tacybbatMay 17th, 2006 - 16:36:26

DaVinci was an artist and painted 'The Last Supper' in the 15th century AFTER Christ was born. He did not know, nor does anyone else know, who was present or where they sat, except for what the Bible says. This painting is an artists conception. Dan Brown is an artist in a different medium. His book is an artists conception of an artists conception. Ron Howard is also an artist in yet a third medium. This film is an artists conception of an artists conception of an artists conception of an event that took place 1400 years before the painting was finished. All three are works of fiction by some very imaginative people. If you truly want to understand the painting, you have to know more about the artist, his thinking on the issues, and his political views, and the time in which he lived. I remember getting in trouble with the nuns at the high school I attended by saying that the figure on Jesus' right in the painting looked like a girl. I thought that many years ago and I still think that now and I'm sure I'm not the only catholic-raised person to believe this. Time after time when the Catholic Church wants to control the thinking of their believers, they try to 'ban' something, which only serves to give the item more credibility. You'd think that the church would learn the lesson that they no longer have ultimate control over the thinking of their parisheners. This stopped when the masses learned to read, think, and decide for themselves. In creating this controvery, the Catholic church has made this book the most popular in history and has made Dan Brown a very rich man. This movie will also be popular because people want to decide for themselves and not be told what to think. Before the masses were taught to read, the local priest (usually catholic), was the sole interpreter of the Bible and what was right or wrong. Because of this, the priest had a lot of control and power and this is what the Catholic Church is trying to regain when it tells the parishenrs that a book or a movie should not be read. Every time the church does this, every single catholic in the world should read or see what the church thinks is harmful. If the ideas represented in this book and movie are truly 'harmful' it is because the Catholic Church thinks that they will loose power, influence, money and parisheners. The Church is no more interested in your 'soul' than is any other church. All they want is your money and control over your thoughts. If the church is so afraid of this book and movie that they want to 'ban' them, then maybe, just maybe, there is some truth to this fiction. And we all know that the truth hurts.

Report this comment

AnswerManMay 18th, 2006 - 01:14:34

tacybbat,

I like the way you think (grin). But, while it's important to remember that this book (and movie) are works of fiction ... and based upon multi-layered artistic interpretations, the Holy Bible itself is based on interpretations of documents in a number of languages. And some of those documents were merely interpretations of earlier documents ... of which some were interpretations of even earlier documents. This makes the Holy Bible a work of nonfiction only because the clerics of King James SAY SO ... with the expectation that the masses will believe it's nonfiction 'on faith' alone.

The real interesting thing to me is the recent 'critical' trouncing the film is taking. Personally, I've never let a critic's opinion determine whether or not I'll see a film. And DA VINCI CODE is one of those films I'll probably 'wait' for to come out on DVD. But I can't help but wonder how many of the negative critics also consider themselves Christian ... and how many of them let their predisposition against the film's content color their judgement.

By the way, THE DA VINCI CODE was not the first book to suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. A biography of Jesus titled 'JESUS: A LIFE' came to the same conclusion ... and it was meant as a work of nonfiction, written by an award-winning biographer (A.N. Wilson) noted for his earlier biography of Tolstoy. There may have even been books earlier to Wilson's biography of Jesus that came to the same conclusion. And it flabbergasts me that the same consternation against THE DA VINCI CODE (meant as a work of fiction) was not directed toward JESUS: A LIFE (meant as a work of nonfiction).

FWIW, Wilson came to an even more startling conclusion ... that Judas didn't betray Jesus but was 'framed' by the real culprit. He claims that Judas committed suicide NOT because he was ashamed of betraying Jesus, but because he knew that the other disciples considered him a 'wayward' disciple and wouldn't believe him if he'd claimed innocense. According to Wilson, the REAL culprit who got the Roman soldier to hand Judas the silver coins (framing Judas) was the one disciple who was (ahem) absent in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested ... a disciple who was thought of as influential by the Hebrew Sanhedrin - Peter - who is also considered to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church.

Clearly, Random House (and the film company) have engineered a masterstroke of public relations for the film ... where good and bad publicity are equally good. Afterward, hehe, maybe they'll consider turning Wilson's biography of Jesus into a film ... hype up people by suggesting PROOF that Judas was innocent ... and let the public itself do the public relations work for the film company (grin).

P.S. On another note of blasphemy (grin), Wilson suggests that Jesus did not rise from the dead after his crucifixion ... that instead, he was 'impersonated' by a brother (James?) who looked a lot like him.

What a world, eh? Only in Hollywood, hehehe.

Report this comment