The Passion of the Christ vs. The Da Vinci Code: regarding Jesus of Nazereth

With the upcoming release The Da Vinci Code, which is a movie based on the best selling novel, I can already sense this debate is going to be a hot one. Because just barely 2 years ago, Mel Gibson released the seemingly antithesis of The Da Vinci Code, called The Passion of the Christ.

For those unfamiliar, The Da Vinci Code, is a book about a murder mystery that centers around a conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the "fact" that Jesus was not divine, but rather a mere mortal man and was married to and fathered Mary Magdaline's baby. Once Jesus was cusified, Mary fled away with their baby to France (I think?), where the bloodline still exists today as rulers.

Of course in early 2004, Gibson's The Passion told the story as the Bible tells it, as the son of God (the divine) Jesus, is captured, sentenced to death, and is crucified in a horrific way and then later is resurrected from the dead, etc.

Most claim the The Da Vinci Code is a mere work of fiction, as it is. But some claim that while the murder mystery told in the story is a work of fiction, the historical and theological aspects of the book are accurate.

WHat is everyone's opinion on all of this? What does everyone think? Is Gibson's film, the be all end all absolute truth to what really happened? Or does The Da Vinci Code bring up some good issues, to seriously question The Passion?

I for one think that while The Da Vinci Code, is probably some darned good and entertaining reading (I have not gotten around to reading it myself)...I think that The Passion depicts the real truth, while Da Vinci is basically rubbish.

 

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in The Da Vinci Code that says Jesus was not divine. The bloodline that Jesus supposedly started (the Merovingians) in France ceased to be the rulers of France in the early Middle Ages. Other families have ruled since (Capetian, Valois, Bourbon, etc.), but France hasn't had a monarch for a long while.

I certainly think that the Da Vinci Code is mostly rubbish, but I also don't see much evidence to suggest that the gospels are "the truth."

 

I'll see how this goes but I have the feeling this may be more suited to the Ampitheatre.

E_S

 

>>>I'm pretty sure there's nothing in The Da Vinci Code that says Jesus was not divine.<<<

Yes, The Da Vinci Code does in fact state that he was not divine and was a mere mortal man. I read this just tonight as I was reading up on it, after doing a google search.

 

My mistake.

 

As far as I know, neither of these stories are based on actual fact. I haven't seen the Passion, so I can't comment on the film's accuracy to the Gospels or to reality but if it follows the Gospel(s?) exactly (as IIRC, it purports to) then there are many non-factual events. Also, given that the whole "bloodline of Jesus secret society" (which I can't remember the name of) in The Da Vinci Code seems to be based on forged documents created by one Pierre Plantard, it seems extremely unlikely that the story on those pages is closer to any fact that may be in any story about Jesus.

 

I'm just curious, in The Da Vinci Code does the book make a final claim as to who Jesus was,a man who was married and had kids or the son of God, or does it leave it up to the reader to decide? The answer will help me decide if I want to see the film or not.

 

Well, that probably doesn't have too much bearing anyway, Gobi-1, with the way they do film versions of books.

I knew that that book was a huge seller, but I had no idea what it was about. The Mary Magdelene thing is an ooooold story, they used to have it on all the "In Search Of..." type shows. So someone just wrote a murder mystery around it? Weak, but brilliant idea for a bestseller.

 

In the book, the man whose murder they are investigating, is one of Mary Magdaline and Jesus' descendants and a member of a secret society who has been keeping all of these secrets safe from all of these years.

Hence, if the story about the guy who was murdered is mere fiction, then it would be physically impossible for any of the claims its Makes about Jesus and Mary Magdaline to be true.

 

Not really. That's like saying if someone wrote a historical fiction about a WWII veteran, and that veteran didn't exist, then everything, WWII included, must have been fictional as well.

Still, though, you're right inasmuch as Plantard forged the documents. And for what it was worth, while he claimed the Merovingian thing, he absolutely (and publicly) denied the "Mary Magdalene/Jesus" thing as stupid.

Thrawn, the Passion doesn't follow the Gospels exactly, but fairly close. And while it's understood that miraculous events aren't really considered part of the historical record, there's nothing necessarily "unfactual" about the depiction of the Passion film. It depicts the crucifixion of Jesus. With exception of the Resurrection in the final scene (and artisic liberties that are departures from the Gospel anyway) exactly what is in great doubt so as to be called "non-factual?" That there was a religious leader named Jesus who ended up being crucified isn't exactly a hotly contested point, insofar as I'm aware.

 

>>>Not really. That's like saying if someone wrote a historical fiction about a WWII veteran, and that veteran didn't exist, then everything, WWII included, must have been fictional as well. <<<

No, I am saying that the story is about one of Jesus and Mary's descendants. IF this story was fictional, yet the author tried to claim that the things about Jesus proclaimed in the book were fact. How can the story about Jesus' bloodline be true if he clearly fabricated a fictional story about a murder mystery of a person in his bloodline. Its physically impossible, since the claim of Jesus fathering a child stems from the fact that this guy is in his bloodline in the story.

That is TOTALLY different than a fictitional WWII character in a WWII story. WWII existing doesnt rest on any one particular bloodline.

 

What? I don't understand what you're saying.

 

No, this is a common misconception. If you were to read the introduction again, you will learn that Dan Brown only states that the secret society is real (and Opus Dei and descriptions of paintings, buildings etc). He makes no comments as to the veracity of the claims or beliefs of this society.

You seem to be confusing a work of fiction here, one that Dan Brown does not actually believe, and a quasi-historical work written in the late 80s called Holy Blood Holy Grail. And even then, the writers of that book never state these things as facts, but postulate a theory that they believe has enough evidence to support it (interestingly their theory stems from a question: was Jesus married?)

That's quite a convulated reasoning, and doesn't really have a basis in either logic or sense. Ironically, you appear to be seeing this as a circular claim. The claim of Jesus fathering a child however does not stem from this story alone.



Anyway, I think it's quite clear that you have an invested interest in confirming that the DaVinci story is rubbish. If nothing else, your comments about The Passion of the Christ are evidence of this. It is an ironic position to take since both are works of fiction.

 

I think people forget that its a piece of fiction.

But all these thing bring up a good point.

In Catholoism there is the whole thing about the waffer and wine being the body and blood of Christ, does that mean if you go into Heaven and start eating Jesus, thats cool?

 

>>>If nothing else, your comments about The Passion of the Christ are evidence of this. It is an ironic position to take since both are works of fiction.<<<

Well, given that the work that The Passion is based on was written by the prophets and apostles thousands of years ago and to this day STILL garners millions upon millions of followers believing its word, I would say that at the very least I have SOME merit in my claim. What makes you believe that its mere fiction?

The mere fact that The Da Vinci Code is based on a few "conspriracy" theories written within the past 15 years by people who never even claimed them to be the truth, proves that your side doesnt have much of an argument here. In a word: WEAK.

 

Firstly, that's not even an argument. You are merely making appeals to belief and popularity (both logical fallacies). Second, the Passion is not biblical but has medieval origins. I recall that there is even no mention of any torture in the gospels.

What makes me say that it is mere fiction? Because there is a notable lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus, let alone that he was a deity. In the absence of evidence, faith remains. And faith is an inherently self-defeating argument. If we were to accept as fact the stories in the bible, we must also accept all works with a similar lack of supporting evidence. I don't think you want to go there.

If a work cannot be corroborated with evidence and facts, then it is a work of fiction.

Not quite. If you had read Holy Blood Holy Grail, you would have realised that the authors draw upon approximately 2000 years of writings and beliefs - the idea that Jesus was simply a man is by no means a new one. The concept of offspring is also not new.

Again, The Da Vinci Code is not being put forward as a truth, and it never has been. It's merely adopting an already existing theory in order to create a cracking yarn. And... that existing theory has been created as an alternative explanation of the past using various bits and pieces of evidence down the ages. If one were to use a logical fallacy not unfamiliar to you, we could say that the presence of heretics, Jews and Muslims that believed and STILL believe that Jesus was not divine, then that gives the claim credit. Early Christianity is actually a fascinating subject to read about, since the actual history is very different from the common Christian view.

Now I personally don't think these guys have a strong case, and that they rely on coincidence and inferences rather than actual evidence. But I don't think the Jesus in the Christian tradition actually existed in the first place.

Furthermore, we have no way of determining 'truth' in a context such as this, it's a meaningless exercise. We don't seek truth in history, we seek facts. The reason why I pointed out the irony in your position was that you don't know the facts and yet grant yourself the authority to dictate what is not fact.



So perhaps you should read Holy Blood Holy Grail, familiarise yourself with the real 'alternative history' at the heart of this discussion, and address criticisms to that work instead of relying on a fictional story. So far your attempts to discredit the theory are looking rather silly as my previous post illustrates.

Did you know for instance, that the writers of Holy Blood point out that the epithet 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a mistranslation, and that the scriptures actually refer to him as Jesus the Nazarene?

A rather ironic point I should say.