Ok, well this is the first time I have ever started one of these things, so forgive me because I'm new... But I just recently finished reading the DaVinci Code and I was wondering what people thought about it. I personally liked the prequel, Angels and Demons, better.

So basically I want to know what people think about the DaVinci Code and/or Angels and Demons... and what people thought about the religious content in it. For example do you think it misleads readers or if you disagree with anything in it...

So yeah, I think thats about it. Thanks guys!

exactly so in the end we have to agree to disagree

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
Even if Mary and Joseph had children that would not be the bloodline of christ. Christ is God in the form of a man and Mary's genes would play no part in Jesus

And the claim is that Jesus married Mary of Magdalena (or Mary Magdalen) which was when he was 30 or so. That is definently not early in his life. Besides Jesus was not a man and therefore not subject to the same needs as such. He was God in the flesh of man, fully human and fully divine, he came in to the world to save it not propogate his line

I don't believe that he is divine, or that he was married to Mary Magdalene, but I do believe that he was married and that he had children. It all comes down to your beliefs I guess. If you want to believe that Jesus is divine that's your choice, I don't, and I'm not going to try to convince you to believe that either.

Even if Mary and Joseph had children that would not be the bloodline of christ. Christ is God in the form of a man and Mary's genes would play no part in Jesus

And the claim is that Jesus married Mary of Magdalena (or Mary Magdalen) which was when he was 30 or so. That is definently not early in his life. Besides Jesus was not a man and therefore not subject to the same needs as such. He was God in the flesh of man, fully human and fully divine, he came in to the world to save it not propogate his line

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:

quote:

to try and deny that there aren't any descendants of Jesus is also quite stupid.

how so? he was never married and since he was a pure man he never had sex outside of marrige so no children

I seriously doubt that claim, as most jewish men in that time married young, and many historians agree that he probably was married. Also, did he not have brothers and sisters? Didn't Mary and Joseph have more children? If so, their was certainly one of them that married and had children, and the bloodline most likely continues today.

quote:

to try and deny that there aren't any descendants of Jesus is also quite stupid.

how so? he was never married and since he was a pure man he never had sex outside of marrige so no children

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
We don't need the precise DNA of christ we just need the genetic markers for middle easterners, If the Marovingians were descendants of Christ there would be mid-eastern DNA markers.

BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! The guy who did all that research in to Christ and the Marovingians admitted that he made the whole thing up! It was bullshit from the get go!

I'm not saying that the Marovingians are related to Jesus, but trying to claim that they aren't because of DNA tests without another sample to compare it to is ridiculous, and to try and deny that there aren't any descendants of Jesus is also quite stupid.

We don't need the precise DNA of christ we just need the genetic markers for middle easterners, If the Marovingians were descendants of Christ there would be mid-eastern DNA markers.

BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! The guy who did all that research in to Christ and the Marovingians admitted that he made the whole thing up! It was bullshit from the get go!

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
There is no DNA evidence in the Marovingian line which is the supposed bloodline of Christ. In the end it doesn't matter because the guy confessed under oath to faking that whole thing

How the hell are you supposed to prove something with DNA evidence if you don't have the DNA you need to compare it to? That's like trying to prove that someone isn't in the bloodline of some random guy from Africa who lived a million years ago just because he in't African.

There is no DNA evidence in the Marovingian line which is the supposed bloodline of Christ. In the end it doesn't matter because the guy confessed under oath to faking that whole thing

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
we don't need the DNA of Christ to look for it. What we need is Arabian (you are all aware Jesus was not european?) DNA to compare to the Marovingian DNA. If the Marovingians were related to christ they would have middle eastern DNA markers. As it turns out they were just typical europeans. Thus finally proving for those who douted the confession of the guy who made up all this crap.

Of course, because no one from Europe ever had sex with people from the Middle East, nor did they ever set foot there.

we don't need the DNA of Christ to look for it. What we need is Arabian (you are all aware Jesus was not european?) DNA to compare to the Marovingian DNA. If the Marovingians were related to christ they would have middle eastern DNA markers. As it turns out they were just typical europeans. Thus finally proving for those who douted the confession of the guy who made up all this crap.

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
Also recently using genetic sample from a marovingian queen as well as DNA samples from middle eastern families some that also claim a direct conenction to Christ, It was proved that there is no connection between the marovingians and (if there is such a thing) the blood line of Christ.

Yeah, because everyone knows that we have a ton of Jesus' DNA lying around.

Just some more info, Brown is not at fault in the deception of the code the man who faked to Secret Dossiers that much of the info of the priory of scion and the assumption that there is royal bloodline of christ through the Marovingian lines is all fake Pierre something or another admitted under oath that all of that was false. When the decption was still in full swing he (pierre or whatever his name is) presented all this information as fact.

Also recently using genetic sample from a marovingian queen as well as DNA samples from middle eastern families some that also claim a direct conenction to Christ, It was proved that there is no connection between the marovingians and (if there is such a thing) the blood line of Christ.

Yes someone else who understands that the priory did exist just not as stated!

quote:

Originally posted by dancerdoll90:
the organizations, documents, painting etc. are all real.

That's not true, yes the Proiry existed, but not at the times the book sugests. The Priory of Sion was a political group of, correct me if I'm wrong, but i think the 1950s. Brown used a real organization, but turned them into something completly different. Therefore the organization exists only in the name.

i dont see any problem with it, ya, it is fiction, but I would like to see it

okay i know that this has been said before but just to clarify.
Yes, the book is ficticious but the organizations, documents, painting etc. are all real. It comes down to your own beliefs about Jesus Christ as to weather or not you believe it.

Oh yes, thats what I meant, I was just making sure that the Priory was only in one book.

Excuse me for butting in, but what I think is that people need to realise that this book is a great fiction novel. Nothing more. Fiction. It is not real, and don't try to argue, "but its presented as fact" no its not. The big sticker on the side that says "fiction" when you get it from the library proves that