In The Da Vinci Code Brown treats the figure in the painting as being undoubtedly Mary Magdalene, but what evidence does he have to back that up? Take another look at The Last Supper in the Art of The Da Vinci Code gallery.
In the book Dan Brown writes:
Sophie examined the figure to Jesus’ immediate right … a wave of astonishment rose within her. The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt… female.
“That’s a woman!” Sophie exclaimed.
Teabing was laughing. “Surprise, surprise. Believe me, it’s no mistake. Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.” (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code)
The person sitting on Jesus’ right (the figure to the left of him in the painting) does have some feminine-looking features and may appear feminine but there is more evidence that it is a man, not a woman.
Evidence that the figure is not a woman:
- Da Vinci often drew androgynous looking men (men with feminine qualities); for example, see his painting of John the Baptist.
- It was common convention at that time to paint John the disciple with feminine qualities
- It makes sense to have John (called ?the beloved disciple? or ?the one that Jesus loved?) sitting to Jesus’ right.
- The person to Jesus’ right seems to be wearing men’s style clothing
- Surely when the picture was first painted, someone would have noticed it was a woman if indeed it was intended to be a woman. After all it is ?among the most famous paintings in the world?; it seems unlikely that this would just be coming to light now.
- The painting is meant to capture the moment when Jesus tells His disciples He will be betrayed, so all the disciples should be there. But if that is a woman in the painting, then one of the disciples is missing. Remember that at the time of the last supper, Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus so all twelve disciples would have been present.
- Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that’s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred
Sophie was pretty quick to identify the person in the painting as a woman, but what do you think? Looking at the painting is that a man or a woman? Do first impressions sometimes need correction? Is the evidence as obvious as Brown would have us believe?
400 Comments
Feed for this entry
Trackback Address
May 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I think the last bullet is the most important.
Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that?s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred.
If Da Vinci was actually angry at the Catholic church, which he may have been for all I know, it doesn’t mean that he was actually portraying facts.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I really feel that the point re: the 12 at dinner is the most profound….
“when Jesus tells His disciples He will be betrayed, so all the disciples should be there. But if that is a woman in the painting, then one of the disciples is missing. Remember that at the time of the last supper, Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus so all twelve disciples would have been present.”
This is so profound. Why would da Vinci have gone to all that trouble to paint a picture that accurately represented the Last Supper and then have a missing disciple?
May 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I agree with Sheldon. When I was reading the book, I kept wondering why the characters would believe an artist who painted the image over 1,400 years after the fact. Was he there? No. So, how would he know?
May 12th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Are there any other paintings of the last supper? It’s a pretty major event in the Bible but I’ve only ever heard of the Da Vinci version. If there other paintings of the scene do they have Mary Magdalene in them?
May 12th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Okay, listen up!
Perhaps (don’t shoot me for saying my opinion), PERHAPS Leonardo painted Mary Magdalene in there to pass on the secret, assuming there WAS a secret (keep playing along with me). It doesn’t mean that John WASN’T there, it just means that Leonardo painted Mary there instead of John to pass on the secret.
PS: It’s NOT entirely accurate with the seating, Karen. Since they were Jewish, the apostles and Jesus would have been “lounging” on pillows, which would have been on benches arranged in a half-square.
PPS: PLEASE don’t call him “Da Vinci”. Da Vinci literally translated means of or from Vinci, where Leonardo was born. So basically everything you people are saying is: “From Vinci did this, from Vinci painted that”, and personally, it’s annoying the heck out of me. Call him Leonardo, just as everyone in the respected art community does. Thank you.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Hey Sarah.
No guns here, don’t worry.
I’ve always looked at this painting with a bit of skepticism. My question is, “Why are they all sitting on the one side of the table?”
You probably know my opinion on whether Leonardo actually knew something secret, I am one of this blog’s authors. We’re all entitled to opinions. I was able to “play along” with Dan Brown which allowed me to enjoy the book. I turned off my imagination when I got back to reality though. I found that there is way too much in the book that is historically inaccurate that I can’t take any of it as fact.
Thanks for the lesson on what Da Vinci actually means. I’ll call him Leonardo from now on. Any way I can call him Leo for short? I find I typo Leonardo every time. It’s sort of like saying Jesus Christ in a curse form. Like he actually makes us do stupid stuff.
May 13th, 2006 at 4:40 am
Sarah is right about calling him “Da Vinci” is silly. We keep saying “from Vinci”. It’d be like referring to Jesus all the time as “of Nazareth” or me as “from Orlando”.
I considered this early on, but decided it made sense to stick with “from Vinci” because that’s what Dan Brown did. His book isn’t about the code from Vinci, it’s about the code from Leonardo, but that’s not what he called it either.
I agree, we should refer to him as Leonardo. I fear that “Da Vinci” or “DaVinci” has been too ingrained in me now — by Dan Brown no less!
As for how they are sitting, I agree with Sarah and Sheldon. It always felt like a supper table in a sit-com where everyone sits on the same side like in “Happy Days” or something. And the Bible doesn’t record whom sat where, except it seems that both John and Judas were by Jesus…and that Peter leaned into John asking “what did Jesus say” about who would betray him. Looking at Leonardo’s interpretation of that, it does look like the feminine figure would be John because it looks like Peter leaning into him asking that very question.
Of course it’s all how we’re interpreting an artist’s interpretation of a historical event.
I personally just feel that, although Brown’s theory of it being MM and not John is entirely possible, I don’t feel it’s likely. After reading stuff online and watching some National Geographic specials on it, I feel more confident in that.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Although I have not read the book I will probably see the movie if for no other reason that to intelligently prepare comments on wether or not the information presented is factual and if not what the truth is. I agree that this is an awesome opportunity for stepping forward as Christians and proclaiming the truth. There is a saying “The world is ruled by the people that show up” This is where the opportunity lies, we need to “show up” and share the truth of our savior, his life and teachings to all, and those who challenge our beliefs tend only to make us stronger.
May 13th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
There are plenty of other Last Suppers which depict John (the Evangelist, not the Baptist) youthful, beardless, with long hair. Andrea del Castagno’s Last Supper is an example. That is SO not a woman in Leonardo’s.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Thanks Serena! I was reading these comments hoping that someone who knows more about Art History than me would actually comment! Good to know!Thanks for taking the time to post!
As for whether or not Leonardo’s Painting(interesting posts here about what DaVinci really means) was accurate…I agree with the fact that they wouldn’t have been sitting at a table and definitely not all on one side. Instead, they would have been trying to hear everything Jesus said and probably gathered all around him. I appreciated what you said Rob, that it does look like Peter is leaning over to John(and not MM) and asking, “what did he say?” Most interesting!
May 14th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I found it interesting that Google News had a piece from the Washington Post this morning talking about how “People have spiritual interest and no forum to talk about it…”. And that the book’s epic success “has to be drawing on something that’s in people”.
The quest for spiritual knowledge seems ever increasing and the Da Vinci Code has afforded the opportunity to open or continue the dialogue on a massive scale.
The Washington Post even issued an invitation to “Tell us, in 400 words or less, about an essential aspect of your faith. What religious teachings, daily rituals or life-changing events have shaped your spiritual identity?”
Acknowledging that we have a spiritual hunger within our own hearts is a healthy place to be. Looking for answers is a good thing. May truth be revealed as we seek.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I think the most likely interpretation is that the “effeminate” figure is John. It’s believed that John was the youngest disciple, and with his self-proclaimed nickname “the beloved disciple” and all his “love talk” in his letters, Leonardo, I believe, imagined John as “softer” than say, the rugged fishermen who made up much of the corps of the disciples.
Regarding “Da Vinci”: this is an issue of the evolution of language and surnames. Today we have names like “Albertson” which means “Albert’s son” or “Baker” which came from our ancestors who were bakers, so I don’t find “Da Vinci” at all dissonant.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:40 am
As someone who has studied too much English lit, I’ve learned the power of interpretation. Sophie’s interpretation of the painting (and therefore Brown’s) is purely an interpretation. This reminds me of the time I met someone and couldn’t tell if he was a guy or girl. I mistakened him for a girl at the time because of my interpretation and it was, needless to say, embarassing. One’s interpretation can skew what the author may have been trying to convey. For example, English majors at my school were known for reading too much sex and Freudian theory into the texts we studied. So here’s my interpretation: John the Baptist looked very feminine in the painting by Leonardo. Therefore, this John or whoever the disciple is in the painting can be a man that looks very feminine also. IF it is a woman, then according to my interpretation, she was pretty ugly. Also, even IF it was a woman, what makes people think it would hafta be Mary Magdalene?
and again, “Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that?s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred.” Perhaps there was some secret that Leo wanted to pass on, but how accurate would this secret be?
May 15th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Well, friends, I read each of your comments and I must say that I’m impressed. I’m not going to pretend that I’m some Art Historian, I’m a frickin’ farmers daughter… so I’ll make this short and sweet. Who is holding the dagger? Why is he holding a dagger? I thought all the disciples were friends. I think it might be the guy in the yellow? Is that Peter? Is he threatening “Mary-John”? He looks pissed off. He’s eyes aren’t peaceful, they look rather intent on killing someone. What is Leo trying to tell us? So many questions… I LOVE it!
p.s. It’s very true what you say Elaine, people are ready to ask difficult questions and willing to find answers for themselves… The Da Vinci Code was simply the catalyst. Seek it out people… you’re sure to find it!!!! Peace out and love life!
May 15th, 2006 at 11:49 am
MJ, it was a supper. I’m thinking butter knife. And the disciples, I am sure, had more than just the odd little spat. I’m sure Jesus got frustrated with some of their egos more than just the once.
Either way, Leonardo wasn’t there and it was a painting centuries later, not a photograph so I’d rather trust the Bible, which many have tried to disprove but only failed.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I went to see the fresco in Milan some five years ago, long before I had ever heard of the Da Vinci Code, and both my daughter and I came out of the church and said “why is John a woman?” It is very clearly a female figure (with breasts). The missing disciple could be symbolised by the (also very evident) disembodied hand holding the knife.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I believe that is indeed Peter for a couple of reasons. Since Leonardo da Vinci was not present for the Last Supper, let’s look at the documents we KNOW he had (and I encourage you to go to these same texts with me for this and read them in context to get a better feel for it).
1. At the Last Supper, according to St. Luke’s account, there were at least two swords present (could be at least one of the daggers).
2. Later that night when Jesus was arrested, according to St. John’s account, Peter used a sword to cut off the ear of one of the arresters.
3. Back at the Supper, according to St. John’s account, it was John sitting next to Jesus and it was Peter leaning over to John asking John to ask Jesus a question.
Given these, I think it is VREY probable that Leonardo da Vinci painted Peter holding a knife/dagger/sword, leaning into John who is sitting next to Jesus. One must admit this has got to be the most probable interpretation of the painting.
You can read all of the Gospel accounts of the supper from all four authors: St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Thank you for sharing your story, Annie! It made me smile.
Can I ask you to look at the painting one more time? If you position your body exactly like Peter’s, it is possible that he is actually holding the “butter knife”. It’s just that the man in blue is in the way of Peter’s wrist. And the white haired man beside Peter is holding his hands up like he’s about to grab a pair of… something. Hey, it’s just for fun! Is everybody having a good time? Any other ideas? Oops, I’m almost late for work… catch you later. Peace brothers and sisters!
May 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Here’s something else fun to think about then. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/gallery/lastsupper.shtml
If virtually none of the orig remains, then do any of these speculations matter?
Have a good time at work, MJ! yes, this is a fun time! haha
May 15th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
One thing that hasn’t been brought up is that in the painting, Leonardo was trying to capture the moment of tension when Jesus said that “one of you will betray me.” This is why Leonardo painted the disciples with such a variety of expression: Could it be me? Could it be you? How could anyone?
May 16th, 2006 at 6:52 am
There are any number of blogs on the net pro and con regarding this upcoming movie. Perhaps there are those who believe they have the right to call for a boycott of this event, which they do, however what is all the uproar about this movie? Is the church afraid people will leave parishes because their faith is challenged?
Christen ministers with their ever high perbably are speaking as if Dan Brown’s work is non fiction. How silly can they be.
It is just a book, people. In my opinion it is not done to change anyone’s belief. But rather a great mystery taking the reader on a wonderful ride through a brillant authors words on a real page turner.
So buy a ticket, popcorn and find a seat. Enjoy the movie.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:20 am
(For the record, I’m the author of the original article.)
Tova,
The “uproar” about this movie is due to the fact that Dan Brown claims that parts of this book are factual, when they are really not.
The novel begins with:
“FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization … All descriotions if artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
The Priory was proved to be a hoax long ago. See Paul’s Smith site for more info about the hoax:
http://priory-of-sion.com/
Or see the wikipedia article for a summary of the hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
Brown’s treatment of documents is also suspect. He says that the Gospel of Phillip reads “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed their disapproval.”. But in reality, many parts of the document are missing (due to damage to the document) so it actually reads “And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...].” Brown has simply filled in the missing pieces with what fits his purposes. This is not presenting an accurate description of this document.
Incidently, it IS a well written, page-turning story. ;) People don’t have a problem with the story, only that Brown not only believes it himself (see his website) but that many others have been fooled into thinking many parts of it are accurate history. Indeed, I hope people enjoy seeing the movie. But at the same time, I hope that they don’t take what Brown says is “FACT” at face value. Because it is not.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Well…..it still is just a book. The earth will not spin off its axis. It should be enjoyed for what it is….a mind trip
May 16th, 2006 at 7:45 am
The Bible is just a book but it has the potential to change one’s life. I am not saying that The Da Vinci Code is anything like the bible but people in this world believe what they read. Remember the whole incident with Oprah and James Frey.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Tova, I know where you’re coming from. On the one hand, it’s a novel. On the other hand, there’s some pretty inflammatory and questionable statements. I went along for the ride, but then later realized there was more to it. I don’t know if you’ve gone back into the archives of this blog much, but I wrote a post about The Skepticism of Brown, McDowell, and Me. You might resonate with it some.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I understand that some Christians would be offended by what Dan Brown writes in the book. Who wouldn’t be slightly offended? It does challenge a few fundamental beliefs… no doubt there. But what do you have to worry about?
I grew up in a very religious home where the bible is considered the only absolute truth, everything that goes against the bible is heresy. I was “urged” to become a christian when I was 4 years old. I really don’t think a 4 year old has enough life experience to make that crucial decision, but whatever. Choose Jesus and see you in heaven, deny Jesus and well, see you in hell. What would you choose if you were 4 years old? Exactly.
But if Jesus is really God and the bible is absolute truth, and Romans 8:38,39 is true in saying… “For I am convinced that NOTHING can ever separate us from his love. Death can’t, and life can’t. The angels won’t and all the powers of hell itself cannot keep God’s love away. Our fears for today, our worries tomorrow, or where we are - high above the sky (where I am right now), or in the deepest ocean - nothing will ever be able to separate us from the love of God demonstrated by our Lord Jesus Christ when he died for our sins.”… I simple can’t get away from his love. Whatever I do, whatever I believe, wherever I go, God’s love for me is neverending.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in saying this. Thank you.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:51 am
I think to write a novel in the genre that the DVC is written in, I would expect the author to provide accurate background for his/her story. If this was science fiction or fantasy, I would exclude that but for a thriller/mystery that depends on history as its background,the story becomes better because if it is in the realm of real possibility.
So as a reader, before I read the first page I come with presuppostions that although I fully understand this to be a fictional story, I attribute the fictionalness ( my own new word) mostly to the foreground. I expect the background to be accurate,well researched and factual. If it is not then, to me, it weakens the impact of the story, and therefore- not a well written book. Tom Clancy and John Grisham could never get away making some rudimentary errors in detailing information about espionage or legal matters- if they did, critics would be all over them critising their poor writing.
So that leaves the question. Does Dan Brown not care about the accuracy of the background of his book, making the factual errors that he does according to those that are experts in history and theology. Or does he in fact really believe that he was being factual, and all the Da Vinci code “decoders” have it wrong.
Either way, it seems that there is an agenda afoot. Perhaps it is a wakeup call for all of us to reconsider Christianity or maybe it is simply a way to generate controversy into dollars but books that take the apparent shortcuts that this one has usually don’t become international best sellers. Something about this book has triggered the imaginiation of millions of people. To limit the impact of this book as simply a good read seems to be misreading the author’s intent of what he wanted this book to be.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Leah, I think you make an excellent point with the reference to Oprah and James Frey. Here is an author who calimed his book was fact when it was later revealed to be largely fiction. There was an outcry. People had taken his experience with drugs as hope for their own journeys and felt so betrayed when it was revealed. It is a good example of the danger of fiction presented as fact.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Claire, I’m sorry. I’m not too familiar with James Frey. Is he stirring up as much controversy as Dan Brown?
It’s sad if people are dependent on others to release them from their own addictions. I can’t blame James for my addiction to cigarettes. That’s my own bloodly fault.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
It is interesting…I was listening to Margaret Atwood on the radio not long ago…and she pointed out something interesting that is happening when it comes to books. When she writes fiction people ask her “is that character or this event, something that happened in your own life?”. When she writes what is truth, they ask her “This is fiction isn’ it?”. She says that people are taking fiction as reality and non-fiction as truth. I find that a very interesting statement in light of the Davinci Code.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:27 am
gargh. the da vinci painting is NOT a proprer respresentation of the event anyway.
1. The painting shows daylight outside the window, but the actual Last Supper took place at night
2. The figures are seated about the tables on benches, whereas Jesus and his disciples reclined on couches
3. Da Vinci shows a meal of fish and ordinary bread, yet a Passover meal consists of unleavened bread, roast lamb and bitter herb
4. Da Vinci shows only Jesus and the twelve apostles, omitting
* women, yet the Passover had to be eaten by whole families including women
* children, yet the laws of Passover require children to ask questions so that they can learn the meaning of the Passover meal from their parents
* the disciples who prepared the meal during the day
5. Da Vinci shows thirteen Renaissance Italian males in oriental costume in a Florentine palace, not a Jewish celebration of the Passover in Palestine.
dont even get me started on Osiris-Dionysus’ (OOPS sorryz i mean JESUS) life and storyz.
blah.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Tova said: Christen ministers with their ever high perbably are speaking as if Dan Brown?s work is non fiction. How silly can they be.
My response: The problem with the book is that Brown claims the background to the book is absolutely true and many people believe him. The book is also slanderous and those slandered have a right to defend themselves.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Tova said: Well?..it still is just a book. The earth will not spin off its axis. It should be enjoyed for what it is?.a mind trip
My response: How do you know? A book called THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION inspired Hitler to exterminate 6 million Jews despite the fact that there was very little truth in it. In the mid-19th century UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, a fictional novel, helped spark the anti-slavery movement. Just because something is “just a book” doesn’t mean it can’t have a huge influence.
MJ said: It does challenge a few fundamental beliefs? no doubt there. But what do you have to worry about?
I have to disagree with your use of the word “challenge.” If you want to challenge someone, you use facts. Brown does not use fact, he lies. DVC is nothing short of slander. I would love to see Opus Dei take him to court.
I also think you err when you portray those opposing the book as worrying about it. I know that I am not particularly worried about it. However, that does not mean that we should not defend the truth. In fact, we believe that we must defend the truth in order to be true to our faith in God’s revelation in the Scriptures. There is a long tradition of this in the history of the church. Saints like Irenaeus, Jerome and Augustine are only a few of the better-known apologists in the church’s history.
yOyO said: the da vinci painting is NOT a proprer respresentation of the event anyway.
Very true but Leonardo is only doing what other artists of his time did - portray the events as if they were contemporary. It’s just like those insipid picture of Jesus which they use in kid’s books.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:25 am
MJ - James Frey is the author of A Million Little Pieces his personal and often horrific account of drug addiction, hitting rock bottom and fighting toward recovery. I have not read the book but it created quite a stir because it was pitched as autobiographical and later proved to be largely fiction (some argue, not even original fiction. Wikipedia has an article that outlines it. Part of the reason it caused such a stir is because one of the people he hoodwinked was Oprah Winfrey. She had him on the show and selected his book as an Oprah’s Bookclub Pick (which comes with a guarenteed huge boost in sales). She went on the show talking about how his struggle as described in the book kept her up at night and had her in tears. He was lauded as a survivor as someone who had overcome the insurmoutable. Her interview with him after the truth came to light is so full of tension it’s hard to watch. I don’t think people wanted him to solve their addictions for them, but many people read the book and felt that there was hope for their sitaution if this other person could fight back against so much.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Thank you for clearing that up for me, Claire. I guess I should really do my own investigating. my bad.
I guess that situation hurt Oprah’s pride. I mean, how does that make her look? She’s been trusted by millions to have people who speak truth on her show. And she’s very good at it. But there must be a lesson to be learned in that situation. James must have known that the truth about his own life would come out eventually.
But that situation deals with drugs, not religion. I think that’s a whole different ball game! Also, James’ book was an autobiography, Dan Brown is not writing about himself. That’s also a very big difference. And another thing, we both didn’t read James Freys’ book. So, what point our we trying to make? I really don’t mean to be an ass. Forgive me. Peace sista!
May 17th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Thank GOD someone finally said something about calling him “Da Vinci”
“From Vinci Code”
lol.
Good job Sarah!
May 18th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Why should we believe a recent publication which brings confusion to our Christianity?
Indeed the end times has come.
Jesus already predicted the future, telling us about nations rising against nations, and especially about the false prophets and teachings.
My fellow Christians stand firm in the Lord, for this is the end times were you will see all kinds of things that will contradict with the word of God.
Beware of false teachings, close your hears and eyes to false teachings and things which are not of God.
Remember it is written that you should endure all this to the very end!!
Jesus is coming soon. It will be a surprise for all, Shock to those who listen to false teachings and sinners, but those who abide under the shelter of God shall find a resting place in the Most High
Keep your faith in God through Christ Jesus and don?t be deceived with things of the devil especially false teachings
Have faith and may the peace of God be with you all
Frederick
May 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Did anyone ever think that maybe it was not Mary M but Mary the Mother of Jesus. As I child I always thought that is who it was. After all it was the “Last Supper” and Jesus would have had his mother with him if he knew it would be the last time they would be together. I guess that would leave a missing apostle. Perhaps it was Thomas, he seemed to always missing at important times. Is there any record that Leonardo made to identify the apostles in his painting?
May 18th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
What you people don’t seem to understand is that this is a BOOK!! A FICTION BOOK. We know that because the author told us that and because as James Frey proved this year you can’t lie about what genre your book should be.
But the most important thing that the majority of you seem to be overlooking is that Brown makes some very good and true points. Christianity is a religion(or faith) because we believe(or have faith in)what someone wrote in a BOOK hundreds of years ago! Do you have physical proof that he didn’t make all of it up? Because I don’t.And Jesus was a teacher and prophet. Every teacher and prophet I’ve ever heard of wrote their own damn books! Plus there are MANY other religions around that don’t believe in the christian bible. Including Judaism. And last time I checked Jesus was a Jew!
May 18th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
as a person exposed to (and on occasion a participant of) a variety of Christian belief systems i’ve developed a pretty good idea of what i should do to live a good life. it’s a prerequisite to being a dedicated Christian to put your full faith and trust into what you read in the Bible. ‘inspired by God’ etc. and so on. fortunately for me, my exposure placed me directly in the path of conflicting opinions, and translations of our precious Book. this implied to me that although these writings are inspired by one true god, they in fact translated at one point or another with an agenda.
I have more thoughts, i will return…
s
May 18th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Thank you for your e mail. Not all received in the past few days were as pleasant as yours. Politness is always appreciated. Here’s a thought….If people lived there life putting more in than taking out there would be a better world. Now mind you this is just a thought. Imagine how G-d would smile. We seem to forget the important things in the world order. I am amused at all the emotion surrounding the Code. Dialogue should always be encouraged. Exchanging thoughts and ideas seperates us from the animal kingdom. If there is one good thing to come out of these written exhanges it would be this….people are talking about their take on one of the most popular novels in years. No one’s opinion should thought be better than someone who holds a different opinion. If this were true then there would be no need for this site or any others for that matter.
May 18th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Ang, your point about Jesus’ mother sitting with him is not plausible for one reason. During his time women served the seder but were not allowed to sit at the same table. Albeit he was a revolutionary for his time but Jewish laws were still held sacred. And Jesus was an observant Jew, This having been said The Last Supper is whatever whomever chooses to believe. Belief is what makes life interesting. No one belief is better than another.
May 19th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Jenn said: What you people don’t seem to understand is that this is a BOOK!! A FICTION BOOK. We know that because the author told us that and because as James Frey proved this year you can’t lie about what genre your book should be.
My response: As I’ve said before, just because it’s a fictional work, doesn’t mean it can’t have disastrous effects. Hitler and the Nazis used a book called THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION as support for their execution of six million Jews.
Jenn said: But the most important thing that the majority of you seem to be overlooking is that Brown makes some very good and true points. Christianity is a religion(or faith) because we believe(or have faith in)what someone wrote in a BOOK hundreds of years ago! Do you have physical proof that he didn’t make all of it up? Because I don’t.And Jesus was a teacher and prophet. Every teacher and prophet I’ve ever heard of wrote their own damn books! Plus there are MANY other religions around that don’t believe in the christian bible. Including Judaism. And last time I checked Jesus was a Jew!
My response: As far as the historical evidence for Christianity is concerned, there are plenty of excellent books around. I would recommend the works of Peter Krefft as a good starting place. He’s a theologian but his books are very readable. Another good source is the two-volume EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell. There are plenty of other good books out there. (I’m not trying to avoid answering your questions, they are just too broad to respond here.)
As far as why we believe, you have hit upon one of the points of difference between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants do base their faith on the Bible. Catholics, OTOH, note that Jesus established a church but did not say anything about writing the New Testament. (Not that there is anything wrong with the NT, He just didn’t command it.) The church then produced the New Testament and decided which books belonged in the Christian Old Testament as well as the New. St. Augustine of Hippo summarized the Catholic position when he said that he would not accept the Bible were it not for the authority of the church.
Aside from Jesus, how many of these prophets and teachers fed 5,000 with a few rolls and fishes? How many healed the sick or raised the dead? Most important, how many of them rose from the dead? How many of them even have the nerve to claim to? (I’m not talking about prophets and teachers who act in the name of Jesus. What they do is actually Jesus acting through them.) It may be politically incorrect to say so but Mohammed, Kahlil Gibran, Mary Baker Eddy and the rest are false prophets and false teachers because they do not teach what Jesus taught.
Sean said: as a person exposed to (and on occasion a participant of) a variety of Christian belief systems i’ve developed a pretty good idea of what i should do to live a good life.
While I believe that Christians are bound to follow their own consciences, they are also responsible to make certain that their consciences have been properly formed. My question to you would be: How do you know your conscience has been properly formed?
Sean said: it’s a prerequisite to being a dedicated Christian to put your full faith and trust into what you read in the Bible. ‘inspired by God’ etc. and so on.
Even people with the best of intentions can easily be deceived. 2 Pet 1:20-21 tells us that we are not to interpret Scripture on our own. It is the Church that is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Sean said: fortunately for me, my exposure placed me directly in the path of conflicting opinions, and translations of our precious Book. this implied to me that although these writings are inspired by one true god, they in fact translated at one point or another with an agenda.
Sadly, this is true. Many of the newer translations of the Bible have been “translated” in such a way as to please those with a feminist agenda. Others, like THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were written in such a way as to support the beliefs of their “translators.” (The NWT authors stated in a British court that none of them were at all acquainted with Greek or Hebrew.)
May 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Gary, the bible I have on my lap is the “Life Application Bible for Students.” I purchased at the local Hull’s Christian book store… which is known for selling bibles. If you doubt me, people, go visit one. See for yourself.
Gary, are you saying that God doesn’t want us to search out the truth for ourselves? Are you saying that people have to go through the Church and depend on them to translate the bible for the rest of us?!?!?! That is so far from the truth I can barely control myself as I’m writing this.
Gary, tell me, how do YOU know your conscience has been properly formed?????????
Please find out for yourselves, people. God has given you a mind and he wants you make up your own mind about spirituality!
May 19th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Leonardo, like Dan Brown , used his imagination to fuel his creativity. Like all of us he used his circumstances and experience is his work. Did Leonardo know about the rituals of the Seder? Not likely. Was he influenced by the Prior of the monastery, and/or his sponsor, the Duke? Quite likely. Did he do allthe work associated with his name? No, his assistants and students did a lot of it. However, Dan Brown’s book is fiction and is based on Brown’s creativity. I enjoy looking at The Last Supper. I have not read Brown’s book, nor will I watch the movie, but I have read a great deal about both of them, not much of it being laudatory. A couple of quibbles — I read somewhere Brown (or his surrogate) says the Mona Lisa represents “fem inism” because the background shows the landscape higher on the subject’s left than on her right, and makes this one reason why John in the Last Supper must be a woman. But the background in the Last Supper, seen through the “windows” behind the gathering seems to be the same level. No consistency. Leonardo at least knew his Bible, and painted the “truth” even though he made it contemporary to his own time.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
MJ said: Gary, the bible I have on my lap is the “Life Application Bible for Students.” I purchased at the local Hull’s Christian book store… which is known for selling bibles. If you doubt me, people, go visit one. See for yourself.
My response: Uh, OK. I’m not exactly sure what your point is or why I would doubt where you said you bought your Bible or why that doesn’t fall into the category of completely irrelevant in the first place.
MJ said: Gary, are you saying that God doesn’t want us to search out the truth for ourselves? Are you saying that people have to go through the Church and depend on them to translate the bible for the rest of us?!?!?! That is so far from the truth I can barely control myself as I’m writing this.
My response: God has revealed His truth to us; i tis up to us whether we will accept what He has said or reject it. God created us with a free will so the choice is entirely up to us.
As far as the role of the Church is concerned, Jesus established His Church in Matt 16:18 and placed St. Peter at its head. He gave the apostles, who functioned as the first bishops, the authority to bind and loose. He did not give that authority to all believers. You don’t have it; I don’t have it. In addition, at the Last Supper, the real one not the painting, Jesus twice told the apostles - again, not all believers, not even Mary Magdalene - the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). Since I reject the possibility that Jesus either erred or lied, I accept what He said at face value.
Martin Luther taught the idea that each individual could interpret the Bible for himself despite what St. Peter wrote. In the eighty years between his break with the Catholic Church and the end of the 16th century, almost Protestant 300 denominations came into existence. There are presently between 25-30,000, each teaching what they believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to them but each differing from the others to one degree or another. Some of the differences are very small and insignificant; others involve major distinctions. There are two possibilities here: (1) the Holy Spirit is telling each group something different or (2) the believers are not hearing the Holy Spirit correctly. I’m going with option 2 and not blaming the Holy Spirit for all this confusion.
MJ said: Gary, tell me, how do YOU know your conscience has been properly formed?????????
My response: I do not claim perfection, far from it. Therefore I would not say that my conscience is completely properly formed. As I read the Bible, pray, receive the graces made available through the sacraments, etc., my conscience hopefully comes closer to what it should be. However, that is not really an answer to your question. I assume what you want to know is what standard do I use as a guide for my conscience. In light of my comments above, the answer is simple - the teachings of the Catholic Church.
MJ said: Please find out for yourselves, people. God has given you a mind and he wants you make up your own mind about spirituality!
My response: What’s a few more denominations?
May 19th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Des Emery…..Dan Browns’ book says of the Mona Lisa: the face represents the male and female,…..not feminism….just thought I would clear that up.:} He was speaking about the left side of the face. If you would have the chance to stand before the portrait it can be seen.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Since there are many people writing here about the DaVinci Code that are so upset about the book I have a question. Has anyone read The Passover Plot? This book was written in the ’60’s. Currently out of print but available by mailorder through used books stores found on line. If anyone has read it I would enjoy hearing what you have to say. Were you equally angered by that one also? If not ask me questions about the Plot and I will do my best to answer them.
As I have stated before the best thing to come out of Browns’ work is it has people talking and sharing opinions. No one can possible beliewe thedr postings will change anyone’s belief whatever it may be. If that is someones intent it would be a waste of time on their part. Afterall as individuals we are what we are. No more or less.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
to Tova — thanks for the correction, Tova, I guess I did not read the feminism remark as accurately as I had thought. I know that Leonardo painted more than one subject with an enigmatic smile like Mona Lisa, but I didn’t realize that she was supposed to be half’n'half. Yhe background, you must admit, is very different on either side of her. And I have seen the figure of John in the Last Supper transposed very nicely to fit into the space to the left of Christ which looks somewhat empty as is, although that unbalance (five to Christ’s right and seven to his left) would not have pleased Leonardo the artist. Also, right or wrong when re-inforced by a book, whether wrong or right, is given the cachet the book is seeking from the reader. Otherwise, we would not be subjected to reams and reams of advertising. I am waiting for Brown to ‘fess up and really push the un-truth of his work as hard as he has pushed the “truth.”
May 19th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Tova said: Has anyone read The Passover Plot? This book was written in the ’60’s. Currently out of print but available by mailorder through used books stores found on line. If anyone has read it I would enjoy hearing what you have to say. Were you equally angered by that one also?
My response: I read it when it first came out. I have to admit that, at the time, I bought into Schonfield’s nonsense. I was in high school at the time, I was pretty rebellious and I was looking for anything that would “disprove” Christianity and all its rules. So no, at the time, I welcomed it. A few years later, however, I found out that the so-called “swoon theory” was historical nonsense.
I suspect that, in a few years, The Da Vinci Code will be just as forgotten as The Passover Plot but that doesn’t mean that we should just ignore it. It would have been nice if I didn’t have to wait that couple of years to find out the truth. I could have skipped that whole drug thing.
Tova said: As I have stated before the best thing to come out of Browns’ work is it has people talking and sharing opinions. No one can possible beliewe thedr postings will change anyone’s belief whatever it may be. If that is someones intent it would be a waste of time on their part. Afterall as individuals we are what we are. No more or less.
My response: I think that most, if not all, of the Christians here are here because they believe that God wants them to be here. Whatever happens after that is in God’s hands.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:25 am
“What you people don?t seem to understand is that this is a BOOK!! A FICTION BOOK.”
“I fully understand this to be a fictional story. . .”
?This is fiction isn? it??
Now, you are referring to which book? Brown’s? The Bible?
Both have powerful and potentially destructive truths - and both are largely fiction.
May 20th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Here’s the problem that I see:
A. The Bible is fiction. It’s been at it for longer than any book that Brown has written. Unlike the Bible, the Da Vinci Code (DVC) has never been touted as God’s word or as the basis for a religion that has, in effect, killed more people than it can (or will) ever save.
B. The DVC is fiction. However, from a personal standpoint, if I had to choose between the Bible and the DVC a ’story’ to believe, I’d choose the DVC.
C. The Bible, has numerous contradictions and, basically, its purpose is meaningless as ‘the word of God’. If God is omnipotent and omiscient and caring, there would be absolutely no need for the written ‘word’. It defies logic and reason (two elements glaringly absent is all religious discussions) to even suggest so. Further, such a god would be readily familiar with our foibles (remember, He made us, right?), so putting something in writing (especially something that involves our very salvation) would be a faux pas extraordinaire, would it not? And, such a god would not make such mistakes. To even suggest that the Bible is divine is a heresy of sorts. Look at the Pentateuch–the first known example of the ‘cut and paste’ technique. Would God make typos? Would he use a self-appointed clerk? Jump to the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (we don’t even know who they really were) couldn’t agree on how the story was supposed to go! Take the recently ‘discovered’ Gospel of Judas. There’s just another wrinkle in the Biblical fiction some erroneously call ‘truth’!
The self-interested hand of man is blatantly obvious in all of this: Brown’s intention was to sell books; the intent of such folks as those in the Vatican was to buy control and power. The latter have killed more people than they can ever ’save’. Brown’s book hasn’t caused anyone to be burned at the stake or an entire culture to be wiped off the face of the earth. Now, in the latter, we can get into some facts. However, those are facts the religious powers-that-be don’t want openly discussed.
All in all, this is a tempest in a teacup stirred with an imaginary silver spoon by the medieval-minded, pedantic yearners of the status quo. It reminds somewhat of the old saw, the kicked dog yelps the loudest.
MLW
May 20th, 2006 at 6:05 am
As far as my comments go, the book I was calling fiction was The Da Vinci Code. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It may contain some fictional stories, such as the parables, but I believe it to be accurate on matters of history, for example.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:35 am
I would, thus, like follow suit and clarify that I was indeed calling both books fiction (and offer a challenge anyone to prove otherwise). You have, however, made a statement that puzzles me: if the Bible is “…the inerrant Word of God”, then it should by the definition of ‘inerrant’ have absolutely no errors. This contradicts what I would have to stress…it is chocked full of ‘errors’ and omissions and, thus, by your definition, can not be such.
If someone wants to simply ‘believe’ in something, I have no problem with that; but, when one attempts to pass that off as ‘knowledge’ or ‘fact’–especially facts against which other institutions, people, etc. are to be judged–then I simply can’t accept it. I have beliefs that are different from yours (assuming that you’re a Christian and that I definitely am not), but I would not attempt to pass off any of my ‘beliefs’ as ‘fact’ to you or to anyone else. Furthermore, to effectively challenge anyone else’s right to criticize or simply say that I’m wrong would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Both the Bible and the Da Vinci Code (and the Saturday afternoon gossip column, for that matter) have some fact and some fiction in them. And, the most dangerous type of lie is the partial one; for those unwilling to delve deeper (the majority) than the facade the book may offer and having glimpsed some of the basic, obvious truths it portrays, one would be very prone to simply ‘accept’ it. Only by diving in deeper and looking at the underlying issues, its real history, what its acceptance has done to the world, its people, etc., will the truth about the book be discovered. Rightly or wrongly, I place myself in the latter category.
MLW
May 20th, 2006 at 8:59 am
MLW, what contradictions are you referring to? Can you give examples? Just trying to bring this more specific than general.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Miles L, you are right on! Yours is the voice of reason. And since everybody is referencing the bible I also would like to use it to add my two bits to this discussion. Jer. 5:21 (King James version): “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.”
May 20th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Miles said: If someone wants to simply ‘believe’ in something, I have no problem with that; but, when one attempts to pass that off as ‘knowledge’ or ‘fact’–especially facts against which other institutions, people, etc. are to be judged–then I simply can’t accept it. I have beliefs that are different from yours (assuming that you’re a Christian and that I definitely am not), but I would not attempt to pass off any of my ‘beliefs’ as ‘fact’ to you or to anyone else. Furthermore, to effectively challenge anyone else’s right to criticize or simply say that I’m wrong would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Actually, despite your claims to the contrary you are presenting your beliefs as fact. The very fact that you hold to your beliefs indicate that you believe them to be facts unless you are saying that you are deliberately believing what you know to be a lie. (It’s not impossible. I ran into one guy who worshipped a Hawaiian volcano goddess even though he freely admitted she never existed.) You have also said several times that the Bible is full of contradictions yet you have failed to produce a single example. Christianity has existed for almost 2,000 years. All of the books which now comprise our Bible were completed over 1,900 years ago. Don’t you find it the least bit pretentious to assume that you have found the contradictions in the Bible that will pound the final nail in the coffin of Christianity? I don’t mean to be insulting but, in all that time, better minds than you and I have been completely unsuccessful in their attempts to prove that all those martyrs died for a hoax.
There are two types of evidence: direct and indirect. The indirect evidence for the truth of Christianity is the effects you see in the lives of those who let God work through them. I’m talking about people like Mother Teresa or St. Francis of Assisi. I also know how God has changed my life and the miracles that He has worked for me. Can I prove mathematically that God exists and that the Bible is inerrant? No, but I don’t care.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Miles exhibits the attitude so common nowadays that “belief” equals “faith.” Not true. He also seems to subscribe to the idea that the “negative” can be proved as easily as the “positive,” — again, not true. On the other hand, consistency is always there for anyone to see, whether in a book like the Bible (really “a collection of books”) or one like the DVC, admittedly “fiction” but advertised as “truth.” Inconsistency in the Bible is readily “explained” by the faithful. Inconsistency in the DVC is explained away by the author, hardly the same thing.
Miles expresses his belief in his own method — that is, believe what you want to believe. But he castigates anyone who doesn’t share his belief that the Bible is fiction and the Church is resposible for more people being “lost” than “gained” though he provides no numbers or examples for “proof.”
His whole blog entry betrays his bitterness toward religion in general. Without religion of some kind that teaches us to behave towards others in a better way than they apparently deserve — like the Good Samaritan, or Christ at the wedding feast of Cana, we will indeed be “lost.”
May 21st, 2006 at 8:11 am
Des,
A few points:
1. Just for the record, if you ‘believe’ in Webster’s, look up ‘faith’ and ‘belief’; then you might want to ‘amend’ your statement made in the very first sentence. Have you ever read the Bible in its entirety and actually studied its ‘history’?
2. Where has the DVC been advertised as ‘truth’? I missed that one and, I must note that I am talking about advertising by a party responsible for the creation, distribution or publication of the book and not by someone with a comment on a blog somewhere.
3. I am not attempting to castigate anyone for believing anything; I would have no problem in castigating anyone, however, who portrays fiction as fact–the authors/proponents of the Bible or the DVC, if this would be their modus operandi.
4. If you study Joseph Campbell’s works, for example, you will find that, throughout the world, myth has been at the very core of our social existence since time immemorial. The myths found in the Bible are not new (was it Osiris who gave birth to Horace by ‘virgin birth’?–and she did that about 2,500 years before Mary did), but they serve a social purpose. Again, a ‘belief’ system is a necessary part of every society (but, I might add, one that does not require Jesus as its proponent to be a functional one). My point is that if it is accepted as a ‘belief’ or ‘value’ system unique to, say, a specific culture, that’s fine with me; where I have a beef is when a group or groups of people ‘hijack’ a system and begin touting it as absolute fact and then demand others submit to this system or pay dire consequences. Does the latter sound even vaguely familiar to those of us who have studied any history?
5. Finally, I totally fail to see how a Christian can be allowed to ‘explain’ away inconsistencies in the Bible while someone else (presumably non-Christian?) is, by your standards, not allowed to explain away inconsistencies in a fictional novel. Is this not a biased, dual and definitely warped standard? If you’re a Christian, fine; live your life as such and believe all things Christian; however, don’t project that as the ‘one’ way or the truthful way when it comes to others who don’t agree with you. If you do, then you become one of the hijackers I mentioned earlier and they are the villains of the grandest scale.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:12 am
THIS IS FOR THE AUTHOR
YOU ARE A FOOL!!!! BIG TIME
FOR FOOLS LIKE YOU WILL FACE THE WRATH ANG ANGER OF GOD ALMIGHTY
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU
YOU ARE A FOOL!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2006 at 10:32 am
You know, I just don’t get it. Everyone is treating this book as a non-fiction, factual book. It’s not!!! If you read on the title page, it says that “THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. NAMES, CHARACTERS, PLACES AND INCIDENTS EITHER ARE THE PRODUCT OF THE AUTHOR’S IMAGINATION OR ARE USED FICTIOUSLY. ANY RESEMBLANCE TO ACTUAL PERSONS, LIVING OR DEAD, EVENTS, OR LOCALES ARE ENTIRELY CONCIDENTAL.” This Dan Brown wrote a good book and I even liked it. But please remember—IT IS FICTION. There’s more to life than getting obssessed about a fiction book.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:49 am
I don’t get it! Why is everyone getting upset about a fiction novel??? I am a devout Christian and I read the book. I thought it was a good book. But on the “Title Page” it says:
“This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely concidental.”
You will find this type of statement in almost any fictional novel. Again, it’s a good book but IT’S FICTION.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am
beahann, you’re absolutely right! the dvc is fiction indeed. so why are so many people believing it’s true?
May 21st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Gary…It may saddened you to read this but equating the Code popularity to that of the Plot is like comparing apples to oranges. As long as Brown keeps writing best sellers the Code will be around. His next tome, some believe is based on freemasonry, is currently being written. Random House will undoubtedly have a huge first printing the likes of which will rival that of Harry Potter. Everytime he writes a book the Code will be mentioned as a blurb on the back cover. The DaVinci Code is not going to drop into the abyss that so many are hoping for any time soon. Finally, not to sound trite, but why would G-d even care about these messages with the world spirlling out of control? Seems to me there are more serious issues facing all of us than this book.
May 21st, 2006 at 3:13 pm
“DOES IT LOOK LIKE A WOMAN”?
This is the most profound reference to the book the DaVinci Code. This question alone opens up a can of worms that I suspect the church will live to regret. You see, it is almost irrelevant if Jesus was married or if this is Mary Magadelene on his right. The point is this—If it was not Mary, then the church is saying that John was effeminate. I say the church “was saying” because at the time this painting was painted anything offensive to the church was punishable by the most extreme penalty. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, in that both DaVinci and his painting survived (the painting through the Inquisition until now), that the church must have condoned this depiction of John. In the New American Standard bible, preface to “John” it is said that after John the Baptist died, he was routinely painted as effeminate. I guess DaVinci was not alone in this interpretation.However, it was a sin for a man to be effeminate. Also, 1 In Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote, “if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.”. There are four figures in the picture which are rather feminine looking, and have the same things in common. They have similar colour of clothing, long hair, and no beards.
Christ said in Mathew 19:9 to12 that a man must be married, or he was a eunuch. How else can we explain an effeminate John? Of couse, the patriarchal church has depicted “feminine” as evil for centuries now, so is it any wonder that the church is now stuck between a rock and a hard place? I wonder how all of this fits in with the “Sacred Feminine”? Maybe Christ’s interpretation of a woman’s place in the church was considerably different from the existing wisdom of the time. Is this why so many women followed him wherever he went? Is this why the Jews could not accept him as the Messiah (they did not like his version of the law)? Was the Christian church any different?
May 21st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
a few errant thoughts here…
Gary, it was the NWT translation i was mostly speaking of, and one of the beleif systems I’ve experienced. (conversationally, the other major exposures being raised catholic, and my eventual baptism into an Assemblies of God congregation [the conflict of interests inherently found in this mix is chaotic, at best])
regarding Miles and DrYatts?
i’ll use myself as an example…
i have never entered into a debate regarding abortion. i don’t feel i have the right. i’m not a woman. i can tolerate (i suppose) the occasional evolution theory, and the conversations about the story of moses being someone elses, and i may even agree that 6000 years isn’t a good measurement of the earth’s life. You people have your place, as everything needs to be questioned. but this is a discussion about faith. you’re obviously both athiests. you don’t have faith. you don’t have the right to discuss faith.
i’ve been looking at the arguements against mr brown’s book. most of the historical and theological lines he’s drawn seem to be refuted easily. however, there is one place for certain that every religious body i’ve heard from falls short. for mr brown, it was the ’sacred feminine’. they all begin to babble. the subject is breached, and then you find yourself part of a different subject. check for yourselves.
understand i’m not implying we should be running off in the middle of the night wearing silly masks and having a sex rite. nothing of the sort.
i am simply asking this. if jesus really exposed himself to Mary first (and let’s not forget who led the proceedings the first time we saw the holy spirit), what kind of message could he have been sending?
do you think he meant ‘no baptist woman will ever been seen outside of a dress’?
or ‘ a Jehovah’s witness woman can never be an elder, or stand up to the podium’?
do you think he truely meant that a woman’s hair itself was evil, and should be covered in his (and sometime’s any Man’s) presence? and any of the other myriad of ways that our male dominated belief systems have subjugated and villainized the most perfect creatures on earth.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:06 pm
and just one more thought…
Tova suggested this “Seems to me there are more serious issues facing all of us than this book.”
so i have to respectfully pose this question…
if there hadn’t been 2000 years of power hungry men operating every aspect of our lives, how many children would be starving right now? how many bombs would we have made? how many sons would have been sent to die in yet another pointless war? would our earth be threatened such as it is at the moment?
and most importantly, if that time had been dedicated to things not related to power, domination, and greed, what do you think we could have learned by now? imagine what we could have created with the combined efforts of even one of our wars.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Perhaps, Jesus was not intimidated by the Sacred Feminine. Perhaps, he encouraged women to ask questions and seek answers for themselves. Perhaps, Jesus understood that women have something very special to share. (sorry, I’m not only talking about sex… but some hidden knowledge… some hidden truth.) Perhaps, Jesus wanted his teachings to be passed on by women who had reached enlightenment. Perhaps this is why so many women loved him.
Perhaps?
May 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Funny how you should mention the word “power” several times in your last comment Sean.
I just read this today.
Page 70 of The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield
“My field is conflict, looking at why humans treat each other so violently. We’ve known that this violence comes from the urge humans feel to control and dominate one another, but only recently have we studied this phenomenon from the inside, from the point of view of the individual’s consciousness. We have asked what happens inside a human being that makes him want to control someone else. We have found that when an individual walks up to another person and engages in a conversation, which happens billions of times each day in the world, one of two things can happen. That individual can come away feeling strong or feeling weak, depending on what occurs in the interaction.”
“In other words we humans seek to outwit and control each other not just because of some tangible goal in the outside world that we’re trying to achieve, but because of a lift we get psychologically. This is the reason we see so many irrational conflicts in the world both at the individual level and at the level of nations.”
May 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Do women have excellent qualities that men do not possess (example—the ability to compromise, the abscence of male ego, the desire to nurture rather than kill).
May 21st, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Men and Women, throughout the centuries, have been at odds with each other. A constant power struggle, if you will.
Wouldn’t the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, married, be a perfect example of how we can live in harmony with each other?
May 21st, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Rob please show the statics that people are believing this fictious work is believed. thank you
May 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pm
He seemed to do a pretty god job in making the other 11 look like men why make this one look different?….
May 21st, 2006 at 7:13 pm
This quote is from a review of the movie I read just now:
“If Da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ was a commissioned work [it was], what was the reaction when it was finally displayed? Did townspeople ask: “Okay, that’s Jesus’ red-haired wife, what apostle skipped the last supper?” Were people enraged at the symbolism or were they too stupid to figure out that ‘The Beloved Apostle John’ was really Mary Magdelene?”
The painting was displayed publicly after its completion and for hundreds of years afterward. If it really is Mary, both the church and everyone else who viewed it were too dumb to figure it out. That seems rather far fetched.
Dan; Your question is, I think, answered in my original post. Leonardo often drew feminine-looking men (ex. his John the Baptist painting) and John the Disciple was traditionally thought of as being effeminate. I’d wager that due to these preconceptions Leonardo wanted to make it obvious that this was actually John so he made him look feminine.
May 21st, 2006 at 7:13 pm
You’re right Dan, it’s a pretty god job. Perhaps God was the inspiration behind all of this?
May 21st, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Emmzee….As to your question about the Last Supper it is not a question, in my opinion, that those who looked at the painting were “too dumb to figure it out”. Given the time in history it was commissoned and its subsequent viewings no one would even think to look at it for a woman. Everything and anything was controlled by the male influence. No one would dare mention seeing a woman sitting at that table for fear of losing their life. Times were harsh then. No dessention from the norm was tolerated. No one, especially in the church, would dare voice that opinion. The price of speaking out contrary to the church dogma was too high a price to pay. Not to mention women were property then. They had no voice about anything. Not in church or their homes. So then what is the surprise no one said they saw a woman in the painting? None. No one would even be looking for one. The eye see what it wants.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:50 pm
If DaVinci is in a place where he could read all the speculation on this site regarding this particular piece if art work he would be laughing out loud. How wonderful for us he gave so much for us to talk about. His body of works are huge compared to some to the other masters. Yep…He would be laughing.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Sean…go back to the old testament tofind the answer your own questions. Jesus afterall was an observant jew. Dress and hair covering is sited in the old testament. Which he followed. And here is one that is even a better suggestion that many people do not know about. I don’t want to get anyone upset so before postings come up against what will be stated herein take the time to check this out…please….There are 613 commandments. Go to google and look it up for yourselves. Many have to do with the animal sacrifice laws…Its a fun read. Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. Remember I am only the messenger so don’t shoot me. The top 10 were chosen by men who thought they were the most important leaving 603 laying on the cutting room floor.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:23 pm
FFirst, Hi to Miles, and few answers for him ( I don’t think I have them in the same order, but…) Yes, I have read the Bible, cover to cover, not an easy job — mine has nearly 1300 pages in the Old and nrearly 400 in the New. Asfar as my comment on ‘advertising’ goes I read two reports (among many) the first one detailing that the DVC was a work of fiction with all the usuakl disclaimers, and the second one repeating the opening lines from the book itself in which Brownappears to be saying yhat qall the events in the book are true. And I do believe in Noah Webster, and the OED and the remainder of those books, but “faith” is still not “belief” in spite of what old Noah dishes out. Finally, and I hope I have not left anything out, explaing inconsistencies is not the same as “explaining away” those same inconsistencies. By the way, you seem much more sympathetic now than you did in your first response, or am I reading into your words more than I should?
May 21st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
To Tova — oops, I almost forgot to throw this in. You’re absolutely right, Tova, about the Ten Commandments and the rest of the 600 or so - I haven’t counted, but I believe you. I have faith in your numeration. And did you know how the Ten can be divided into two coherent parts and that they aren’t as absolute and unyielding as they appear to be?
May 21st, 2006 at 10:03 pm
re: Da Vinci Code is fictional
Yes, we all know it’s fiction. However, Brown says that it is based on fact when, in reality, it is based on slanderous nonsense. Think of it like this: Someone writes a novel set in your home town and, like Brown, claims that the background is all factual even thought the main story line is fictional. Then the author goes on to say that on a particular street, every house was actually a house of ill repute and it just happens that you live on that street and you know its nothing of the sort. The fact is that the book is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Christianity in general and Catholicism in specific.
re: quality of Brown’s writing
It’s subjective to discuss the quality of someone’s writing but I, for one, was disappointed with the book. I’ve read much better novels. It was exciting enough until they escaped the Louvre but then I thought it went completely lame. Most of the book was a continuous cycle of:
1. We have a problem we have to solve.
2. Oh, I remember, the answer is…..
It was about the same quality of writing as the Tom Swift, Jr. books I used to read as a kid.
Tova said: It may saddened you to read this but equating the Code popularity to that of the Plot is like comparing apples to oranges.
My response: My intent was to compare the two as being stupid, not popular. As far as I remember, the only thing I said about the popularity of THE PASSOVER PLOT was that it was popular in my high school.
Tova said: As long as Brown keeps writing best sellers the Code will be around. His next tome, some believe is based on freemasonry, is currently being written.
My response: I doubt I’ll read it. I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer. My wife read ANGELS AND DEMONS and said it was pretty lame.
Tova said: Random House will undoubtedly have a huge first printing the likes of which will rival that of Harry Potter. Everytime he writes a book the Code will be mentioned as a blurb on the back cover. The DaVinci Code is not going to drop into the abyss that so many are hoping for any time soon.
My response: Anything for a buck.
Tova said: Finally, not to sound trite, but why would G-d even care about these messages with the world spirlling out of control? Seems to me there are more serious issues facing all of us than this book.
My response: Not trite at all. It’s a very good question. The answer is, IMO, that God would care about dealing with this book because it is an attack on the only lasting solution to that out-of-control world. Goddess-worship is not going to save the world, Jesus can if we let Him.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:06 am
Sean said: i have never entered into a debate regarding abortion. i don’t feel i have the right. i’m not a woman.
My response: You may not be a woman but you were a fetus. That alone gives you a vested interest in the debate. However, there is another factor: abortion’s effects on society. Legalize abortion cheapens the value of human life. I was listening to an abortion discussion on EWTN last night and, apparently, even Planned Parenthood now admits that the fetus is a human being. (I have no other sources on this other than what I heard which is why I used the word “apparently.”) It is interesting to note that, in the early 60s, Planned Parenthood opposed abortion because it was killing a human.
MJ said: Perhaps, Jesus was not intimidated by the Sacred Feminine. Perhaps, he encouraged women to ask questions and seek answers for themselves. Perhaps, Jesus understood that women have something very special to share. (sorry, I’m not only talking about sex… but some hidden knowledge… some hidden truth.) Perhaps, Jesus wanted his teachings to be passed on by women who had reached enlightenment. Perhaps this is why so many women loved him.
My response: Where do you find any evidence at all that Jesus bought into this New Age psycho-babble? Certainly Jesus did not accept the common cultural attitudes toward women. He also did the same for Samaritans. Are you going to preach Sacred Samaritanism. Jesus also went against the common attitude toward gentiles. So where’s your Sacred Gentile. My point is that just because Jesus corrected some common abuses in the treatment of various groups does not mean that He raised them to the status of deity.
The Scriptures are quite clear on why Jesus came to Earth: to die for our sins and to preach the Kingdom of God.
Bob Johnson said: Do women have excellent qualities that men do not possess (example—the ability to compromise, the abscence of male ego, the desire to nurture rather than kill).
My response: You mean women like Hillary Clinton? Women are just as sinful as men are. You need to stop watching Oprah.
MJ said: Wouldn’t the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, married, be a perfect example of how we can live in harmony with each other?
My response: The issue is not what could be but what was. Jesus and MM were never married. Period.
Bob Johnson said: You see, it is almost irrelevant if Jesus was married or if this is Mary Magadelene on his right. The point is this—If it was not Mary, then the church is saying that John was effeminate.
My response: The Church didn’t paint “The Last Supper,” Leonardo did. The Church isn’t portraying John as anything.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:17 am
Interesting relevant article:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=33101
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 am
yeah i read that after i posted, so he was just a camp looking guy. lol
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
DaVinci: the Myth.
Enjoyed the DVC movie. Good cinematography, entertaining, engaging, thought-provoking. But it diminishes the book, which is MYTHIC. And humanity has always had this great affinity, an addiction almost, for a rollicking good Myth to explain the unexplainable.
The potency of Myth hinges on ‘anchors’ or points of fact (geographic, historic, etc) around which the fiction or mystery is woven. Such anchors create a veneer of authenticity that distinguishes successful myth from lesser sagas such as Star Wars, hobbits, and Van Daniken. Dan Brown used this formula very successfully in DVC - the book.
Christian orthodoxy feels threatened by this new myth because that very same mythic formula was used by the Council of Nicea in AD 325 (or was it 352?). Politically-motivated bishops cobbled together a sanitized New Testament; a few historic and geographic anchors to support a censored selection of some of the gospels still in oral circulation from the sociopolitical ferment of the Jesus Christ Insurgency. That was the point-of-departure of the mythic New Testament from history.
One who accepts the authenticity of the New Testament without question cannot dismiss DVC as a hoax. Antiquity does not confer authenticity.
In his own time, the historic Jesus-the-man, a Jew, was considered to be an Insurgent by both his rabbinical orthodoxy and Imperial Rome. The parallels in today’s political ferment are all too obvious; a romanesque Imperator in Washington leading a dissolute empire, millions of Muslim and Christian moderates blinded by faith to godly slaughters, and a charismatic (fresh in from the Wilderness yet!)leader of a jihad insurgency who thinks of himself as Christ-like and a sitting duck for martyrdom.
In effect we may be witnessing a replay, and I think this is the reason for the popularity and current intense interest in DVC. Otherwise, there’s nothing terribly new about this Mrs. Christ tale. I heard it (in strictest confidence!) from an Anglican bishop in 1949 but we weren’t watching a replay then.
Another book in this expanding genre is Baigent’s ‘Jesus Papers’ which is less fictitious and more informative.
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Babaloo Ayay
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I agree with Baba…It isn’t the Ayay that is hidden from the painting, but the Babaloo…and that it what I think is really something we should look into.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Thats very interesting. I have known about the Ayay for a long time, but this is the first I’ve heard of the Babaloo. This definitly needs to be investigated.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I am Father Peter from the Holly church of Holiest St. Peter’s Cathedral in Holy Hungary. I am ashamed that there is such spoken words of that which isn’t learned. We know that for fact and fact is separate from those that are not in that field of knowledge. As per the blasphemes words that are repeated, it isn’t that if she or he is in the supper, but IF. I hope that you should take a read in Psalm 501 where it is said in the second passage who attended and there about fulfill the true situation. Bless you.
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Tova, sorry for the slow reply. Been traveling. I made my comment about people believing Dan Brown not as fiction from the Barna report I posted about. Actaully, to be more accurate, it says people have been influenced spiritually by the book.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Wow! I see boys and girls that we have been busy typing today on this site. As for me, well, I just got on line at this somewhat late hour.
Rob I hope you had a good trip. Did you feel it necessary to leave town to see the movie? HaHa I am just kidding.
As for me I went to see it Friday and can report I was not disappointed at all. Truly it was the first time I saw a movie that once it started no one got up to get popcorn. Everyone stayed seated. So quiet was the theater you could hear a pin drop. And one can only guess that since The Code brought in 224 million dollars worldwide this weekend, which by the way does not factor in all of Sundays receipts, it is a resounding success. So for all the nay sayers,protestors and those calling for a boycott not many were listened to. Movie goers are not prone to listening to critics. I know I didn’t.
Gary….When men carry a baby …well I am guessing you can know the rest. The right to choose is guaranteed.
Where do you find evidence that women were not a part of his following? What does it matter if he did? And as for the Samaritans they were out to kill Jews that is why the were avoided. Let us not forgot Jesus was totally aware of the prophecies. But what do any of us have for fact? I don’t mean to demean another one here but the truth is we were there. We can choose to believe the words written long after his death or not. Some texts were written by those who did not even know him.There are no known words written by him. And what about the papers held deep inside the Vatican. What went into the New Testament was hand picked. What gospels will we never know about? Belief is faith passed. Some call church teachings dogma. And why shouldn’t it be called that? ” Don’t ask questions just believe what we tell you.” When is the last time as an adult anyone of us has believed whatever without asking a question? And were is the proof everyone writing here is Christian?
Who would be offended if there was some here that came from another faith? Should their opinion be less respected? Of course not.
Father Peter…Another country is heard from. Thanks for the email. The purpose of this site is for discussion. Open and honest without antagonism. It was around 540ad, I am not exact
on the date, that Mary Magdelene was first called a prostitute. That belief was held and preached until Pope John Paul II said “oops we got it wrong”. How sad is that? Millions of people were taught that in Sunday School and from the pulpit. Children in early religous instruction were taught she was immoral. One could argue, “she was saved by Jesus”, but that does not take way or lessen the injustice that was said about her. Why should we care because the correction has been made, you might ask? I can only answer if that was taught wrong what other “fact” might also be wrong? Therefore this site is great in that it allows for anyone who choses to write about what they think. In a way it is an online school. It is very cool actually. So please keep writing and I for one promise to reply.
A blessing on you also.
Any other clerics here? Minister or Rabbi?
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
James Clark…Bravo for your words. I bought the Jesus Papers but have not yet started to read it. I am currently reading The Alabaster Jar and finishing up Holy Blood Holly Grail. Both are a great read. I am an avid book reader and since the uproar over the “code” the sales clerks at Borders know me on site.
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Tova said: When men carry a baby …well I am guessing you can know the rest. The right to choose is guaranteed.
My response: Yes, I’ve heard it before and it is a completely bogus argument. I always love it when liberals tell conservatives they have no freedom of speech. It forces the liberals to show their true colors. At any rate, I choose not to be silenced and you will just have to learn to live with that.
Tova said: Where do you find evidence that women were not a part of his following? What does it matter if he did?
My response: You are twisting my words. I never said that Jesus had no female followers. Of course He did. What I said was that there were certain things that Jesus reserved for the twelve apostles and there were no women among them.
Tova said: And as for the Samaritans they were out to kill Jews that is why the were avoided.
My response: That’s not true. They were considered to be heretics by the Jews. Traveling through Samaria was thought to make a Jew unclean. That’s why Jesus made the hero of His parable in Luke 10:25-37 a Samaritan. It was the Samaritan who helped the injured Jew.
Tova said: Let us not forgot Jesus was totally aware of the prophecies. But what do any of us have for fact?
My response: You lost me. I have no idea what prophecies you are talking about.
Tova said: I don’t mean to demean another one here but the truth is we were there. We can choose to believe the words written long after his death or not. Some texts were written by those who did not even know him.There are no known words written by him.
My response: The gospels weren’t written that long after the events they record. Even if they author was not there personally, he had the help of many who were. There were certainly enough people around who were witnesses that, had the evangelists erred, someone would have said something. As I’ve said elsewhere, it doesn’t matter anyway since it is the Church that is the pillar and support of the truth, not the Bible (1 Tim 2:15). If the New Testament had never been written, Christianity would still be the same.
Tova said: And what about the papers held deep inside the Vatican. What went into the New Testament was hand picked. What gospels will we never know about? Belief is faith passed. Some call church teachings dogma. And why shouldn’t it be called that? ” Don’t ask questions just believe what we tell you.” When is the last time as an adult anyone of us has believed whatever without asking a question? And were is the proof everyone writing here is Christian?
Who would be offended if there was some here that came from another faith? Should their opinion be less respected? Of course not.
My response: Nothing like relying on conspiracy theories when you have no facts. What papers deep in the Vatican? Have you seen them? If they are so dangerous to the Catholic CHurch, why weren’t they destroyed? Come on, Tova. You have to do better than this. Yes, the New Testament was hand-picked. Those books which were inspired by the Holy Spirit were picked and the others were rejected. Gospels we will never know about? If we will never know about them, how do you know they exist? Let’s not join the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.
——————-
James Clark said: Enjoyed the DVC movie.
My response: Apparently you were in the minority. Despite the large numbers that went to see it, yours are the first positive comments I’ve heard about it. Most people describe it as plodding.
James Clark said: The potency of Myth hinges on ‘anchors’ or points of fact (geographic, historic, etc) around which the fiction or mystery is woven. Such anchors create a veneer of authenticity that distinguishes successful myth from lesser sagas such as Star Wars, hobbits, and Van Daniken. Dan Brown used this formula very successfully in DVC - the book.
My response: TDVC is nothing short of pathetic compared to the writings of Tolkien or CS Lewis.Brown is a lot more like Von Daniken then you want to admit. Their works are equally inane but Von Daniken tried to pass his works off as scholarly.
James Clark said: Christian orthodoxy feels threatened by this new myth because that very same mythic formula was used by the Council of Nicea in AD 325 (or was it 352?). Politically-motivated bishops cobbled together a sanitized New Testament; a few historic and geographic anchors to support a censored selection of some of the gospels still in oral circulation from the sociopolitical ferment of the Jesus Christ Insurgency. That was the point-of-departure of the mythic New Testament from history.
My response: Again, the canon of the New Testament was not a matter of discussion at the First Council of Nicaea. I find it amusing that you consider yourself expert enough to attack the integrity of the bishops when you don’t even know the date of the council.
James Clark said: One who accepts the authenticity of the New Testament without question cannot dismiss DVC as a hoax. Antiquity does not confer authenticity.
My response: This is what is called a strawman argument. You make up an argument that no one has used and imply that it is what your opponent believes. I don’t remember anyone saying that the reason they accept the New Testament was because of its antiquity. Even if they did, your position is equally illogical. If validity is not conferred by age, neither is it conferred by newness.
James Clark said: In his own time, the historic Jesus-the-man, a Jew, was considered to be an Insurgent by both his rabbinical orthodoxy and Imperial Rome. The parallels in today’s political ferment are all too obvious; a romanesque Imperator in Washington leading a dissolute empire, millions of Muslim and Christian moderates blinded by faith to godly slaughters, and a charismatic (fresh in from the Wilderness yet!)leader of a jihad insurgency who thinks of himself as Christ-like and a sitting duck for martyrdom.
My response: I suspect that your purpose here is to provoke an angry response. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige you.
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:24 am
Gary..good morning…I see you have been busy replying to the lasted posting. I suffer from insomnia so if this does not come out making sense I apologize. Just consider me sleep deprived. A&E has many shows which subjects cover religion and artifacts. Last night they talked about Angels and Deamons. There is no doubt you propable think this also was a bad read. This would be no suprise for most of the those who write hear or simply stop by to check this site out. I seem to have hit a hot button with you and that is ok by me. I enjoy discourse for it makes life interesting. There is no conspiracy theory when it comes to documents held beneath the vatican along with numerous pieces of art.
How do I know you ask? The Secret Archives of the Vatican aurthored by Maria Luisa Ambrosini w/ Mary Willis. “twent-five miles of shelved documents” describes how this awesome collection of knowledge came into being.” This quote taken from the dust cover. The writer and the opportunity to actually see what she has written about. A vast collection of religious and historical documents covering more than a thousand years of history.
May 23rd, 2006 at 11:20 am
This is Father Peter once more to just try and clear up the misguided speculation of those that are not in touch with the holiness. My work in the holiest Church of St. Peter’s in Holy Hungary where I reside over only those who are Holy within the spiritual and the guided ness of Holy thoughts and Holy words, and that which is not less than sought is often more than what is beneath the ugly notary of speculations brought and bought but never fought for thy isn’t one person but many and should in every instance, not those that are convenient as the movie may portray, but in every instance when the one isn’t heard of in words or sermon and the lies are too one in the same. In this I firmly believe and in the Holy bible and Holy papistry that resides in Holy Hungary is indeed corrupted only by the seed of intentions but never in the earth beneath. It is the earth beneath that I have learned from Honorable Father Kchzteghsky is where she lay. But this is another topic and has no relevance to this discussion. I pray that my words has shone a light to my children and brothers in god’s name. Bless you all.