The Da Vinci Code

Anyone dying to see it??? Cuz I am!!!!

I've been wanting to read the book forever but now there's really no point. A blasphemy to all book lovers, I know! :eek:

Did anyone like the book?

I have not read the book, but I will probably see the movie:)
Kristen

I LOVED BEYOND LOVED the book!!
Drove my friends NUTS in Paris this summer, I wanted to go to St. Sulpice and different parts of the city mentioned in the book!
It is because of my love for the book that I am BOYCOTTING the film!!
I'm sorry, I can't picture Tom Hanks as Robert Landon, and I think that Ron Howard is going to destroy it!!

The book was great. I got a copy for my sister as a birthday gift and she loved it also. It's one of those books you can pick up and read until your eyeballs fall out. It's good. Oh, there is a web game associated with the book. It's great if anybody wants to check it out. I enjoy puzzles and riddles so this game was fun for me.

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/main.html

Oh, there is a web game associated with the book. It's great if anybody wants to check it out. I enjoy puzzles and riddles so this game was fun for me.


Ooooh that is so cool!

I read it. I liked it, didn't love it - it got a little cheezy toward the end.

But I can't wait to see the film. I agree about Tom Hanks though. I like him as an actor, but I can't picture him as Langdon. But I think Audrey Toutou (sp?) was a good casting choice.

It looks good enough...but I just can't believe how many people take it seriously...I do not believe that Jesus got married and that person by his side is a woman...but that's all I'm going to say for now...lol

But yeh, it looks pretty good, I don't know if I want to read the book or watch the movie tho

It looks good enough...but I just can't believe how many people take it seriously...

I can't believe how many people take it seriously for the simple fact that it is a work of FICTION.

I can't believe how many people take it seriously for the simple fact that it is a work of FICTION.

Thank you!!! :D

All I'm going to say is that it is widly accepted by people of all faiths that Jesus was a Rabbi ("teacher"). However, ancient Judaic law stipulated that single men could NOT under ANY circumstances be teachers. It was acknowleged that in order to lead the community a man had to be "whole" he had to be complete. That compleatness came with marriage. Regardless of how much Jesus wanted to teach the community, nobody would have listened to him if he wasn't married. (it was also punishable by stoning).
Ergo, Jesus HAD to have been married. Who was the lucky woman??? That history doesn't tell us, but all the evidence points to Mary Magdelene (who in fact was NOT a prostitute, she was a LANDOWNER, which was far more dangerous in the eyes of the Male dominated early church.)
After all the gospels do tell us that she was "favored more than the others".

It is up to you to draw youn own conclusions. This is just your history lesson for today.
Sorry to offend, this is just the history behind it. And at least I didn't give you my theory on the myth of the "virgin birth"

All I'm going to say is that it is widly accepted by people of all faiths that Jesus was a Rabbi ("teacher"). However, ancient Judaic law stipulated that single men could NOT under ANY circumstances be teachers. It was acknowleged that in order to lead the community a man had to be "whole" he had to be complete. That compleatness came with marriage. Regardless of how much Jesus wanted to teach the community, nobody would have listened to him if he wasn't married. (it was also punishable by stoning).
Ergo, Jesus HAD to have been married. Who was the lucky woman??? That history doesn't tell us, but all the evidence points to Mary Magdelene (who in fact was NOT a prostitute, she was a LANDOWNER, which was far more dangerous in the eyes of the Male dominated early church.)
After all the gospels do tell us that she was "favored more than the others".

It is up to you to draw youn own conclusions. This is just your history lesson for today.
Sorry to offend, this is just the history behind it. And at least I didn't give you my theory on the myth of the "virgin birth"

No offense taken chicky :) Maybe your post wasn't directed at me, but in case it was I just wanted to clarify.

I didn't say that the book is full of lies. What I meant by my comment was that I can't believe that so many people forget that it is overall a work of fiction. Yes, the ideas in the book are ones that have been debated for some time so they are clearly not Dan Browns original creative ideas. And yes, some of the details in the book may be understood as historically accurate. But it IS a work of fiction - it is even labeled such on the book for the people who can't figure it out themselves. :rolleyes:

I have literally heard people discuss and debate it as if it is a scholarly work - and that really annoys me. Because it is not - it is a work of fiction.

So, your history lesson is a good one (one I already knew ;) ), but the point is that if people want to draw conclusions about whether or not Jesus was married (or any of the other controversial topics) they should not base them on The Davinci Code which presents just one perspective in a very sensationalized way.

I read it. I liked it, didn't love it - it got a little cheezy toward the end.

But I can't wait to see the film. I agree about Tom Hanks though. I like him as an actor, but I can't picture him as Langdon. But I think Audrey Toutou (sp?) was a good casting choice.

Agree 100% with all of what you said here, Moon.

All I'm going to say is that it is widly accepted by people of all faiths that Jesus was a Rabbi ("teacher"). However, ancient Judaic law stipulated that single men could NOT under ANY circumstances be teachers. It was acknowleged that in order to lead the community a man had to be "whole" he had to be complete. That compleatness came with marriage. Regardless of how much Jesus wanted to teach the community, nobody would have listened to him if he wasn't married. (it was also punishable by stoning).
Ergo, Jesus HAD to have been married. Who was the lucky woman??? That history doesn't tell us, but all the evidence points to Mary Magdelene (who in fact was NOT a prostitute, she was a LANDOWNER, which was far more dangerous in the eyes of the Male dominated early church.)
After all the gospels do tell us that she was "favored more than the others".

It is up to you to draw youn own conclusions. This is just your history lesson for today.
Sorry to offend, this is just the history behind it. And at least I didn't give you my theory on the myth of the "virgin birth"


All I'm gonna say..is that I still don't believe He was married...I'm just gonna leave it at that.
:D

i did not like the book,i am not used to read that kind of books either and i do not tend to believe in anything written in books for masses :p don't get me wrong tho,i enjoyed while i read it,i just dont give a shit to what the author says nor to his historical research.it was entertaining at most.

it is all about opinions and beliefs...and blind faith is something i lack of.

yet i will probably see the movie :)