Comments on: So Dark the Con of Man http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:53:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Daryl Roxas http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13281 Daryl Roxas Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:28:11 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13281 "I think that Leonardo Da Vinci ia a really great man,, to make such things...but please tell me what is the truth im really confuse about that...daryl_roxas@yahoomessenger.com...thanks.. “I think that Leonardo Da Vinci ia a really great man,, to make such things…but please tell me what is the truth im really confuse about that…daryl_roxas@yahoomessenger.com…thanks..

]]> By: Enigma http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13276 Enigma Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:32:37 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13276 I fear that my opinion will not mean much here because I have not done the research many seem to have done. But I'd just like to point out my interpretation. Firstly, it must be noted that the transition between the the story's claim and Da Vinci is art is unfathomable precise to be mere coincidence. I truly believe beyond all doubt that the book reflects Da Vinci's motives in his art perfectly. I've studied the Mona Lisa and seen that her face does, indeed, look nearly male if you focus on her right side, and profoundly female if you focus on her left. And I've studied The Last Supper, as well. I've seen the details Dan Brown speaks. I've noted that one of the twelve apostles depicted was a female, and that there was a stretched hand in front of her throat. So it seems obvious to me - blatantly, even, when considering biographies of Leonardo Da Vinci - that he was against standard belief of the Church. This could easily reflect his opinion. The trouble is in Da Vinci historical stature. When faced with a mad genius such as he, do you trust his brilliance or doubt his madness? I have an old heirloom from my Grandfather - who was an ordaned minister. The heirloom is a carved representation of Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper. It is exactly the same in every minute detail except for one: the hand in front of the woman's neck was missing. Capturing the decor of Da Vinci's painting with astounding detail in metal, the only thing that was gone was the only thing that seemed to threaten the woman. Whether it spouts hatred toward me, controversy, or mature discussion is up to you, but I ask you: If not to hide something, why would my heirloom from a Minister leave out that one detail? I fear that my opinion will not mean much here because I have not done the research many seem to have done. But I’d just like to point out my interpretation.
Firstly, it must be noted that the transition between the the story’s claim and Da Vinci is art is unfathomable precise to be mere coincidence. I truly believe beyond all doubt that the book reflects Da Vinci’s motives in his art perfectly. I’ve studied the Mona Lisa and seen that her face does, indeed, look nearly male if you focus on her right side, and profoundly female if you focus on her left. And I’ve studied The Last Supper, as well. I’ve seen the details Dan Brown speaks. I’ve noted that one of the twelve apostles depicted was a female, and that there was a stretched hand in front of her throat. So it seems obvious to me - blatantly, even, when considering biographies of Leonardo Da Vinci - that he was against standard belief of the Church. This could easily reflect his opinion.
The trouble is in Da Vinci historical stature. When faced with a mad genius such as he, do you trust his brilliance or doubt his madness?
I have an old heirloom from my Grandfather - who was an ordaned minister. The heirloom is a carved representation of Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper. It is exactly the same in every minute detail except for one: the hand in front of the woman’s neck was missing. Capturing the decor of Da Vinci’s painting with astounding detail in metal, the only thing that was gone was the only thing that seemed to threaten the woman.
Whether it spouts hatred toward me, controversy, or mature discussion is up to you, but I ask you: If not to hide something, why would my heirloom from a Minister leave out that one detail?

]]> By: adeline http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13273 adeline Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:01:57 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13273 the truth, is something that would be different to everyone because we all interpret things in different ways. It will, has and is a mystery. As far as my truth goes i am a catholic i find nothing wrong with believing the divinci code it gave me even stronger faith because it allowed me to connect with jesus and see him as a human being. But at the same time i still worship him and respect him as a divine being. You can have both only those that are pig headed will tell you you can not. the truth, is something that would be different to everyone because we all interpret things in different ways. It will, has and is a mystery. As far as my truth goes i am a catholic i find nothing wrong with believing the divinci code it gave me even stronger faith because it allowed me to connect with jesus and see him as a human being. But at the same time i still worship him and respect him as a divine being. You can have both only those that are pig headed will tell you you can not.

]]> By: Élodie d'A. http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13269 Élodie d'A. Sun, 20 May 2007 18:09:14 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13269 First i like to say ; 'I love the movie!'. The plot is very interesting. I feel that in this story there is a kind of truth. Everything seems to click. ( secretly i hope that the story was true >> That story with the holy grail and the living descendents really existed.) Many people who are religious might see this book/ movie as an insult, Altough i am raised catholic myself i do feel that the davinci theory has a point there is some sort of truth in both of them that is what I think. (Forgive me for my english I'm still learning) Élodie d'A. First i like to say ; ‘I love the movie!’.
The plot is very interesting. I feel that in this story there is a kind of truth. Everything seems to click.
( secretly i hope that the story was true >> That story with the holy grail and the living descendents really existed.)
Many people who are religious might see this book/ movie as an insult, Altough i am raised catholic myself i do feel that the davinci theory has a point there is some sort of truth in both of them that is what I think.
(Forgive me for my english I’m still learning)
Élodie d’A.

]]> By: murad http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13252 murad Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:36:07 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13252 i think neither the davinci code or the catholics bases are truth i think neither the davinci code or the catholics bases are truth

]]> By: Creer0372 http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13241 Creer0372 Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:37:33 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13241 i find the thought that all of this is based upon books and theroies. Yet as a woman no one makes mention to the fact that GOD as we know him and all his Glory choose a mere oridnary woman to birth his son, are not all men brought to life this way was it not pain and deliverence to bring forth his life(Jesus,if the son of god is not himself born of womans Flesh how can it be impossible to perform the very act that brings all men to life. Just my thought Creer0372 i find the thought that all of this is based upon books and theroies. Yet as a woman no one makes mention to the fact that GOD as we know him and all his Glory choose a mere oridnary woman to birth his son, are not all men brought to life this way was it not pain and deliverence to bring forth his life(Jesus,if the son of god is not himself born of womans Flesh how can it be impossible to perform the very act that brings all men to life. Just my thought Creer0372

]]> By: emmzee http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13047 emmzee Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:33:57 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13047 Jan, the topic is not closed. It seems for some reason some web browsers can't access that page anymore ... maybe it's just grown too large? I can't access it either on this computer using Firefox or Internet Explorer, but Opera works. On the other hand my brother's computer can access it using Internet Explorer. So for now you can try Opera (www.opera.com ... it's free) but I'll try to see what the problem is. R., regarding Jesus' marraige, an indepth article can be found here for your reading pleasure: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusmarried.htm One quote is particularly worth noting (emphasis mine): <blockquote>Even if we suppose that this passage ... conveys historically accurate information, the passage itself seems to disprove Jesus' marriage to Mary. <strong>Surely if Jesus had been married to Mary then his special affection for her wouldn't have been an offense.</strong> And surely Jesus could have satisfied the disciples' question by explaining that Mary was his wife. But he doesn't do this. ... The only way to find this marriage in the non-canonical gospels is to interject it there yourself. The texts simply do not support this theory that Jesus and Mary were married.</blockquote> <em>"the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian"</em> The question remains, if the word "kiononos" means "spouse", why does no English translation of the Gospel of Philip translate it that way? More importantly, that same word is used many times in the New Testament for relationships other than spouse, for example Philemon 17 where it denotes a companion in faith or Luke 5:10 where it refers to a business partner. Sure it <em>can</em> mean spouse but the context of the passage (as per the quote above) shows that it is not likely intended that way here. <em>"places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted"</em> Where would those places be? Why are you assuming the biblical gospels are "distorted", which were written close to the time of Jesus' death and for which we have thousands of copies ... but not assuming texts like the Gospel of Philip are distorted, which was written at least 150 years after Jesus' death and for which we have a grand total of 1 copy? <em>"and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them"</em> I mentioned gnostics because the Gospel of Philip is a gnostic text. It clearly uses gnostic ideas. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip R., why is Jesus' marriage important to you?<em> </em> Jan, the topic is not closed. It seems for some reason some web browsers can’t access that page anymore … maybe it’s just grown too large? I can’t access it either on this computer using Firefox or Internet Explorer, but Opera works. On the other hand my brother’s computer can access it using Internet Explorer. So for now you can try Opera (www.opera.com … it’s free) but I’ll try to see what the problem is.

R., regarding Jesus’ marraige, an indepth article can be found here for your reading pleasure:
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusmarried.htm
One quote is particularly worth noting (emphasis mine):

Even if we suppose that this passage … conveys historically accurate information, the passage itself seems to disprove Jesus’ marriage to Mary. Surely if Jesus had been married to Mary then his special affection for her wouldn’t have been an offense. And surely Jesus could have satisfied the disciples’ question by explaining that Mary was his wife. But he doesn’t do this. … The only way to find this marriage in the non-canonical gospels is to interject it there yourself. The texts simply do not support this theory that Jesus and Mary were married.

“the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian” The question remains, if the word “kiononos” means “spouse”, why does no English translation of the Gospel of Philip translate it that way? More importantly, that same word is used many times in the New Testament for relationships other than spouse, for example Philemon 17 where it denotes a companion in faith or Luke 5:10 where it refers to a business partner. Sure it can mean spouse but the context of the passage (as per the quote above) shows that it is not likely intended that way here.

“places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted” Where would those places be? Why are you assuming the biblical gospels are “distorted”, which were written close to the time of Jesus’ death and for which we have thousands of copies … but not assuming texts like the Gospel of Philip are distorted, which was written at least 150 years after Jesus’ death and for which we have a grand total of 1 copy?

“and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them” I mentioned gnostics because the Gospel of Philip is a gnostic text. It clearly uses gnostic ideas. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip

R., why is Jesus’ marriage important to you?

]]> By: Jan http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13039 Jan Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:14:43 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13039 You are it seems at least committed to what you believe R. It is good to hear your opinions. However I don't think you really read Emmzee's post throroughly. You are projecting a lot of theology on one or two scrap of questionable written material. (the Gospel of Thomas or the gospel of MM) It is proven fact that they were written at least a hundred years after the fact. Are you disputing this and yet putting such an enormous amount of energy into believing Jesus and Mary were married? If Jesus was married then it does take away from the gospel story in my mind at least. As I have said before, he did not acknowledge her or take care of her and His child (if Da Vinci code is right) before his death on the cross but made special effort to be sure his mother was cared for by John. That does not speak to me of a loving a caring man. I am interested as to why is it so important to you to believe this? Have you read the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus? Note to Emmzee, are some of the posts closed now? I cannot boot up the one about "Did Da Vinci paint MM in the Last Supper" anymore. You are it seems at least committed to what you believe R. It is good to hear your opinions. However I don’t think you really read Emmzee’s post throroughly. You are projecting a lot of theology on one or two scrap of questionable written material. (the Gospel of Thomas or the gospel of MM) It is proven fact that they were written at least a hundred years after the fact. Are you disputing this and yet putting such an enormous amount of energy into believing Jesus and Mary were married? If Jesus was married then it does take away from the gospel story in my mind at least. As I have said before, he did not acknowledge her or take care of her and His child (if Da Vinci code is right) before his death on the cross but made special effort to be sure his mother was cared for by John. That does not speak to me of a loving a caring man. I am interested as to why is it so important to you to believe this? Have you read the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus?
Note to Emmzee, are some of the posts closed now? I cannot boot up the one about “Did Da Vinci paint MM in the Last Supper” anymore.

]]> By: R http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13034 R Sat, 08 Jul 2006 07:17:48 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13034 c emmeze hers one thing like i said before the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian n they will tell u that n trust me i asked. but yet go read the gospel of Mary Magdalene. Trust me theres places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted now its up to u to c if u really want to know. u find the information do the study. but if theres nothing wrong with jesus being married the nwhy in 590A.D the church wants to call Mary Magdalene a prostitue for what purpose there was no need for that. SO now people are to be decieved for wat tha vatican wanted to protray no tahts wrong y is that she just couldnt being of a regualr women or yet even jesus wife. That should not take away his divinity. and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them tahts doesnt help ur thought of wat ur tryna say that was a usless part of the bible. just sometimes weigh ur options n really think wats real and wats not. Thank you for reading my post. i appreciate it c emmeze hers one thing like i said before the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian n they will tell u that n trust me i asked. but yet go read the gospel of Mary Magdalene. Trust me theres places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted now its up to u to c if u really want to know. u find the information do the study. but if theres nothing wrong with jesus being married the nwhy in 590A.D the church wants to call Mary Magdalene a prostitue for what purpose there was no need for that. SO now people are to be decieved for wat tha vatican wanted to protray no tahts wrong y is that she just couldnt being of a regualr women or yet even jesus wife. That should not take away his divinity. and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them tahts doesnt help ur thought of wat ur tryna say that was a usless part of the bible. just sometimes weigh ur options n really think wats real and wats not. Thank you for reading my post. i appreciate it

]]> By: Jan http://thelife.com/blogs/davinci/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13017 Jan Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:13:35 +0000 http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/24/so-dark-the-con-of-man/#comment-13017 Tony do you mean you believed all that was mentioned in the Da Vinci Code was true? Or the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus? Tony do you mean you believed all that was mentioned in the Da Vinci Code was true? Or the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus?

]]>