Da Vinci Code

[efrem1]

:the Gnostics really were interesting.

and totally false. Now I will put off my Spurs hat tonight and put on my theological hat. The gnostics, in a nuts , believed that all matter was bad and spirit was good and that the way to being holy was to deny oneself anything that benefited you physically. Ireneas (sic) and the Church Fathers renounced these people as heretics. The gnostics also believed that some were en led to special revelation from God himself. This is in total contradiction to what Jesus said when he was brought before the courts and said "in secret I have said nothing." Chalk up the DaVinci Code as another chapter to be put aside BatBoy and the ramblings of Dr. Ruehl.

[Jekka]

and totally false. Now I will put off my Spurs hat tonight and put on my theological hat. The gnostics, in a nuts , believed that all matter was bad and spirit was good and that the way to being holy was to deny oneself anything that benefited you physically. Ireneas (sic) and the Church Fathers renounced these people as heretics.

The Church Fathers also told women to remain virgins in order to be like men because you had to be male to be closest to God - so not everyone exactly had their priorities straight at the time of Christianity's formation. The version of Christianity that succeeded did so because its leaders altered local power structures and persecuted anyone belonging to gnostic faiths, effectively eradicating the practice of most of the sects of Gnosticism.

The gnostics also believed that some were en led to special revelation from God himself.

How is this different from the idea of Predestination that many Christians still subscribe to even today?

This is in total contradiction to what Jesus said when he was brought before the courts and said "in secret I have said nothing." Chalk up the DaVinci Code as another chapter to be put aside BatBoy and the ramblings of Dr. Ruehl.

I am by no means saying that The Da Vinci Code is possible, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate really, but there are aspects of it that are not completely outlandish when you read some of the texts that were not included in the Bible. It's an interesting fictional theory that Dan Brown proposes, but it's still fiction.

[MannyIsGod]

@ Alvarez being one of the smartest people in the forum. Priceless.

[MannyIsGod]

It really kinda is. And that is sad.

[SLOVENIAN 8]

The world premier of Da Vinci Code is on 18. May 2006. That is in thursday. I have tickets so i go watch it. I hope it is good

[JoeChalupa]

I guess this Davinci thing is like the myspace craze....I don't get it.

I've been tempted to buy the book but will wait and just borrow it from somebody.

[polandprzem]

I hope it is a good fiction movie.

I want to go and hopefully it will be still in cinema a month from now

[lilmads]

I loved the book... I liked it better than Angels and Demons.. but a lotta people prefer Angels and Demons.. Digital Fortress was also pretty good
I can't wait for the movie!

[ALVAREZ6]

you all

[Spam]

The book was okay.

[atxrocker]

after seeing tom hanks hair in that movie, no thanks

[Pistons < Spurs]

Well it sounds like the critics and others who've seen it think the movie is not very good.

The movie did receive some lukewarm praise, but the majority of the response was highly critical.

One scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience. There was no applause when the credits rolled; instead, a few catcalls and hisses broke the silence.

The Hollywood Reporter headlined its review, " 'Da Vinci Code' an unwieldy, bloated puzzle."

"No chemistry exists between the hero and heroine, and motivation remains a troubling sore point," wrote reviewer Kirk Honeycutt, panning Tom Hanks' "remote, even wooden performance." Only co-star Ian McKellen managed to avoid criticism.