Morfor: Da Vinci Code Your Life

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, March 3, 2004 | Mark Morford, I swear to God I'm not helping her choose her subject matter

[presidio9]

I thought that parts of the New Testament was put together, by Constantine, 3 centuries after the Crucifiction? Please correct me if I am wrong.

The DaVinci Code deals with the four Gospels, the last of which was written by St. John around 100 AD. John was the youngest Apostle, and he was asked to put his recollections down to give a more personalized account. He referres to himself in the stories as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Your perception may be based on the first historical referrences to the New Testament, which did not come about until centuries later (nobody of importance noticed Christians before then, so there were no remarks on them). However, the documents did exist, as archeological evidence has shown.

[BrooklynGOP]

Paul was expressing his opinion

Pfff! Who care what Paul thinks, right? Bible is full of opinions, anyway. In any case, the bloodline theory seems plausible.

[presidio9]

I read the book, and I welcome others to do so. Then I will tell them why it is wrong. The original premise that the Knights Templar were looking for the remains of Mary Magdalene is provably false. They were never lost. We know exactly where they are to this day. If Mr. Brown had spent half an hour researching this subject, he would have known this. Instead, he is content to pseudointellactualize. The lead character is a world re-nouned code-breaker who spends two days researching his eureaka moment -that DaVinci took notes in mirror-image (I did not know it was possible not to know that). For reasons like that, I will not bother seeing the movie.

[presidio9]

About what you'd expect...

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

That tract should be an obvious truism - it is easier to focus on spiritual matters if you are not focused on the worldly. However, for several hundred years priests could and did marry and have children. The change was a result of political worries (church hierarchy fighting to confer privilage on their children and relations).

Also realize that no where in the Gospels does Jesus tell his followers to remain celibate.

LTS

[BrooklynGOP]

We know exactly where they are to this day. Where?

[presidio9]

I forgot to add that none of the accepted Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple (120 AD?), so all are accepted to have been written before this event.

[BrooklynGOP]

Also realize that no where in the Gospels does Jesus tell his followers to remain celibate.

Exactly :)

[presidio9]

The church of La Sainte-Baume, Marseille, France.

[jwalsh07]

Matthew 19

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[1] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[presidio9]

Pfff! Who care what Paul thinks, right? Bible is full of opinions, anyway. In any case, the bloodline theory seems plausible.

Let me get this straight:

The Church and the Gospel mantained that Jesus never married for centuries that Jesus never married in anticipation of the day when it would begin ordering its own officers not to marry? What's "plausible" about that? Was there Divine intervention?

[presidio9]

Let's try that again:

The Church and the Gospel mantained that Jesus never married for centuries in anticipation of the day when it would begin ordering its own officers not to marry? What's "plausible" about that? Was there Divine intervention?

[expatpat]

Why isn't this guy in the asylum? Incoherent rants are enjoyed in SF, apparently.

To call Brown's book well-researched is ridiculous. He mixes some true facts with a bunch of fanciful BS, and doesn't even know where the Mona Lisa hung when the female protagonist was a kid (in the Grand Salon, not in the current special room).

[BrooklynGOP]

The Church and the Gospel mantained that Jesus never married for centuries in anticipation of the day when it would begin ordering its own officers not to marry? What's "plausible" about that? Was there Divine intervention?

Let's try that again. The "plausible" theory is the bloodline theory from post #33:

Allegedly, so it doesn't undermine the Church's teachings on celibacy and to defuse any potential claims that Christ has any surviving bloodline (which would make him a mortal prophet).

[spodefly]

Often, just behind the facade of things is a huge hunk of gorgeous convoluted magic you would do well to lick.

This is Morford's philosophy of life -- find something to lick.

[Sofa King]

"What supposedly sacred truths are available to us are all relative to those who hold the power. Often, just behind the facade of things is a huge hunk of gorgeous convoluted magic you would do well to lick. Meanwhile, the divine feminine is right there, winking, sighing heavily, waiting for you. Like, duh."

???

Someone needs to lay off of the bong before she writes any more articles. Really, this confused mess shouldn't be sufficient for a high school publication, much less a professional media outlet.

[oyez]

It serves no purpose to publish this kind of praddle maybe except to prove into what depths some people lost themselves. Morford rantings reveal that trappings of a tortured soul. Prayer intentions are noted in this case.

[presidio9]

Allegedly, so it doesn't undermine the Church's teachings on celibacy and to defuse any potential claims that Christ has any surviving bloodline (which would make him a mortal prophet).

A) Jesus was 100% mortal. That's the central point of Christianity.

B) Priests could marry until the middle ages. They still can in the Greek Church, which has the same New Testament as the Roman one.

C) These stories were in existence well before the Church itself had any wealth or power to protect. The point has been made in the past that priestly celibacy was designed to protect the Church's assets, denying legitimacy to the offspring of its officials, and there is reason to this. However, the Gospels predate that reason. Jesus may have been many things. He was not married. It makes no sense.

[RichInOC]

You can focus this kind of perspective, this awareness, on just about anything in your life. Food. Cars. Sex. Politics. Guns. You trust your instincts and pick at a thread of curiosity and you pull, read up and educate yourself, and pretty soon you're reading "Fast Food Nation" or "High and Mighty" or "Stupid White Men" and realizing not only how you've been duped but also how refreshing it is to see through the masks and the bogus marketing and the hidden histories.

...aw, c'mon, Mark, I know you're the very model of a modern San Fran leftist, I know you're hornier than a three-testicled tomcat (and not terribly particular about which hole, or who the hole's attached to)...but you don't think the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Mikey and his fellow leftist writers are at least half carnival hucksters themselves? Give me a break.

[oyez]

The church's teaching on celibacy came hundreds of years after the Bible was composed.

Informed, aren't we? Where do you get your information?