But it is there we become lost in time - just HOW important was Mary Magdeline? I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone sneaks into that vault.
But it is there we become lost in time - just HOW important was Mary Magdeline? I don't suppose we'll ever know unless someone sneaks into that vault.
W
woosaah
Guest
why hasnt anyone tried sneaking in their yet?
before the book (havnt seen the movie yet) i beleived in god/jesus but loosely, i wasnt bought up as anything really.
after the book, it gave me a different view of stuff. some of the stuff in the bible (or what i have heard) i didnt believe. like the adam and eve thing, if god was so perfect and created these guys first then where did the dinosaurs come from? did he stuff up with the dinosaurs throw down a meteorite because he wanted to start again? wouldnt surprise me. anyway i digress...
i never thought of what jesus did. i hear he was a carpenter, was he really? or just a prophet? and a damn lucky *******? who knows.
i am still undecided in what i beleive, i need to have more info on both sides of the story. but i am not going to go out of my way to look for it.
my gf on the other hand is christian, what kind of christian god knows, i dont
some of the stuff she beleives in baffles me, but i still love her. she told me she doesnt beleive in dinosaurs, i said thats cool, but what are the bones of stuff they find? she couldnt give me an answer
before the book (havnt seen the movie yet) i beleived in god/jesus but loosely, i wasnt bought up as anything really.
after the book, it gave me a different view of stuff. some of the stuff in the bible (or what i have heard) i didnt believe. like the adam and eve thing, if god was so perfect and created these guys first then where did the dinosaurs come from? did he stuff up with the dinosaurs throw down a meteorite because he wanted to start again? wouldnt surprise me. anyway i digress...
i never thought of what jesus did. i hear he was a carpenter, was he really? or just a prophet? and a damn lucky *******? who knows.
i am still undecided in what i beleive, i need to have more info on both sides of the story. but i am not going to go out of my way to look for it.
my gf on the other hand is christian, what kind of christian god knows, i dont
some of the stuff she beleives in baffles me, but i still love her. she told me she doesnt beleive in dinosaurs, i said thats cool, but what are the bones of stuff they find? she couldnt give me an answer
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
Dinosaurs existed - fact.
W
woosaah
Guest
yeah but some people are to blind
D
Dumbo
Guest
I'm no expert or anything but taking on board what Rassie said earlier I now firmly believe that the dinosaurs all turned Homosexual Jewish Media moguls, with a preference for screwing their own kids and ended up extinct. :huh:
I could be wrong...
Great Movie (had already read the book), I have a lot more respect for Jesus as he's got a pretty hot looking great great great great great... great great... and more, Grand daughter.
I could be wrong...
Great Movie (had already read the book), I have a lot more respect for Jesus as he's got a pretty hot looking great great great great great... great great... and more, Grand daughter.
R
Rugby_Cymru
Guest
Awesome book.
I find a lot of people have condemned the book because it's so popular. It suffers from what i like to call Man. Utd. syndrome.
But it's a remarkably written book and people love making scathing remarks about its appeal to the lowest common denominator, but what they refuse to accept is just how well Dan Brown is capable of writing tension.
It's not easy to do that in a book.
With a film you have the help of visual setting, music etc. Dan brown has used nothing more than his vocabulary.
Film in my opinion was awful.
Such a let down from the book. If i was Dan Brown i'd be ****** off that there are people out there who have only seen the film and thought, 'I dunno what all the hype is about that book...clearly it's not THAT good.'
My opinion:
Read the book. Avoid the film.
I find a lot of people have condemned the book because it's so popular. It suffers from what i like to call Man. Utd. syndrome.
But it's a remarkably written book and people love making scathing remarks about its appeal to the lowest common denominator, but what they refuse to accept is just how well Dan Brown is capable of writing tension.
It's not easy to do that in a book.
With a film you have the help of visual setting, music etc. Dan brown has used nothing more than his vocabulary.
Film in my opinion was awful.
Such a let down from the book. If i was Dan Brown i'd be ****** off that there are people out there who have only seen the film and thought, 'I dunno what all the hype is about that book...clearly it's not THAT good.'
My opinion:
Read the book. Avoid the film.
G
Gay-Guy
Guest
I finally saw the DVD last night.
As with the book I was not too impressed at all.
The book to me started to lose its suspense and eventually turned into a facts and figures book. Near the end the repetitive onslaught of details slowed the pace down and took away from parts that may be more significant. Also the discovery of what the holy grail was kind of felt a bit dull. It seemed like a childs treasure hunt game compared to other "discovery" movies such as "The Omen" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where each discovery you felt like you too were discovering something amazing as well.
The movie was slightly worse....they did not build the suspense the way you would expect it to have been. The characters did not seem to be big enough as well. Silas in the book seemed more imposing than the actor on film. Other characters also seemed to be lacking conviction in their roles. With each working out of each puzzle they did not make it suspenseful enough or meaningful enough and more importantly..... desperate enough. The cinematography sucked badly. No zoom shots of any significance to highlight suspence...no decent pan shots showing the majesty of the Louvre or Paris. Pathetic use of guns and useless fight scenes....weapons should be shown as what they really are...scary. With all the techniques of modern cinema to draw upon it almost looked like they were keeping to a very small budget.
Maybe it is because I am a fan of quality cinema that I found this disappointing. Also the fact that I have a degree in theology and love quality writing that I found the novel a bit weak in its plot.
I have always thought Dan Brown should be a researcher for one of the better writers rather than be a writer himself.
As with the book I was not too impressed at all.
The book to me started to lose its suspense and eventually turned into a facts and figures book. Near the end the repetitive onslaught of details slowed the pace down and took away from parts that may be more significant. Also the discovery of what the holy grail was kind of felt a bit dull. It seemed like a childs treasure hunt game compared to other "discovery" movies such as "The Omen" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where each discovery you felt like you too were discovering something amazing as well.
The movie was slightly worse....they did not build the suspense the way you would expect it to have been. The characters did not seem to be big enough as well. Silas in the book seemed more imposing than the actor on film. Other characters also seemed to be lacking conviction in their roles. With each working out of each puzzle they did not make it suspenseful enough or meaningful enough and more importantly..... desperate enough. The cinematography sucked badly. No zoom shots of any significance to highlight suspence...no decent pan shots showing the majesty of the Louvre or Paris. Pathetic use of guns and useless fight scenes....weapons should be shown as what they really are...scary. With all the techniques of modern cinema to draw upon it almost looked like they were keeping to a very small budget.
Maybe it is because I am a fan of quality cinema that I found this disappointing. Also the fact that I have a degree in theology and love quality writing that I found the novel a bit weak in its plot.
I have always thought Dan Brown should be a researcher for one of the better writers rather than be a writer himself.
