Disgusting realy. All this movie is anti-catholic propaganda. Their target audience is some naive dump person who wants to believe in this far fetched fairy tale. I've read both Da Vinci's Code & Holy Blood, Holy Grail and theres absolutely no concrete proof, just some made up rubbish cooked up by some phonys and the authors who want to romantacise this lie. Da Vinci's Code bombed and so will this.
There Ain't No Party Like A Fleetwood Mac Party
I'm not defending the film seeing as how I have not seen it yet, but I find it funny when you say Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood Holy Grail are based on rubbish, when there is documented papers and testimonies and investigation to back up the claims made in the book (well Da Vinci Code's research is the latter book). The Bible however lacks a lot of credible evidence as well. To accept either is a leap of faith in my opinion. Also how exactly did the DaVinci Code bomb? 125mil budget 215 gross domestically and a final with international box office for a total of $758,239,851. Now add another $97,752,283 for US DVD sales plus the unknown amount of int'l sales and you get 856 million. Its TV rights sold for 30million now you're at 886, subtract roughly 50 million for promotions and the film nets about 711,000,000. That is a HUGE bomb.
Furthermore this film was made for 1.5 million, dirt cheap in todays standards.
And fairy tales, this movie is examining the possibility that a man who feed thousands from a few rolls of bread, walked on water, and rose from the dead may of had a wife. Which is more fantastical? It doesn't seem they're debating Christs' works or actions, but rather a cover up by the institution of the Catholic Church.
but rather a cover up by the institution of the Catholic Church.
Very strong point indeed. The Catholic Church though would have been the institution primarily involved in creating the initial cover up. The division of Orthodox, Catholic, and several others denomination did not occur until 1054 with the East-West Schism and then the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The schism occurred nearly a millennium after Christ's death, before hand the Catholic church was the only game in town, so they would have been the one's propagating the tales and stories of Christ. Obviously Jesus was not the definitive Christ as the Jewish community itself dose not fully recognize him, pair it with Muslim faith who view Jesus as a profit and you have a strong cross-section of the world who do not believe in Jesus as the Savior. That mean the almost 2000 years ago there was doubt about his status, so this issue isn't infantile or mundane. Speaking to that if the Catholic church is infallible or not responsible for creating any bad, why did they select certain gospels for the Bible and not other. I am not referring to Gnostic texts exclusively as even today the Catholics and Protestant churches use varying Bibles, mostly due to Luther's exclusion of certain texts. Also if the church is not evil or more accurately "misleading" then why did they persist in the sale of indulgences which duped masses into believing their trip to heaven was ensured by purchasing a piece of paper not through truly knowing and accepting Christ as your savior. The role of the pope in international conflict and battling monarchs for control of territory, another reason for the schism, also shows that the church as an institution had ideas and practices that were not always targeted towards the belief and worship of Christ.
shareThe division of Orthodox, Catholic, and several others denomination did not occur until 1054 with the East-West Schism and then the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The schism occurred nearly a millennium after Christ's death, before hand the Catholic church was the only game in town, so they would have been the one's propagating the tales and stories of Christ.
Obviously Jesus was not the definitive Christ as the Jewish community itself dose not fully recognize him
Almost 2000 years ago there was doubt about his status
Why did they select certain gospels for the Bible and not others
Also if the church is not evil or more accurately "misleading" then why did they persist in the sale of indulgences
Very strong response, I'm happy someone can actually engage on a debate about the subject without resorting to petty arguments and really make strong points.
As far as the east west division, I've kind of exhausted my off-hand knowledge of the subject and don't know the whole history, while I still believe that the Catholic Church had the influence over the masses to propagate their ideas I have nothing that can bridge the gap between the east and west.
The point about the Jewish population was more to illustrate the Jesus' credibility was not definitive. I remember hearing that there we're several other "messiahs" at the time, Jesus just caught on. But as far as not everyone seeing him goes everyone today did not observe Christ. All our experience with him is through the same avenues that would have existed 2000 years ago (parables, homilies, and teachings).
Finally whether or not the church intended to mislead people with indulgences, is not the point. They eventually did and still persisted with the method and did not reform it till the masses realized the err behind the ways.
Still, the teachings of the early church, which still are the fundaments of all christian denominations, were formulated by church fathers and theologians of both traditions. In those times there wasn't a catholic church in it's present meaning. And the word "propagate" is incorrect as they had to go after the teachings of Christ. Sure, sometimes disputes erupted but the majority prevailed.
It is very much the point if the indulgences were made to mislead or not, because of what it says about the church. As for the "masses realized", that's not entirely correct. Those who protested were mainly clergy, which in time reformed the church (the council of Trent). Sadly a more extreme monk named Luther made himself heard in the greedy courts of north germany before things could sort out themselves...
You do realize that the term Catholic dates back to 106 AD, don't you? Hmm, maybe not given your later posts. You also know, I would think, that if you translate the literature of the Orthodox Churches that refer to themselves as Catholic? Hmm, given this post I guess not...
Also, the word "fundament" has 4 definitions... 1) the anus, 2) the buttocks, 3) the foundation of a building and 4) an underlying theoretical basis or principle (used in mathematics and socialogical circumstances; can be applied to legal issues and items). Now it's probably this 4th definition you believe you are utilizing but given the literary nature of the basis of bibilical scholarship, the word foundation would have been better.
Finally if you're going to argue history rather than the points of the film, how about some citations?
I haven't seen the film yet and I'll take all of it with a grain of salt when I do. But I think if someone were to mount a concerted effort to hide/denigrate this information, the modern Catholic church would certainly have the resources...
For those reading this, see the film, do the research, make up your own mind; and forget the posters/posers(?) here who can't get titles or spellings correct.
I am well aware about the word "catholic" but that has also some definitions, most importantly "universal", the early church was called "The One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church". Most denominations today claim this name, because the claim themselves to be universal.
Excuse my choise of words, English is not my first language.
Citations are pointless here, one shouldn't seek information from places like this. However I advise you to go to a library or why not the nearest encyclopedia and read. (You know, it's not I who say the questionable things which are totally disregarded by real scholars...)
And people who makes up their minds from watching films (especially like this) frightens me. Such stupidity and paranoia can't be good for our society...
"can't accept that a big organisation can exist in 2000 years without being evil and secretive"
Can I just point out that this statement is completely false. I would go and check out on the web or in a library somewhere the atrocities and evil that the Catholic Church has been involved in over the centuries. Including most recently the child abuse scandals involving priests.
It has remained in power over the last 1600 years because of the complete opposite, it has bullied, murdered and abused people so that they could remain in charge.
I am not anti Catholic by the way, far from it I beleive that society needs religion, just get your facts right. The Catholic church has blood on its hands just like any other big organisation that stays in power so long. Thats how it stays in power!!!
I actually do believe that Jesus was just a man, but a great one, a leader of his times, but that to me is not blasphemy.
Excellent response. I always find it ironic that some religious people are so quick to accuse other beliefs as fairy tales, yet their own are so fantastic, and usually even more so.
share"...there is documented papers and testimonies and investigation to back up the claims made in the book...
"The Bible however lacks a lot of credible evidence as well.In light of your statement here, if such evidence existed regarding what Christians believe about Jesus in the Bible, what would that be?
"And fairy tales, this movie is examining the possibility that a man who feed thousands from a few rolls of bread, walked on water, and rose from the dead may of had a wife. Which is more fantastical? It doesn't seem they're debating Christs' works or actions, but rather a cover up by the institution of the Catholic Church.
The supposed "documentation" for this ridiculous hash of discredited hogwash is either conveniently "lost", or derived from sources 1500 to 1800 years AFTER the supposed events described. Really, isn't this a little silly? It's a little like speculation about who King Arthur might or might not have married, because the contemporary non-biblical source material concerning Jesus is extremely scarce (quite reasonably scarce, when you consider the time that has passed, the political and social upheaval since then, and the relative obscurity of the players and locations of the story). Please remember Mr. Brown wrote a NOVEL, not a history book. He made a boat-load of money, so did the film makers who created "DaVinci Code, so will the makers of this dreck. It's ALL about getting credulous fools to pay out money to watch or read this fantasy story. As entertainment, it is marginal, in my opinion. As history it is complete nonsense. NO CREDITABLE HISTORIAN, SECULAR OR ECCLESIASTICAL, BELIEVES THIS CRAP. Please, don't waste your time and money on this film or the nonsense theory behind it.
share@sublimelouie - I've not seen this film yet either, but to pick you up on the point about Holy Blood Holy Grail, the whole Rennes le chateau thing it was based on was admitted to be a hoax before that book was even published - their investigation was naive at best. As for Dan Brown, I've read three of his books and found his "research" to be jaw-droppingly lazy (despite a strangely adolescent writing style I must confess to enjoying his page-turners though. Perhaps that's the real mystery here!).
BTW I speak as a "lapsed Catholic" who became a rock-solid atheist when he grew up. I actually kinda like these "secret history" documentaries though, and will probably watch this one. I don't totally dismiss the possiblity that there may have been a (human) Jesus in existence a couple of millennia ago, although the whole story is suspiciously similar to those of Horus, Mithras et al that predate it. Can't deny the cultural significance of the character though.
Christianity, Catholicism, all religeon is a far-fetched fairytale. Wake up! There may very well have been an historical figure called Jesus, but he sure as hell wasn't the son of God. I'm looking forward to seeing this film, I just hope it isn't steeped idiotic religeous dogma.
shareDavid, saying that Christianity is a far-fetched fairytale works and sounds good on the surface, but it doesn't account for many things such as why Jews like the apostle Paul would suddenly change from a high status within his Jewish society to become a Christian and risk death and shame for something he knew inside not to be true. People don't knowingly die for something they know to be a lie. Saying that Christians made it all up or that the apostles did doesn't account for their reactions and brazen conviction regarding what they say they witnessed.
shareI do believe in God; not necessarily any religion's specific view of God, but I do believe. I also believe that Jesus existed; he may or may not have been the son of God, and he may or may not have had a wife and children. Personally, I don't see why it would be such a bad thing if Yeshua of Nazareth had had a family of his own, but it also wouldn't really concern me if he hadn't.
What does concern me is how the people in this film handle supposedly ancient artifacts. I haven't seen the movie, but looking at the trailers, photos, and clips, it looks like ancient pieces of parchment and other objects are being handled with bare hands. Either these things are forgeries or they're in the wrong hands. This is pretty bothersome to someone like me who is studying archaeology in college.
But hey, the Catholic Church stopped teaching that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute decades ago. I guess there's hope for all of the armchair historians clinging to the belief that she was also Jesus's wife.
I saw it a few days ago and audible gasps were heard from the audience at a few points when the guys in the movie handle rare bits and pieces of stuff with their bare hands, break bottles open, etc, but the point is clearly made that these are NOT proper archaeologists digging this stuff up. It would've been easy enough to fake the trappings of legitimate archaeology if they wanted to, I suppose.
It's a VERY interesting film. Tells a damn' good story and presents a more hopeful message than I expected. The jury's still out on the stuff they dug up, but the film's still worth a look.
"and theres absolutely no concrete proof, just some made up rubbish cooked up by some phonys and the authors who want to romantacise this lie".
The same could be said about the bible.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
When someone (an overwhelming scientific majority) points out that "facts" presented in a "documentary" like this has since long been proved to be wrong, it's not a relevant defence to attack the Bible. It's completely beside the point. The (rightly) discussed credibility of the Bible does not change the fact that statements made in this film simply isn't true.
shareI am pretty sure that the Priory of Scion was a hoax? It is possible that Jesus had a relationship with Mary, but the whole conspiracy and coverup that some people suggest I do not believe in. People try to dramatize any sensitive subject and capitalize on the controversy.. Just like Dan Brown and now this film. There may be a bloodline of Jesus Christ, but nobody has the body of Mary and there is not any concrete proof of either side. There just simply is not enough evidence to support or deny it. That is why I am puzzled as to why people keep regurgitating the same old stuff over and over again.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
CHRISTIANITY: The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
All that's fine, but where you find a problem is the possibility that he may have been married?
-------
You cheated on me, when I specifically asked you not to?!
It's important to keep in mind that there were many "messiahs" around Jesus's time. The one thing that seperated Jesus from them is that Jesus rose from the dead.
share