"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends"
Now people are trying to crucify him again in the name of "Da Vinci Code".The people who are reluctant to believe in Bible has no doubt about this 'code'. The people who deny to have faith in Virgin Mary, has no worry to believe that Mary Megdelena was the wife of Jesus.
Which is the best to follow ; the book written by the people who lived in the time of Jesus or by the people who were born after 2000years. Neither I read the 'decoded' book nor I saw the movie, hence no further idea about it.
"Father, did Mother of Jesus attended Last supper with Jesus ?"
"Didn't you completed The Bible yet ?" he surprised
"Yes I did", Little George nodded.
"Then why this doubt at a!!"
"no nothing ..the one who lay down on the shoulder of Jesus looks like a Girl", George pointed out the lady in the picture.
"he has long hairs, no mustache ...rest of the body is not clear", George explained
Luckily his father didn't ask what he was looking at rest of the body ;-)
Father said, "See Jesus Had long hairs, Peter had , and everybody at that time had long hairs."
"But all others have mustache, this one doesn't have", George argued.
"he should be John, he is the only unmarried disciple of Jesus and so he must be too young..."
"... look your cousin Binesh... on a clean shave, even at 22, he has a pennish face(looks like a girl)"
he explained with an example.
"How dare he to lay down on Jesus' shoulder !!!", George surprised.
"Jesus loved him so much". Father seems so happy to explain that John (his name) is the most recognized by Jesus.
"that is partiality ..why Jesus loved him so much more than others", confused George.
"hey... Jesus said to love one another; doesn't meant that not no love more this one or that one.."
"... He loved John, Peter, Thomas...me ... you and all ..."
"He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by His wounds we are healed."
"He faced all these sufferings to pay back our sins". His father explained the core of Bible to George.
LinkList->next
Posted by
yetanother.softwarejunk
12 comments:
Neither a book nor a Dan brown can destroy a faith which is 2000 years old.
But.... but....
as Dan brown claims in his book, if he had written his novel after an extensive research, especially with the help from 'insiders' of Vatican, any reader who finishes the "Da vinci code" (I, myself being one)have plenty of reasons to suspect the Vatican for misleading the 200 crore Christians.
Better you read the novel.
Anoop Surendran
He says !!
All research results may not be accurate. later if the same person says "Ohh I was wrong on this logical conclusion" what will be the result. or leave about him, some another person is saying that he done an extensive research and Da vinci code was wrong and guess he is also wrote an excellent novel to narrate this. to whom you are going to admit ?
Anyway I decided to read that book. I guess that what the author want. Selling value !!!
For the first time I am going to read a book with 300+ pages.
Hi Anoop,
Was just wondering if Dan Brown did an extensive research!!! Hmm even an illiterate scholar in the world knows that Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 and not in 1950s and that it has nothing to do with Jesus. The sources he refers to mostly are third century mythical compilations!! When I read the book I was just laughing at his research. Was it a research or just a literary gimmick??
Joju - You first read the book and then see about what researches had he done. There was a book released much before this. It s the Holy Blodd, Holy Grail. I dont know the authors, but they were discussing about Jesus' blood line. It may be wrong or right, but you cannot say he may haven't done an extensive research for this is a very sensitive issue he is writing about and no writer will write anything wihtout an extensive research. If the mythical compilations he refer to are third century ones, so what as long as it exist? In that case we also should not believe in the Vedas, Mahabharathas, Ramayanas, Bibles ,Khorans etc since they are also old.
And FYI , the Priory of Sion had existed and has people like Da Vinci and Victor Hugo were the heads of it.
Dhanush,
Not sure if you researched the author's claims. And you may not be right to state that everybody writes books after an intense research. At least Da Vinci Code wasn't. Again you are wrong to state that Bible needs to be treated the same way as some third-century documents. The gospels in the Bible were written in the first-century when the eye-witnesses of Jesus were still alive. Historically the biblical gospels have more significance than anything else. Before one should comment on this, he has to read the biblical gospels first.
Also can you point out the source by which you state that Leonardo Da Vinci belonged to Priory of Sion - barring Da Vinci Code? Just my thoughts. No offence intended. Just trying to look things in historical perspective.
An Article on Priory of Sion:
Dan Brown begins his book with a section called ‘fact’ where he states
“The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.”
What does this mean to a historian? Actually nothing. A historian is not merely interested in the contents of a document. He is more concerned with the document itself – its authenticity. He demands answers to questions - who wrote it? When it was written? Where it was written? Why was it written?
Les Dossiers Secrets
The Les Dossier Secrets as we know is a text not a parchment, deposited not discovered in Bibliotheque Nationale, in 1967, not 1975. They speak about the way to interpret certain parchments, which were neither then nor now at the National Library of Paris, but were handed over by Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), along with a manuscript he wrote, to an author of popular books by the name of Gérard de Sède (1921-2004).
Both Les Dossiers secrets and the parchments are false documents. All the people involved in the falsification have admitted it, even after a few years had passed. In fact in April 1989, Pierre Plantard declared in his journal Vaincre that the text was a false document. Gérard de Sède termed his book ‘L’Or de Rennes’ as “Apocryphal” and claimed that he had scattered enough clues to induce an attentive reader to come to that conclusion.
Well you may ask what’s so interesting about this document. According to this, the Merovingians who were overthrown by Carolingians in 751AD are the legal heirs to the throne of France. The Merovingians still have surviving descendants, the last of which was Pierre Plantard – who was therefore the only true contender to the role of king of France. In order to protect the Merovingians, a secret society called ‘Priory of Sion’ was formed. This society had as Grand Masters many well known figures such as Isaac Newton, Valentin Andreae, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.
The document as such has nothing to do with the alleged bloodline of Mary Magdalene. This idea central to the Da Vinci Code theme was visualised by the British Actor Henry Soskin. Henry Soskin rewrote the L’Or de Rennes adapting it to the British audience and borrowing some of the “findings” from Ambelain’s book ‘Jésus ou Le mortel secret des templiers’ in which Ambelain had laid claim to Jesus’ marriage to Salome. Henry meshed Ambelain’s story about the marriage of Jesus with that of the Merovingians suggested by Plantard, and “revealed” that the Merovingians protected by the Priory of Sion were important, not because they were the heirs to the throne of France, but because they were the descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. The latter suited Henry better than Ambelain’s Salome because of both her connection with the parish church in Rennes-le-Château and of the Medieval legends claiming that she escaped persecution and eventually settled and died in Southern France (sans husband and children, however, which were never part of these legends).
The Priory of Sion
In a historical context however, the Priory of Sion does have some basis, but not in the sense that Brown wants us to believe. It was a monastic order founded in Jerusalem in 1100 that was absorbed into the Jesuits in 1617. It had no link whatsoever to the one founded by Pierre Plantard in 1967. Plantard himself admitted this in 1993 under an oath to a French Judge that he had fabricated the documents relating to the Priory of Sion. The Judge had then dismissed him as a harmless crank.
Thus the question of whether Leonardo Da Vinci belonged to the Priory of Sion is out of historical context.
Dhanush,
I said only the result might be wrong. Never meant that he didn't do an extensive research. You meant to say Dan Brown is correct?!!!
I guess he used Da Vinci's famous art "Last Supper" as a base of this decoding.
Da Vinci lived in 15th century. He is an artist and his greatest art about Last Supper was his imagination. he might be used Bible as his reference. So did Dan Brown proved that Bible was corrupted after the time of Da Vincy ? May be ; I didn’t read his book)!!
Can I believe my ancestors? St Thomas, Direct disciple of Jesus, spread the Bible in Kerala. Remember the time line, it is AD 52-72. so we can believe that we got an original version of Bible. If somebody corrupted The Bible at Vatican, we should have a conflicted version.
Back to Bible, The core of it was written by 4 people (most likely in 4 different locations) addressing 4 different types of people. Still there is NO conflict between them. I suggest you to read THE Bible too.
I did a search on “Priory of Sion”, it was existing from 1099AD. 1000 years after Jesus Lived!!! I doubt its credibility.
Was "Da Vinci Code" meant for a public stunt to get money?
It is a vast field of 200 Crore Christians, they surely curious to know what this guy is talking about?
Now if Jesus really did marry Mary Magdalene and had children, will that really affect what he taught and the belief that has evolved till these years??
His teaching is not going to break at any matter; Even you can find the same teaching from Kuran too in his name. Only difference is they are not admitting him as GOD as Christian do. You can not find any Jesus-wife-info in Kuran too.
I am not pretty clear what Dan Brown aiming by proving a wife-concept for Jesus. May be he is trying to show that Church was fooling Christian/hiding something from Christians.
If anything there to disqualify the GOD nature of Jesus, Jews were best to do that. They needn't wait 2000 years for a Dan Brown to do so. If you analysis the trail of Jesus, nobody even dare to do a sexual harassment against him.
The ‘Man’ who never think about sex … needn’t have a wife.
You may read Jesus' concept about Marriage and Divorce :
Mattew 19:
1) When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2) Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3) Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4) "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5) and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6)So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7) "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8) Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10) The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11) Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12) For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Even normal people who have a mission and/or knew about his death, is not going to think about marriage.
Post a Comment