• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Da Vinci Code

Do you believe the theory about Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail?

  • I believe in every aspects of it

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • I believe in only some parts of it (explain in which parts and why)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I have no idea. I'm neutral

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • I disbelieve in every aspects of it

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • I don't know and I don't care

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Total voters
    19

LaughAtTheWorld

Custom User Title
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
9,640
Reaction score
3,591
Location
Seoul/Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I read The Da Vinci Code a while ago, and I want to have a poll of it. The idea about the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene is shocking to most Christians I'm sure. However, do you believe in that theory? This poll is only for those who read the book.
 
I read The Da Vinci Code a while ago, and I want to have a poll of it. The idea about the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene is shocking to most Christians I'm sure. However, do you believe in that theory? This poll is only for those who read the book.
No fear, no vote.
All of this is entertainment, based loosely on loose facts.
The truth?
We may or may not ever know.

The post's second paragraph makes no sense.
Who is "they" (I am not in the "they" category) ??

Relate to us some info on the Korean history, or a link, Thanks.
 
I really have no idea, but the fact that Mary M. was indeed apart of Jesus's entourage, as it were, may lead one to see the possibility. Also there are the gospels that were left out of the bible, such as Mary's that many feel was suggestive of a close relationship between Jesus and Mary.
 
It is a work . . . of . . . fiction.
 
Actually, if you look closely at the introduction, every facts except the plot is said to have been researched and be true. That includes the Priory of Sion
 
No, it's a work of fiction based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a highly-dubious and highly-criticized book of "research," one that is hampered not least by the fact that the Priory of Sion was invented in the 1950s by some guy making a claim to the French throne (and thus $$$$). There was a medieval order with that name, but they had nothing to do with the claims made up about it.
 
I read The Da Vinci Code a while ago, and I want to have a poll of it. The idea about the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene is shocking to most Christians I'm sure. However, do you believe in that theory? This poll is only for those who read the book.

I think that a better book on the subject is Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Do I think that Mary Magdalene had Jesus Christ's child? Not unlikely. The historical Jesus was a Jew, and he would have been unlikely to be unmarried at age 33. In fact, I think that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ as a man who never married, never had children, etc., is almost certainly inaccurate.
 
I'd love it if it was true.
But it's fiction sadly.
 
Actually, if you look closely at the introduction, every facts except the plot is said to have been researched and be true. That includes the Priory of Sion
I feel that this is impossible...
Man is a consummate liar...
Even today, with all of our facilities, our pen and pencil, our cameras, if an event were to occur , witnessed by five men, with a 10 day passage of time, the 5 accounts would be so different that one would think that 5 different events occurred.
Now, flip the history pages back several thousand years, with little to communicate with, accuracy is 99% out the window..
 
I think that a better book on the subject is Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Do I think that Mary Magdalene had Jesus Christ's child? Not unlikely. The historical Jesus was a Jew, and he would have been unlikely to be unmarried at age 33. In fact, I think that the Biblical account of Jesus Christ as a man who never married, never had children, etc., is almost certainly inaccurate.

It is 100% tosh. I made a series of 3 documentaries for Discovery back in the 90s in which we interviewed Henry Lincoln (co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, on which the DVC was based) and various protagonists of the myth. The stories have not a single unrefutable piece of evidence to prove their veracity. It is one of the pseudo-historical works of fiction that sell millions because it is dressed up with faux historical method. As Robert McCrum puts it well..

"There is something called historical evidence - there is something called the historical method - and if you look around the shelves of bookshops there is a lot of history being published, and people mistake this type of history for the real thing. These kinds of books do appeal to an enormous audience who believe them to be 'history', but actually they aren't history, they are a kind of parody of history. Alas, though, I think that one has to say that this is the direction that history is going today..."

He's spot on. I recently read just over half of a similar cod-historical "non-fiction" book, 1421 by Gavin Menzies purporting to show that the Chinese explored the Americas and Australasia way before Columbus or Tasman. Again, assumptions, assertions and no tangible evidence to substantiate ridiculous claims.

Enjoy the story as a piece of fiction, nothing more.
 
Dan Brown's books, while fascinating, are a lot of times inaccurate in the links Brown is trying to make.

I've just finished reading his latest work, The Lost Symbol, a week and half or so ago, and without doing a research on the internet I've managed to spot myself three inaccuracies.

For example, he has made the claim that Amen, the word used religiously by all three big religions, is derived from the name of the Egyptian God, Amun, while in truth, this is nothing but a baseless theory.
In reality the word is based on the Semitic language, specifically ancient Hebrew. It comes from the word 'emuna', which means faith, and Amen itself is supposed to mean "believe it and it will be so" or something like that.

Another example would be the etymology of the word sincerely, and Dan Brown has used this in his book The Digital Fortress as well as The Lost Symbol.
He claims there that it originally meant "without wax" (Sine = without, cera = wax) while again this is nothing but a theory, in truth it comes from Latin Sincerus which simply means "pure" or "clean", and is believed to literally mean "one growth" (Sin = one, crescere = to grow).

However, of course he does make many accurate links such as the claim that the word "cereal" is being derived from the name of Ceres, the Roman Goddess of agriculture, and many other claims.
 
Last edited:
He's spot on. I recently read just over half of a similar cod-historical "non-fiction" book, 1421 by Gavin Menzies purporting to show that the Chinese explored the Americas and Australasia way before Columbus or Tasman. Again, assumptions, assertions and no tangible evidence to substantiate ridiculous claims.

i like his books, they're quite a good read, he can tell a story quite well, shame it was complete BS.
 
Some of it is possible. Jesus could have married Mary and had a child, sure. (Assuming you believe they even existed.)

But do I believe it? No. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should believe it.
 
Some of it is possible. Jesus could have married Mary and had a child, sure. (Assuming you believe they even existed.)

But do I believe it? No. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should believe it.

Of course, it's believable. Jesus could have met Mary at the local McDonald's, and invited her out on a date, after munching out on camel burgers. Then they went to a drive-in movie, and made it in the back seat during the Godzilla feature.
 
Last edited:
It's been a long time since I read the book, but I honestly don't know if we'll ever know for sure if the claims it made are true. I don't find the idea of Jesus having children to be unbelievable though.
 
I considered it fiction, but allowed for the possiblity that it was truth.

Of course, I did the same with all the sci-fi movies I've watched...

:mrgreen:
 
I considered it fiction, but allowed for the possiblity that it was truth.

Of course, I did the same with all the sci-fi movies I've watched...

:mrgreen:

But at least with Sci-Fi no one is trying to convince you that the flights of fancy are scientific fact, or even workable hypotheses. To be fair, Dan Brown doesn't claim that, but the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail did, Gavin Menzies does, Erik Von Danniken did. These are the sort of books that need debunking. No need to consider whether the DVC might be based on a true history of the offspring of Jesus, as it doesn't claim to be any such history. It's just a fairy tale.
 
I really have no idea, but the fact that Mary M. was indeed apart of Jesus's entourage, as it were, may lead one to see the possibility. Also there are the gospels that were left out of the bible, such as Mary's that many feel was suggestive of a close relationship between Jesus and Mary.

And they were left out of the Holy Scriptures because they were seen as not being the true story of our Lord Jesus Christ...
 
Actually, if you look closely at the introduction, every facts except the plot is said to have been researched and be true. That includes the Priory of Sion

The Priory of Sion was a false organization in France in the 1950s that created a fictious history for itself. It lasted less than a decade...
 
He's spot on. I recently read just over half of a similar cod-historical "non-fiction" book, 1421 by Gavin Menzies purporting to show that the Chinese explored the Americas and Australasia way before Columbus or Tasman. Again, assumptions, assertions and no tangible evidence to substantiate ridiculous claims.

Menzies work is a peace of crap. Did you know he wrote a sequel? 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Someone forgot to tell him that the Renaissance was well underway in 1434.

And people believe that crap...
 
And they were left out of the Holy Scriptures because they were seen as not being the true story of our Lord Jesus Christ...

Or rather they were, in whole or in part, too controversial in the political context of the late-Mediaeval church. Some of those books do have some status, and were not excluded because their were 'debunked'. For most of Christian history many of the books of the Apocrypha enjoyed equal status to the rest of the Old Testament. It was principally the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century that changed that status. many of them still appear fully integrated into the Orthodox OT.

Now, I'm guessing you are referring to other books, Ludahai, that deal with NT themes. Which specifically?
 
Or rather they were, in whole or in part, too controversial in the political context of the late-Mediaeval church. Some of those books do have some status, and were not excluded because their were 'debunked'. For most of Christian history many of the books of the Apocrypha enjoyed equal status to the rest of the Old Testament. It was principally the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century that changed that status. many of them still appear fully integrated into the Orthodox OT.

Now, I'm guessing you are referring to other books, Ludahai, that deal with NT themes. Which specifically?

This post was in response to the Gospels, which has nothing to do with the Medieval period but rather the 4th century...
 
I read The Da Vinci Code a while ago, and I want to have a poll of it. The idea about the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene is shocking to most Christians I'm sure. However, do you believe in that theory? This poll is only for those who read the book.

I think this theory regarding religion is just as valid as most other theories regarding religions.
 
A theory based on lies and fabrications is valid? Really?

That's not what I said. What I said was that this theory on religion was as valid as most other theories regarding religions.
 
Back
Top Bottom