magduta

well, I don`t think it is belivable at all. or at least, the author doesn`t give us all the reasons to belive it. in the book there are presented evidences that don`t seem to me like being solid evidences. for instance the davinci`s painting of th last supper. that`s a dumb reason. if I were a painter andI would like to paint about something that I have never seen, that I have only read about, it is my option to paint it just the way I imagine it. Jesus might have been there, might have warn blue clothes, but might have warn yellow ones also. it is not relevant what dan brown says: that da vinci has painted a message Jesus wearing blue and red clothes and the carachter near him just the opposite. this represents only the artist`s will. he painted like that because he wanted to paint it like that.
and just like this argument, I could devellop much more arguments. this book is only a best seller book, it is not a documentary one or an religious one or a philosophical one. it is a mixture, which has been writen from the begining to be a best seller.

anything

Yah, what you’re sayin is true, I mean Dan Brown obviously set out to make money and not spread a message...

But I felt the plot opened up on some real issues like;

The concentration on the importance of the Roman church on Earth instead of the values emphasized in the bible.

The way women appear to have been subverted.

I really think no matter what the aim of the author is that if the book opens onto some serious issues then they deserve some attention

Plus - PLEASE don't feel I'm taking on Catholics in general, I'm just raising a point

__________________
Hefyd 'n ddrwg

magduta

ok, i see your point. talking about religions and their pros and cons it`s clearly something else.
as for the catholic church, i don`t really have much information about subverting women and i prefer not to make any comment only on what it is writen in this book. as a personal belief about catholic church, i don`t agree with the pope beign seen as Jesus on earth. if you ask me i think this is an heresy. but... that`s another story.

Lina

Quite true... since the pope is not Jesus on earth. He doesn't even stand for him. He's nothing but the successor of Pierre, designated chief of the twelve apostles, later bishop of Rome.

The other bishops originally stood for the other eleven apostles.

The pope's designating a new bishop is called the apostolic succession.

__________________
Arrêt sur images en ligne
Un truc qui ne sert à rien.
Le blog non obligatoire, mais pas facultatif

magduta

i was speaking metaphorically that he is believed to be so and whatever he says the others must obey.
but, again that has nothing to do with this topic about the movie.

Lina

But even metaphorically speaking, he is not and shouldn't be considered as Jesus on Earth.

The others must obey because he's the chief of the Church, not because he stands for Jesus.

The dogma of his never being mistaken doesn't come from this, anyway. It's because he is considered to be chosen by God through the bishops' votes. A process quite close to what Ancient Greek people thought about victory, by the way, which is rather funny.


But you're right : we're quite far from the original suject of this thread.

__________________
Arrêt sur images en ligne
Un truc qui ne sert à rien.
Le blog non obligatoire, mais pas facultatif

magduta

so... wanna see a good movie (nothing like davinci code)? try "Yours, Mine and Ours". a tonic comedy I should say. don`t miss it if you have a chance to see it. it`s really hilarious. I haven`t laugh like that for quite a while.