- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Last night I watched Da Vinci code. The movie’s theory is that Mary Magdalena was a woman of royal blood, who got pregnant (by Jesus) and her child (Sarah) was the reason why the church persecuted so many women: to maintain Jesus’ sanctity intact. The location of Magdalena’s tomb has been a well kept secret to prevent people from doing DNA tests, thus compromising and endangering the actual Jesus and Magdalene’s descendant.
Of course, this triggered a series of arguments amongst the women in my family; therefore we managed to assemble 3 hypothetical situations that could rebut the movie’s theory:
Magdalene – It is said that she was a sex trader. Jesus not only forgave her sins but also excised 7 demons from her body. She washed Jesus’ feet, kissed them and dried them with her own hair (this was viewed by a man as a seduction scene, and the root of the many speculations going around). Magdalene joined the group (ceasing therefore her wench ways).
Now, how can we know that the child she bore was Jesus’? In order to silent the man who opposed her washing Christ’s feet, she could’ve seduced him; and unintentionally gotten pregnant.
Madeleine – it is said that she knew how to read and write. If so, she couldn’t have been a simple wench, cause at that time women didn’t have access to education (unless they were either born into a royal/rich family or they were courtesans – yes, some rich men when purchasing the services of a sex entertainer, often, like to discuss intellectual matters with them, first). For now, let’s consider that Madeleine was a courtesan. She came across Jesus’ way; he liked her for she had knowledge and quickly understood his message. He was the only man who acknowledged her intellect, and valued her opinion; not as foreplay, but out of respect for an intellectual fellow: she washed his feet, massaged them; and as she did it, her hair brushed against Christ’s feet…she perfumed and kissed them, as a token of appreciation. Certainly, a man with a dirty mind perceived this as sexual and tried to cast her out of the group. To buy his alliance, she seduced him, resulting in a pregnancy.
Magdala – she was of royal blood (although not from the house of David). She was highly intelligent and cultivated. She spoke her mind; she expressed the wish of addressing the wise men in the synagogue; she defended women’s rights…in summa: she was a public enemy (kindly labelled as “The sinner”).
She met Jesus, who immediately sympathised with her, and invited her to keep society with him for he enjoyed her viewpoints: he saw her as an equal. This triggered a tacit jealousy among the disciples, who started plotting against her. During a meal, Jesus observed his followers and saw their plot; then leaning over to Magdala he whispered:
- “Come and wash my feet! We must confer!”
They rose and moved into a corner so that Magdala could wash his feet…everybody watched them…
- Magda, men are conspiring against you. [She’s about to retort] speak not! Listen only! It’s time for you to be wise: you are intelligent; pretend you’re light on knowledge! You’re strong; pretend you’re prone to tears! You’re cold; act as you are sensitive to wrong! You wear flashy garments; try to follow the rule of modesty! You expressed the wish to wear Tefillin; admit you were wrong to wish for this! You speak your mind; act as if you had no opinion! You’re dating 3 Princes of the same house…3 princes, Magdala…select one that doesn’t kiss and tell [by now her hair is brushing against his feet, as she perfumes and kisses them]! At the end of this we’ll rise; Judas will make a malicious comment, you will silence and rumour will be that I’ve excised 7 demons from you [Magdala wants to reply, but he interrupts her]…you see, you’re like me: we’re both ahead of our times! Yet your destiny differs from mine…
Based on the 3 Maries, Magdalena could’ve gotten pregnant by any other man, or she couldn’t have gotten pregnant at all. But if so, nothing guarantees us that the father was Jesus. The movie suggested DNA tests: what an absurd. Even if they could do them it would only prove that the child was Magdalena’s, and never Jesus’ (1st because he was conceived by parthenogenesis – i.e. Holy Spirit – and 2nd because there are no remains to compare DNA with). And even if they would test the tribe of Judah, in Israel, it would only suggest that she could, or not, have gotten pregnant by any other Israeli.
Of course, this triggered a series of arguments amongst the women in my family; therefore we managed to assemble 3 hypothetical situations that could rebut the movie’s theory:
Magdalene – It is said that she was a sex trader. Jesus not only forgave her sins but also excised 7 demons from her body. She washed Jesus’ feet, kissed them and dried them with her own hair (this was viewed by a man as a seduction scene, and the root of the many speculations going around). Magdalene joined the group (ceasing therefore her wench ways).
Now, how can we know that the child she bore was Jesus’? In order to silent the man who opposed her washing Christ’s feet, she could’ve seduced him; and unintentionally gotten pregnant.
Madeleine – it is said that she knew how to read and write. If so, she couldn’t have been a simple wench, cause at that time women didn’t have access to education (unless they were either born into a royal/rich family or they were courtesans – yes, some rich men when purchasing the services of a sex entertainer, often, like to discuss intellectual matters with them, first). For now, let’s consider that Madeleine was a courtesan. She came across Jesus’ way; he liked her for she had knowledge and quickly understood his message. He was the only man who acknowledged her intellect, and valued her opinion; not as foreplay, but out of respect for an intellectual fellow: she washed his feet, massaged them; and as she did it, her hair brushed against Christ’s feet…she perfumed and kissed them, as a token of appreciation. Certainly, a man with a dirty mind perceived this as sexual and tried to cast her out of the group. To buy his alliance, she seduced him, resulting in a pregnancy.
Magdala – she was of royal blood (although not from the house of David). She was highly intelligent and cultivated. She spoke her mind; she expressed the wish of addressing the wise men in the synagogue; she defended women’s rights…in summa: she was a public enemy (kindly labelled as “The sinner”).
She met Jesus, who immediately sympathised with her, and invited her to keep society with him for he enjoyed her viewpoints: he saw her as an equal. This triggered a tacit jealousy among the disciples, who started plotting against her. During a meal, Jesus observed his followers and saw their plot; then leaning over to Magdala he whispered:
- “Come and wash my feet! We must confer!”
They rose and moved into a corner so that Magdala could wash his feet…everybody watched them…
- Magda, men are conspiring against you. [She’s about to retort] speak not! Listen only! It’s time for you to be wise: you are intelligent; pretend you’re light on knowledge! You’re strong; pretend you’re prone to tears! You’re cold; act as you are sensitive to wrong! You wear flashy garments; try to follow the rule of modesty! You expressed the wish to wear Tefillin; admit you were wrong to wish for this! You speak your mind; act as if you had no opinion! You’re dating 3 Princes of the same house…3 princes, Magdala…select one that doesn’t kiss and tell [by now her hair is brushing against his feet, as she perfumes and kisses them]! At the end of this we’ll rise; Judas will make a malicious comment, you will silence and rumour will be that I’ve excised 7 demons from you [Magdala wants to reply, but he interrupts her]…you see, you’re like me: we’re both ahead of our times! Yet your destiny differs from mine…
Based on the 3 Maries, Magdalena could’ve gotten pregnant by any other man, or she couldn’t have gotten pregnant at all. But if so, nothing guarantees us that the father was Jesus. The movie suggested DNA tests: what an absurd. Even if they could do them it would only prove that the child was Magdalena’s, and never Jesus’ (1st because he was conceived by parthenogenesis – i.e. Holy Spirit – and 2nd because there are no remains to compare DNA with). And even if they would test the tribe of Judah, in Israel, it would only suggest that she could, or not, have gotten pregnant by any other Israeli.
Comments
Post a Comment
Dissecting Society™ welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers
I like your deductions. I thought The Da Vinci Code was awful. It was nothing more the fiction of the writer and bad filmmaking.
ReplyDeleteEvery time Hollywood gets involved in religion, it fills in the blanks with specious claims, speculation and false premises. Controversy sells. Sex sells. Controversy AND sex sells through the roof (or in this case, the Cathedral ceiling.)
The film and book were hyped so much that I wanted to see what the hoopla was about. I came to find out that it was much ado about nothing. I was so bored with it that I turned it off half way through. I don't know what was worse, Tom Hanks' acting or the actual story (or lack thereof). Also director Ron Howard has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills, like he did with A Beautiful Mind, which was later renamed "The Beautiful Lie" in some circles.
The best thing about 'Da Vinci...' is that some scenes were shot in The Louvre. I would have preferred a virtual tour of that rather than sit through 148 excruciating minutes of a horrendous film. It was all smoke and mirrors, no style
substance or veracity.
I'm tired. I started at the Portuguese version of the post thinking : what the...? before I finally clicked on the English one. Oh well. :D
ReplyDeleteI didn't get the Da Vinci code that well to be honest... I lack the religious background. To me, it was just like "oh yeah, really"? But I can't take sides.
I tagged you with a meme if you get a chance... ;) : the bag
Hi Max;
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to sink into here, thanks this is fun….
I have read the Da Vinci Code twice (once when it first came out and was not well known, I had previously read the book before it “Angels and Demons”). I have it on unabridged audio book (listened to twice) and have seen the movie twice. The book is more entertaining than the movie but it also has more deceptions and inaccuracies than the movie).
First as I am sure you know the Scriptures and all of the earliest documents and witnesses of the time say nothing of a marriage of Jesus or sexual union of Jesus with Mary or any other person (that includes hostile witnesses such as Jewish and pagan sources). Almost 200 years after Jesus the Gnostics started writing their strange stories to support their religious beliefs (these were written far later than the Biblical documents).
There are 6 Miriam’s also translated as Mary’s (both translations are acceptable) in the Bible:
1) Mary the mother of Jesus
2) Mary Magdalene, a women from Magdala
3) Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha
4) Mary of Cleophas the mother of James the less
5) Mary the mother of John Mark, a sister of Barnabas
6) Mary, a Roman Christian who is greeted by Paul in Rom. 16:6
It was a common name in that part of the world at that time.
Your first Miriam, “Magdalene”:
There is absolutely no Biblical or early extra-Biblical evidence that Mary of Magdala (typically referred to as Mary Magdalene) was a prostitute, zero, none.
The information you describe about her and Jesus in regards to the scene of washing Jesus feet is NOT Mary of Magdala there is no Biblical source that would support that supposition (or early non-Biblical source). Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha does something similar to this in John 12:1-3 in her home in Bethany at a very different period of time. Both Mary’s are always given their descriptors, as people did not have last names they were described in other ways, Mary of Magdalene is always described as such, and the Mary related to Martha and Lazarus is always identified in that manner.
Luke 7:36-48 describes the incident you are probably referring to. It took place in Capernaum, in the home of a Pharisee named Simon, it gives no name of the woman (it is clearly not Mary sister of Lazarus and Martha, they lived in Bethany quite a ways away, and as she was familiar her name would have been given as it would have been for any of the Mary’s, also as I said earlier her incident would have been at a far later period of time and is described differently, for example it took place in their family home). This woman is called “woman” “she” and “her” her name is never mentioned.
We are told of Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9 that when:
Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. (NIV) Luke 8:2 supports this with the same information.
Your second Miriam “Madeleine”:
Has all of the earlier flaws with added unsubstantiated conjecture. There is nothing about
Mary Magdalene in Scripture or early manuscripts that says anything at all about her being a courtesan or educated, it is never even implied. Magdela was a fishing village on the west side of Lake Galilee, with no wealth or political clout.
Your third Miriam “Magdala”:
Alas this Mary is nothing more than your imagination just like the others...
…now is where I may surprise you…Jesus would have “hung out” with all of these women, Scripture is clear that Jesus never sinned, having sex with Mary would have been a sin as Jesus was never married. Jesus being married and having kid’s poses no problems at all if it was true and there would be no need to “cover it up”. This would cause NO theological problems…the Da Vinci Code has no teeth.
The fact that Jesus when resurrecting Himself chose to show Himself to Mary shows how highly he respects women…and adherence which Mary was along with the other ladies that where there at the tomb with her.
Your summation paragraph allocates the problems with all of this…of course there is no body of Jesus as He was physically resurrected.
The rest of the Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code (I prefer the Da Vinci Cod since it has a stinking rotting fish smell to it) is complete fabrication but his approach is VERY different from yours Max (congrats on the creativity by the way) you see you didn’t start off your article by saying:
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”. This is what Brown says at the start of the book, and this is what got people upset. The documents he speaks of are fabrications and the arguments he brings up are bankrupt to any who have taken the time and energy to look at them. Brown decimates history to tell his story which is fine as it is a novel and he doesn’t claim his fictitious concepts about Constantine and the collecting of the Biblical text etc are accurate. His ideas are so ridiculous and flawed that they can’t even be half heartedly taken seriously.
By the way his treatment of the Roman Catholic church is also unfair and extremely inaccurate, and I am NOT a Roman Catholic.
Your article was entertaining and fascinating to analyze, thanks for the opportunity.
Alexys,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: thank you :)!
Second: I totally agree with you...Da Vinci Code is the worse movie I have ever watched in my life.
It reminded me of "the Mists of Avalon", great books terrible movie *nodding*.
Controversy sells, no doubt, but this movie had so many inaccuracies that it shocked me that people actually made so much fuss over it.
"I was so bored with it that I turned it off half way through." - LOL LOL LOL I hear you lol.
Tom Hank just performed his role. The story (or rather lack of it, as you said) was absurd: since the definition of the Graal to Magdalena giving birth in France; since the crusades rescuing Magdalena to wanting to perform DNA tests lol *nodding*!
"A beautiful mind", yes I watched that one as well...interesting movie, however Russel Crowe was very good on that one (well, he is an excellent actor). If Da Vinci code was as half as "A beautiful mind" I would have felt that I had lost my precious time watching it.
Horrendus film, indeed...I am with you, girl! "It was all smoke and mirrors, no style substance or veracity." - absolutely, and full of inaccuracies too....
Thanks for giving me the chance to do a catharsis here...I needed it lol :).
Cheers
Zhu,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time for reading this article :).
I totally get you, girl...but since I am a fan of religious themes, I was absolutely bouleversée quand j'ai regardé ce flic la *nodding*. I had never encountered so many silly things in one single movie...
I would like to understand why the film generated so much fuss around the world (you wouldn't believe the debates that resulted from it, here in Portugal), and after watching it I still didn't understand why it did *nodding*.
I hope you get a rest, Zhu *tender face*!
Cheers
Btw Zhu,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tag... :-D! I am on my way to your blog *rising from my chair, and walking* lol...
Cheers
LS,
ReplyDeleteYou are most welcome, and I am glad you had fun lol.
All I can tell you is that I agree with Alexys: the movie sucked! It had so many inaccuracies that it hurt like a punch in the stomach *nodding*! And now you say that the book is even worse? I have to read that book, just to refute it lol....
Yes, of course I know that the scriptures do not even suggest such a marriage, let alone sexual intercourse between Magdalena and Jesus.
Thank you for sharing the description of the several Maries (did you know that Maria in latin means the seas?) *bowing*.
I know that her name is not intimately related with prostitution (in the scripture), but that's what the church and evangelicals teach people on this side of the world. As growing up, I always heard people saying that Madalena was a prostitute, and my mom was the only one saying that she was Jesus' best friend (and mind you, my mom is Roman Catholic). I have noticed that your biblical sources differ from the bibles in Portuguese, which doesn't surprise me: Portuguese translators are very creative.
Since the first three books mention that a woman, a sinner (and we know what it means when men call a woman a sinner), washes Jesus' feet I used it in a creative form to defend my point (that she could not have been pregnant by him). And since it is taught that Madalena is a sinner (a prostitute, probably a rumour transmitted orally) it created the perfect ambience for my little tale.
If you read Dan Brown's book and watched his movie twice (how brave of you), you might as well read my article more often: I guarantee you that it makes more sense than his story lol.
I focused on Mary of Magdala, since she's the one was seen as a sinner, and being possessed by 7 demons (which I can also imagine what those demons were).
LS, you take things too seriously...this was a tale to rebut the movie which is full of unsubstantiated conjecture, and inaccuracies. I do not claim to have PHD in religious matters (and believe me, that is not my mission).
Look at the beauty of the text, at its artful structure, and set aside religion for one moment. I did not attack Jesus (I never do), and I did not offend Madalena (au contraire, I am implying that she was more than what Christian religious men often transmit to people).
About the scripture: not everything is written in it. Feelings are not described in it, people's thoughts are not written in it. Only events...and the ones that were witnessed by its authors.
Magdalena's behaviour and fame is not there; but that doesn't stop people from having spreaded it by mouth. Even the Torah is divided in two: the writen one, and the oral one. So we might consider that there is an oral report of events concerning Miriam of Magdala.
Not everything is about the scripture; and you know it.
I read a French text that says that she was the daughter of Syrus le Yaïrite and Eucharie (from the Israeli royal lineage, although not from the house of David), thus royal. Who can guarantee me that she was not educated? Once again it is not written in the scripture because it was of no interest to its authors.
The image of a cortesan is better than the image of a prostitute (check this link, where it is explained why she was seen as one althought not written in the gospels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene).
I agree: performing miracles doesn't exclude marriage and kids.
Da Vinci Code suggests that the church made him more sanctified than he really was, and that is why it tried to cover it up...of course this is an absurd.
"(I prefer the Da Vinci Cod since it has a stinking rotting fish smell to it)" - LOL LOL LOL this was a good one.
I would never say that my words are accurate or that they are the truth because they may well not be. I am just writing about my personal thoughts and sharing them with people in general.
Dan Brown's code is disappointing, in a way that it made me think that he only wrote it to make some bucks. Even novels have to bear some kind of logical thinking. When he included the crusades in the same era as Madalena's, it just killed me...unless they have been teaching a different history in North America (in Europe we learn that the crusade period was between 1095-1291)...anything is possible.
"By the way his treatment of the Roman Catholic church is also unfair and extremely inaccurate," - well...I agree with you if you're referring to the reason why they persecuted so many women...and maybe the fabrication of Jesus' story. But the choice of which scriptures to include in the bible...that must have a foundation...
Thanks for your comment, LS, it was fun reading it :).
Cheers
Hi Max;
ReplyDeleteI actually find Browns writing to be interesting stylistically, but he does butcher history and any accurate understanding of Scripture, and he clearly has a hate on for the Roman Catholic organization. I’m not a Tom Hanks fan but thought he was pretty good in Castaway and Apollo 13.
I am aware that the Roman Catholics have been teaching for many years that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute but I have never heard such a thing from any protestant. This being said it doesn’t bother me if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute (Jesus is a friend of prostitutes) I am simply bringing it up for Biblical accuracy.
Mary Magdalene was a good friend of Jesus but it seems more probable Biblically speaking that John was the closest to Him, of course there where Jesus half brothers Jude and James who each wrote books in the New Testament, plus Jesus half sisters. The Bible does say Jesus loved John, and also Martha, Lazarus, and their sister Mary by name, but never Mary Magdalene by name, of course Jesus’ love is famous in that He loves ALL people…and loves them perfectly!
I am curious what translation of the Bible you are primarily using, are you translating from Portuguese? The translations I use are all the best scholarly translations and top sellers for that matter. They are all top English translations in US or Canadian English. I do also use The Message which is an enormously popular paraphrase, but when the conversation gets more exacting I then use more technical translations such as the TNIV, NIV, NASV, ESV, and NLT (etc), these are all top of the line translations, I also often look at the Hebrew, Aramaic (not Arabic as is often mistaken) and Greek itself which are the languages of the original manuscripts (known as autographs).
You said:
If you read Dan Brown's book and watched his movie twice (how brave of you), you might as well read my article more often: I guarantee you that it makes more sense than his story lol.
I respond:
Max dear I always read your articles and comments many times! You are a “best seller” for me! Since the Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code issue was becoming such a huge thing I made sure I was well informed on the matter. Once you get past all the overabundance of inaccuracies I find his books entertaining, who doesn’t enjoy a good Roman Catholic world domination plot? :) Of course he surely does seem to overplay what power the Roman Catholic organization has!
You said:
LS, you take things too seriously...this was a tale to rebut the movie which is full of unsubstantiated conjecture, and inaccuracies.
I respond:
LOL LOL I know that :)
That’s why I said…
“congrats on the creativity by the way” and that it was “fun”…but it is also an opportunity to help inform what the Scriptures do say…an opportunity you know I find delectably irresistible! LOL
Besides I like to make spicy comments to draw attention to your tasty articles, articles to be savored!
Your article is not “The Da Vinci Cod” it is “The Marvelous Max Seafood Special of the Day”.
People are painfully ignorant of history in general and Church or religious history in particular. It is true that shortly after the Roman Catholic church departed from Scripture in its teachings it then encouraged the crusades, Browns book is all over the place with this, but the ideas about Constantine and the Bible are pure fantasy, he has Constantine doing things 50-100 years before he was even born! But it is fiction….perhaps an alternate reality?
You said:
I did not attack Jesus (I never do)
I respond:
I think your representation of Jesus is off the mark but please note I said nothing about this in my prior comment. I believe in freedom of speech, I also understand artistic license (which is why I am probably a lot gentler with Brown than I should be) as I understand you are not a Jesus follower I have no expectations in this regard…I also understand what you are trying to convey in an artistic and creative fashion, and as always I appreciate the dialogue….and friendship…
You said:
But the choice of which scriptures to include in the bible...that must have a foundation...
I respond:
As I said earlier Brown has Constantine doing things that happened well before he was even born, there is so little truth in Brown’s historical representation of events in regards the Canon of Scripture that it is unrecognizable; it is falsehood upon falsehood….
The Bible was in its present form well before Constantine was even born, he did not decide what books were included.
Thank you for this opportunity Max I enjoyed your article and as always am a fan…
Hello there, LS;
ReplyDeleteLOL yeah, he is not the only one who hates the Roman Catholic organisation (I know a few people like that, and let me tell you: it's sad!).
Tom Hanks is not bad, plus he was only playing his role. The story is so bad that there was nothing he could've done to improve it..*nodding*.
Ah, then come and meet the protestants in Portugal lol lol, they are worse than Catholics *nodding* (I have visited several protestan churches and it is a shame...this much I can tell you. Sometimes I just felt like rising from the chair and rebut the ministers...can you picture such situation? lol).
As I told you, the Bible doesn't include the oral heritage...which was passed from person to person. Besides, I don't really think she was a prostitute. I think she was an educated woman, who spoke her mind (let's just say that if we lived in that time I would've been called prostitute just because I have these debates with you lol...you know how men can be: might as well admit to this, LS).
Yes, Biblically John could've been Jesus' closest friend, but let's not forget that men wrote the Bible. Maria Madalena (in Portuguese, a little cultural exchange) could've well been his best friend, but the fact might've been hidden by the males (let's put this into historical context, men were not like you, LS; men at that time didn't agree with women having a voice, let alone debating with them or allowing the image of one being Jesus' best friend...*nodding*). The omission of Madalena's name suggests that they were afraid of her...but why? What powers did she have, that they feared so much? This would be interesting to know...
Another thing that might suggest that she was his best friend: when he resurrected to whom did he appeared? To her (ok, he said "don't touch me, but I am sure that it was because his light could burn her), Madalena.
Well, I am going to satisfy your curiosity, then: I read the Portuguese one, and then compare it with Biblegateway (as per your influence, if I may add lol)...this is how I picked up the differences.
I want to read the "autographs" in Hebrew, but first I have to learn it properly (I have started studying it, but I think I'll need help with it).
"Max dear I always read your articles and comments many times! You are a “best seller” for me!" - lol lol I know you do, but I just liked that sentence of mine lol :).
lol You are right "who doesn’t enjoy a good Roman Catholic world domination plot? :)" indeed lol lol.
I don't, by no means, underestimate the Roman Catholic Church (as I told you before I do admire they organisational skills) though; they can be dangerous since they are over educated and extra cultivated (the ingredients of serial killers LOL LOL LOL).
"LOL LOL I know that :)" - I know you know...lol :).
“but it is also an opportunity to help inform what the Scriptures do say…an opportunity you know I find delectably irresistible! LOL" - LOL LOL yes, I do know that you find it irresistable (and delectably too - I love this word). And you know what? You didn't disappoint me :).
"Besides I like to make spicy comments to draw attention to your tasty articles, articles to be savored!" - Yes, I am aware of that hobby of yours lol, that's why I keep confronting you lol lol...(if we were in those times I'd be "the sinner" for such audacity LOL).
“The Marvelous Max Seafood Special of the Day”. - LOL LOL LOL however I preferred Da Vinci Cod lol lol :).
We have to study History, and Church history in particular...but still you'll find those who have obliterated it from their minds.
"Constantine doing things 50-100 years before he was even born!" - LS, by Brown's theory Madalena was pregnant for more than a century lol lol lol she waited for the crusades to bring her to France, so that she could give birth to Sarah (and of all the names in the world, he picked Sarah *nodding*)
"….perhaps an alternate reality?" - no, it was pure fabrication.
"I think your representation of Jesus is off the mark but please note I said nothing about this in my prior comment (...)" - lol you call it off the mark, I call it creative, brilliant (I depicted Jesus as extremely wise and intelligent; a defender of women)
"(...) also understand what you are trying to convey in an artistic and creative fashion,(...)" - aaahhh you are a wise man yourself; I respect you even more, your lordship, *bowing*.
"(...) and as always I appreciate the dialogue….and friendship…" - same here :).
"The Bible was in its present form well before Constantine was even born, he did not decide what books were included." - I watched a documentary suggesting that the church had chosen which gospels should be included in the bible (that is why that part of the movie didn't surprise me, except for the cronological inaccuracy you stated, of course *nodding*).
No need to thank me, LS, (at least not so many times lol) :). A fan...hum...ok, I'll have to add you to my list LOL LOL...joking, joking!
Thank you *bowing*!
Cheers
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I read the book, and I really liked it, no matter how far fetched it was.
ReplyDeleteI went into it thinking "fiction" and "action", and I wasn't disappointed.
I was afraid to watch the movie though, because I thought it wouldn't be as good as the book, and it might ruin it for me.
Cheers Max,
~Oswegan
Hi max,
ReplyDeleteI just read da vinci code as a story !
One i have just finished and enjoyed , not just as a story, but because it presents things in accurate historical and biblical detail is the shadow women by angela elwell hunt. it tells the story of moses from the perspective of 3 women, his mother, his sister and his wife. it paints the settings so well i can imagine how things just have happened, like why an egyptian princess would just take a baby home etc.
Hey Scott,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you liked it (you're actually the second person who tells me that has liked the book) :)!
The movie was trashy...most of the times movies do not reflect the books *nodding*.
Cheers
Hey Karen,
ReplyDeleteI can see that you liked it too :).
I haven't read the book, but by the movie (and by what LS, who has read it a few times said) it is anything but accurate (both biblical and historical - for more detail, read LS' comments).
Ah, the story of Moses is rather interesting indeed; and I can imagine that his mother, sister and wife have made even more interesting :)!
Thanks for your input :)!
Cheers
Hi, Max!
ReplyDeleteI wrote a comment here yesterday but it's no longer here. Weird. Anyway, I said that after Da Vinci Code was released, churches in Indo started giving seminars about the real history to refute the statements in the books. There were also a long period of question-and-answer among the seminars he he he he...
Anyhow, go grab your next award here he he he...
True Blue Award
Hey Amelia,
ReplyDeleteSometimes it happens (and I hate it when I write a comment and then it disappears) *nodding*!
I know exactly what you mean: it happened the same here in Portugal *nodding*. But like Alexys said (using Shakespeare's words): "too much ado about nothing!".
Another award? Oh my God!!! Let me go grab it now lol lol...
Thank you so much *bowing*!
Cheers
Hi Max! I was curious too so I read the book and watched the movie. As a devoted Roman Catholic my belief is intact. True, it stirred a lot of reactions but it really depends on the person how he/she takes it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there's another tag and you've been awarded too. Take care.
Hey Liza,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comment :).
My mom is also Roman Catholic :). I am glad your belief is intact!!!! You, go girl!! :-D
Tagged, me? Awarded, moi? Oh my Lord....such an honour *bowing*! Thank you :)! I'll come by your blog soon...
Cheers
You said:
ReplyDeletelet's just say that if we lived in that time I would've been called prostitute just because I have these debates with you lol...you know how men can be: might as well admit to this, LS
I respond:
Max…the way women are perceived here I believe is a lot different than in Portugal…most of the women I know are very strong, I have had many female bosses and have one direct female boss right now no problem its very normal…certainly there are some male sexists but they are in the minority and generally old and/or uneducated.
You said:
Yes, Biblically John could've been Jesus' closest friend, but let's not forget that men wrote the Bible. Maria Madalena (in Portuguese, a little cultural exchange) could've well been his best friend, but the fact might've been hidden by the males (let's put this into historical context, men were not like you, LS; men at that time didn't agree with women having a voice, let alone debating with them or allowing the image of one being Jesus' best friend...*nodding*). The omission of Madalena's name suggests that they were afraid of her...but why? What powers did she have, that they feared so much? This would be interesting to know...
I respond:
Actually Max the New Testament is full of women (in a previous post I listed 6 Mary’s alone). Surly there were sexist men at that time as there are today but Mary Magdalene alone is mentioned 12 times in the New Testament. They are hardly trying to hush her up, why mention her at all they could just replace her with one of the men? Her name is not omitted but is prominent.
You said:
when he resurrected to whom did he appeared? To her (ok, he said "don't touch me, but I am sure that it was because his light could burn her), Madalena.
I respond:
Max do you believe that Jesus was physically resurrected?
You said:
I want to read the "autographs" in Hebrew, but first I have to learn it properly
I respond:
The autographs (originals) of the New Testament were written in Greek with a few words in Aramaic (not Arabic but Aramaic, I know you understand the difference Max but I thought I would mention it for others).
You said:
don't, by no means, underestimate the Roman Catholic Church (as I told you before I do admire they organisational skills) though; they can be dangerous since they are over educated and extra cultivated (the ingredients of serial killers LOL LOL LOL).
I respond:
I tactfully take a step away from you so I don’t get hit by the potential crossfire you get from that one!!!
That should be sufficient for now….have fun… :)
By the way this time the word verification is “glowuod”
Max,
ReplyDeleteI have a favor to ask. The last site to join our directory is called "Waking Up." The author is Marshall and, I believe, is very talented and really has something to say. I have read all of his posts and am very impressed. The only thing that he is missing is readers and support. Could you pop over, take a look, and if you like what you see, leave some comments. If you are anything like me, you may just get hooked.
http://egofading.blogspot.com/
Hello LS;
ReplyDeleteWell, most of the women you know are very strong, but it doesn't mean that in Canada there aren't weak women and females.
I, personally, only know strong women as well (the women in my family), the others...well, I don't know them...I am acquainted.
But of course there are sexist men everywhere, but I don't focus on them.
You know very well, that society in Jesus' time is not like society now (it evolved; so, if this is an evolved society, imagine how it was 2000 years ago [which I know you do]). The old sexist man, you made reference to, are a sound example of what I just said.
LS, the fact that the NT is full of women (which I am aware of) doesn't refute what I said. Magdalene may well be mentioned 12 times, still it doesn't refute what I stated.
"They are hardly trying to hush her up, why mention her at all they could just replace her with one of the men? Her name is not omitted but is prominent." - I didn't say that her name was omitted, I said her role (as Jesus' best friend) and importance was omitted.
"Max do you believe that Jesus was physically resurrected?" - I didn't say that, I was just stating what is written, and what is believed by Christians, such as yourself.
"The autographs (originals) of the New Testament were written in Greek with a few words in Aramaic (not Arabic but Aramaic, I know you understand the difference Max but I thought I would mention it for others)." - I stand corrected *bowing*. Yes, I do know the difference between Aramaic and Arabic.
"I tactfully take a step away from you so I don’t get hit by the potential crossfire you get from that one!!!" - LOL LOL oh, so much for loyalty...I supported you when your banner was burned in front of your house LOL LOL LOL *nodding*.
"That should be sufficient for now….have fun… :)" - you're killing me lol lol....
"By the way this time the word verification is “glowuod”" - don't tell me that it is a gaelic word or something lol *nodding*...
Cheers
Hey Mel,
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to ask twice: I shall go over to his blog and show my support :)!
It is always a pleasure to read significant content :).
Thank you for suggestion Marshall to me *bowing*.
Cheers
Hi Max
ReplyDeleteMy mind is too modeled to some criteria (since i'm a catholic christian) which can be very conflituous between themselves, and to give straight answers to this subject its not easy.
So the best that i can do is to relate this topic to another one before ( the truth) and ...
Ok...i'm also hable to formulate some theory's but nothing more than that....
Just as an example:
Conspiracy .
This as to do with info management which ROME always knew how to do it. It was all prepaired at minimum detail...and with strong impact, in fact the Miriam (Mary) "detail" was defenetly to submit half of the gender under pressure and control. At the end it was an architected history to get as much power as it was possible at the time.
So....power is the same issue nowdays the institutions are more prone to change....
regards : )
Gallardo
Ciao G!
ReplyDeleteMy mom is also Catholic, so don't worry :)! However I understand your position, and I'd like to thank you for being so honest about it :)!
I love your conspiracy theory!!! It's genial! You are right: info management is Rome's cup of tea. I see what you mean...Power is the keyword of all the mess in the world (including gender issues...you should give a lecture to feminists, G lol...they clearly need to be enlightened)! I hear you...
Thank you so much for this brilliant comment (as per usual) :)!
Cheers