
Last night I watched Da Vinci code. The movie’s theory is that Mary Magdalena was a woman of royal blood, who got pregnant (by Jesus) and her child (Sarah) was the reason why the church persecuted so many women: to maintain Jesus’ sanctity intact. The location of Magdalena’s tomb has been a well kept secret to prevent people from doing DNA tests, thus compromising and endangering the actual Jesus and Magdalene’s descendant.
Of course, this triggered a series of arguments amongst the women in my family; therefore we managed to assemble 3 hypothetical situations that could rebut the movie’s theory:
Magdalene – It is said that she was a sex trader. Jesus not only forgave her sins but also excised 7 demons from her body. She washed Jesus’ feet, kissed them and dried them with her own hair (this was viewed by a man as a seduction scene, and the root of the many speculations going around). Magdalene joined the group (ceasing therefore her wench ways).
Now, how can we know that the child she bore was Jesus’? In order to silent the man who opposed her washing Christ’s feet, she could’ve seduced him; and unintentionally gotten pregnant.
Madeleine – it is said that she knew how to read and write. If so, she couldn’t have been a simple wench, cause at that time women didn’t have access to education (unless they were either born into a royal/rich family or they were courtesans – yes, some rich men when purchasing the services of a sex entertainer, often, like to discuss intellectual matters with them, first). For now, let’s consider that Madeleine was a courtesan. She came across Jesus’ way; he liked her for she had knowledge and quickly understood his message. He was the only man who acknowledged her intellect, and valued her opinion; not as foreplay, but out of respect for an intellectual fellow: she washed his feet, massaged them; and as she did it, her hair brushed against Christ’s feet…she perfumed and kissed them, as a token of appreciation. Certainly, a man with a dirty mind perceived this as sexual and tried to cast her out of the group. To buy his alliance, she seduced him, resulting in a pregnancy.
Magdala – she was of royal blood (although not from the house of David). She was highly intelligent and cultivated. She spoke her mind; she expressed the wish of addressing the wise men in the synagogue; she defended women’s rights…in summa: she was a public enemy (kindly labelled as “The sinner”).
She met Jesus, who immediately sympathised with her, and invited her to keep society with him for he enjoyed her viewpoints: he saw her as an equal. This triggered a tacit jealousy among the disciples, who started plotting against her. During a meal, Jesus observed his followers and saw their plot; then leaning over to Magdala he whispered:
- “Come and wash my feet! We must confer!”
They rose and moved into a corner so that Magdala could wash his feet…everybody watched them…
- Magda, men are conspiring against you. [She’s about to retort] speak not! Listen only! It’s time for you to be wise: you are intelligent; pretend you’re light on knowledge! You’re strong; pretend you’re prone to tears! You’re cold; act as you are sensitive to wrong! You wear flashy garments; try to follow the rule of modesty! You expressed the wish to wear Tefillin; admit you were wrong to wish for this! You speak your mind; act as if you had no opinion! You’re dating 3 Princes of the same house…3 princes, Magdala…select one that doesn’t kiss and tell [by now her hair is brushing against his feet, as she perfumes and kisses them]! At the end of this we’ll rise; Judas will make a malicious comment, you will silence and rumour will be that I’ve excised 7 demons from you [Magdala wants to reply, but he interrupts her]…you see, you’re like me: we’re both ahead of our times! Yet your destiny differs from mine…
Based on the 3 Maries, Magdalena could’ve gotten pregnant by any other man, or she couldn’t have gotten pregnant at all. But if so, nothing guarantees us that the father was Jesus. The movie suggested DNA tests: what an absurd. Even if they could do them it would only prove that the child was Magdalena’s, and never Jesus’ (1st because he was conceived by parthenogenesis – i.e. Holy Spirit – and 2nd because there are no remains to compare DNA with). And even if they would test the tribe of Judah, in Israel, it would only suggest that she could, or not, have gotten pregnant by any other Israeli.
Of course, this triggered a series of arguments amongst the women in my family; therefore we managed to assemble 3 hypothetical situations that could rebut the movie’s theory:
Magdalene – It is said that she was a sex trader. Jesus not only forgave her sins but also excised 7 demons from her body. She washed Jesus’ feet, kissed them and dried them with her own hair (this was viewed by a man as a seduction scene, and the root of the many speculations going around). Magdalene joined the group (ceasing therefore her wench ways).
Now, how can we know that the child she bore was Jesus’? In order to silent the man who opposed her washing Christ’s feet, she could’ve seduced him; and unintentionally gotten pregnant.
Madeleine – it is said that she knew how to read and write. If so, she couldn’t have been a simple wench, cause at that time women didn’t have access to education (unless they were either born into a royal/rich family or they were courtesans – yes, some rich men when purchasing the services of a sex entertainer, often, like to discuss intellectual matters with them, first). For now, let’s consider that Madeleine was a courtesan. She came across Jesus’ way; he liked her for she had knowledge and quickly understood his message. He was the only man who acknowledged her intellect, and valued her opinion; not as foreplay, but out of respect for an intellectual fellow: she washed his feet, massaged them; and as she did it, her hair brushed against Christ’s feet…she perfumed and kissed them, as a token of appreciation. Certainly, a man with a dirty mind perceived this as sexual and tried to cast her out of the group. To buy his alliance, she seduced him, resulting in a pregnancy.
Magdala – she was of royal blood (although not from the house of David). She was highly intelligent and cultivated. She spoke her mind; she expressed the wish of addressing the wise men in the synagogue; she defended women’s rights…in summa: she was a public enemy (kindly labelled as “The sinner”).
She met Jesus, who immediately sympathised with her, and invited her to keep society with him for he enjoyed her viewpoints: he saw her as an equal. This triggered a tacit jealousy among the disciples, who started plotting against her. During a meal, Jesus observed his followers and saw their plot; then leaning over to Magdala he whispered:
- “Come and wash my feet! We must confer!”
They rose and moved into a corner so that Magdala could wash his feet…everybody watched them…
- Magda, men are conspiring against you. [She’s about to retort] speak not! Listen only! It’s time for you to be wise: you are intelligent; pretend you’re light on knowledge! You’re strong; pretend you’re prone to tears! You’re cold; act as you are sensitive to wrong! You wear flashy garments; try to follow the rule of modesty! You expressed the wish to wear Tefillin; admit you were wrong to wish for this! You speak your mind; act as if you had no opinion! You’re dating 3 Princes of the same house…3 princes, Magdala…select one that doesn’t kiss and tell [by now her hair is brushing against his feet, as she perfumes and kisses them]! At the end of this we’ll rise; Judas will make a malicious comment, you will silence and rumour will be that I’ve excised 7 demons from you [Magdala wants to reply, but he interrupts her]…you see, you’re like me: we’re both ahead of our times! Yet your destiny differs from mine…
Based on the 3 Maries, Magdalena could’ve gotten pregnant by any other man, or she couldn’t have gotten pregnant at all. But if so, nothing guarantees us that the father was Jesus. The movie suggested DNA tests: what an absurd. Even if they could do them it would only prove that the child was Magdalena’s, and never Jesus’ (1st because he was conceived by parthenogenesis – i.e. Holy Spirit – and 2nd because there are no remains to compare DNA with). And even if they would test the tribe of Judah, in Israel, it would only suggest that she could, or not, have gotten pregnant by any other Israeli.
I like your deductions. I thought The Da Vinci Code was awful. It was nothing more the fiction of the writer and bad filmmaking.
ReplyDeleteEvery time Hollywood gets involved in religion, it fills in the blanks with specious claims, speculation and false premises. Controversy sells. Sex sells. Controversy AND sex sells through the roof (or in this case, the Cathedral ceiling.)
The film and book were hyped so much that I wanted to see what the hoopla was about. I came to find out that it was much ado about nothing. I was so bored with it that I turned it off half way through. I don't know what was worse, Tom Hanks' acting or the actual story (or lack thereof). Also director Ron Howard has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills, like he did with A Beautiful Mind, which was later renamed "The Beautiful Lie" in some circles.
The best thing about 'Da Vinci...' is that some scenes were shot in The Louvre. I would have preferred a virtual tour of that rather than sit through 148 excruciating minutes of a horrendous film. It was all smoke and mirrors, no style
substance or veracity.
I'm tired. I started at the Portuguese version of the post thinking : what the...? before I finally clicked on the English one. Oh well. :D
ReplyDeleteI didn't get the Da Vinci code that well to be honest... I lack the religious background. To me, it was just like "oh yeah, really"? But I can't take sides.
I tagged you with a meme if you get a chance... ;) : the bag
Alexys,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: thank you :)!
Second: I totally agree with you...Da Vinci Code is the worse movie I have ever watched in my life.
It reminded me of "the Mists of Avalon", great books terrible movie *nodding*.
Controversy sells, no doubt, but this movie had so many inaccuracies that it shocked me that people actually made so much fuss over it.
"I was so bored with it that I turned it off half way through." - LOL LOL LOL I hear you lol.
Tom Hank just performed his role. The story (or rather lack of it, as you said) was absurd: since the definition of the Graal to Magdalena giving birth in France; since the crusades rescuing Magdalena to wanting to perform DNA tests lol *nodding*!
"A beautiful mind", yes I watched that one as well...interesting movie, however Russel Crowe was very good on that one (well, he is an excellent actor). If Da Vinci code was as half as "A beautiful mind" I would have felt that I had lost my precious time watching it.
Horrendus film, indeed...I am with you, girl! "It was all smoke and mirrors, no style substance or veracity." - absolutely, and full of inaccuracies too....
Thanks for giving me the chance to do a catharsis here...I needed it lol :).
Cheers
Zhu,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time for reading this article :).
I totally get you, girl...but since I am a fan of religious themes, I was absolutely bouleversée quand j'ai regardé ce flic la *nodding*. I had never encountered so many silly things in one single movie...
I would like to understand why the film generated so much fuss around the world (you wouldn't believe the debates that resulted from it, here in Portugal), and after watching it I still didn't understand why it did *nodding*.
I hope you get a rest, Zhu *tender face*!
Cheers
Btw Zhu,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tag... :-D! I am on my way to your blog *rising from my chair, and walking* lol...
Cheers
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I read the book, and I really liked it, no matter how far fetched it was.
ReplyDeleteI went into it thinking "fiction" and "action", and I wasn't disappointed.
I was afraid to watch the movie though, because I thought it wouldn't be as good as the book, and it might ruin it for me.
Cheers Max,
~Oswegan
Hi max,
ReplyDeleteI just read da vinci code as a story !
One i have just finished and enjoyed , not just as a story, but because it presents things in accurate historical and biblical detail is the shadow women by angela elwell hunt. it tells the story of moses from the perspective of 3 women, his mother, his sister and his wife. it paints the settings so well i can imagine how things just have happened, like why an egyptian princess would just take a baby home etc.
Hey Scott,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you liked it (you're actually the second person who tells me that has liked the book) :)!
The movie was trashy...most of the times movies do not reflect the books *nodding*.
Cheers
Hey Karen,
ReplyDeleteI can see that you liked it too :).
I haven't read the book, but by the movie (and by what LS, who has read it a few times said) it is anything but accurate (both biblical and historical - for more detail, read LS' comments).
Ah, the story of Moses is rather interesting indeed; and I can imagine that his mother, sister and wife have made even more interesting :)!
Thanks for your input :)!
Cheers
Hi, Max!
ReplyDeleteI wrote a comment here yesterday but it's no longer here. Weird. Anyway, I said that after Da Vinci Code was released, churches in Indo started giving seminars about the real history to refute the statements in the books. There were also a long period of question-and-answer among the seminars he he he he...
Anyhow, go grab your next award here he he he...
True Blue Award
Hey Amelia,
ReplyDeleteSometimes it happens (and I hate it when I write a comment and then it disappears) *nodding*!
I know exactly what you mean: it happened the same here in Portugal *nodding*. But like Alexys said (using Shakespeare's words): "too much ado about nothing!".
Another award? Oh my God!!! Let me go grab it now lol lol...
Thank you so much *bowing*!
Cheers
Hi Max! I was curious too so I read the book and watched the movie. As a devoted Roman Catholic my belief is intact. True, it stirred a lot of reactions but it really depends on the person how he/she takes it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there's another tag and you've been awarded too. Take care.
Hey Liza,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comment :).
My mom is also Roman Catholic :). I am glad your belief is intact!!!! You, go girl!! :-D
Tagged, me? Awarded, moi? Oh my Lord....such an honour *bowing*! Thank you :)! I'll come by your blog soon...
Cheers
You said:
ReplyDeletelet's just say that if we lived in that time I would've been called prostitute just because I have these debates with you lol...you know how men can be: might as well admit to this, LS
I respond:
Max…the way women are perceived here I believe is a lot different than in Portugal…most of the women I know are very strong, I have had many female bosses and have one direct female boss right now no problem its very normal…certainly there are some male sexists but they are in the minority and generally old and/or uneducated.
You said:
Yes, Biblically John could've been Jesus' closest friend, but let's not forget that men wrote the Bible. Maria Madalena (in Portuguese, a little cultural exchange) could've well been his best friend, but the fact might've been hidden by the males (let's put this into historical context, men were not like you, LS; men at that time didn't agree with women having a voice, let alone debating with them or allowing the image of one being Jesus' best friend...*nodding*). The omission of Madalena's name suggests that they were afraid of her...but why? What powers did she have, that they feared so much? This would be interesting to know...
I respond:
Actually Max the New Testament is full of women (in a previous post I listed 6 Mary’s alone). Surly there were sexist men at that time as there are today but Mary Magdalene alone is mentioned 12 times in the New Testament. They are hardly trying to hush her up, why mention her at all they could just replace her with one of the men? Her name is not omitted but is prominent.
You said:
when he resurrected to whom did he appeared? To her (ok, he said "don't touch me, but I am sure that it was because his light could burn her), Madalena.
I respond:
Max do you believe that Jesus was physically resurrected?
You said:
I want to read the "autographs" in Hebrew, but first I have to learn it properly
I respond:
The autographs (originals) of the New Testament were written in Greek with a few words in Aramaic (not Arabic but Aramaic, I know you understand the difference Max but I thought I would mention it for others).
You said:
don't, by no means, underestimate the Roman Catholic Church (as I told you before I do admire they organisational skills) though; they can be dangerous since they are over educated and extra cultivated (the ingredients of serial killers LOL LOL LOL).
I respond:
I tactfully take a step away from you so I don’t get hit by the potential crossfire you get from that one!!!
That should be sufficient for now….have fun… :)
By the way this time the word verification is “glowuod”
Max,
ReplyDeleteI have a favor to ask. The last site to join our directory is called "Waking Up." The author is Marshall and, I believe, is very talented and really has something to say. I have read all of his posts and am very impressed. The only thing that he is missing is readers and support. Could you pop over, take a look, and if you like what you see, leave some comments. If you are anything like me, you may just get hooked.
http://egofading.blogspot.com/
Hello LS;
ReplyDeleteWell, most of the women you know are very strong, but it doesn't mean that in Canada there aren't weak women and females.
I, personally, only know strong women as well (the women in my family), the others...well, I don't know them...I am acquainted.
But of course there are sexist men everywhere, but I don't focus on them.
You know very well, that society in Jesus' time is not like society now (it evolved; so, if this is an evolved society, imagine how it was 2000 years ago [which I know you do]). The old sexist man, you made reference to, are a sound example of what I just said.
LS, the fact that the NT is full of women (which I am aware of) doesn't refute what I said. Magdalene may well be mentioned 12 times, still it doesn't refute what I stated.
"They are hardly trying to hush her up, why mention her at all they could just replace her with one of the men? Her name is not omitted but is prominent." - I didn't say that her name was omitted, I said her role (as Jesus' best friend) and importance was omitted.
"Max do you believe that Jesus was physically resurrected?" - I didn't say that, I was just stating what is written, and what is believed by Christians, such as yourself.
"The autographs (originals) of the New Testament were written in Greek with a few words in Aramaic (not Arabic but Aramaic, I know you understand the difference Max but I thought I would mention it for others)." - I stand corrected *bowing*. Yes, I do know the difference between Aramaic and Arabic.
"I tactfully take a step away from you so I don’t get hit by the potential crossfire you get from that one!!!" - LOL LOL oh, so much for loyalty...I supported you when your banner was burned in front of your house LOL LOL LOL *nodding*.
"That should be sufficient for now….have fun… :)" - you're killing me lol lol....
"By the way this time the word verification is “glowuod”" - don't tell me that it is a gaelic word or something lol *nodding*...
Cheers
Hey Mel,
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to ask twice: I shall go over to his blog and show my support :)!
It is always a pleasure to read significant content :).
Thank you for suggestion Marshall to me *bowing*.
Cheers
Hi Max
ReplyDeleteMy mind is too modeled to some criteria (since i'm a catholic christian) which can be very conflituous between themselves, and to give straight answers to this subject its not easy.
So the best that i can do is to relate this topic to another one before ( the truth) and ...
Ok...i'm also hable to formulate some theory's but nothing more than that....
Just as an example:
Conspiracy .
This as to do with info management which ROME always knew how to do it. It was all prepaired at minimum detail...and with strong impact, in fact the Miriam (Mary) "detail" was defenetly to submit half of the gender under pressure and control. At the end it was an architected history to get as much power as it was possible at the time.
So....power is the same issue nowdays the institutions are more prone to change....
regards : )
Gallardo
Ciao G!
ReplyDeleteMy mom is also Catholic, so don't worry :)! However I understand your position, and I'd like to thank you for being so honest about it :)!
I love your conspiracy theory!!! It's genial! You are right: info management is Rome's cup of tea. I see what you mean...Power is the keyword of all the mess in the world (including gender issues...you should give a lecture to feminists, G lol...they clearly need to be enlightened)! I hear you...
Thank you so much for this brilliant comment (as per usual) :)!
Cheers
Simpler and easier just links london various facets of being married the ought links london jewellery to be obtained and tradition recently indicated links of london sale actually divided regarding the bride's family, links of london silver the groom's family, as well as the groom himself. discount links of london Over are the days where the bride's parents insures links of london ring uk every single thing make a list of to links of london friendship bracelets sale perfect detail. For a short period, tradition had shifted this obligation to qualify for the links sweetie bracelet three parties soon discussed the following., a response, links of london earrings as well as ever-popular brunch. Experience entered production although there required to links of london necklaces sale twelve inches into your market by the grooms telephone and therefore bridal individual.
ReplyDelete