Hey guys,

I am just highly intrigued by this whole story written by Dan Brown. Well actually, he wasn't the first to start writing about the Priory of Sion, but still, it was his book that actually got the whole world shaken up like it is right now.
It was his book that was made into a movie as well.
But that is not why I am posting this. I am just so curious in your opinions about the story. Have you read the book and/or seen the movie?
What do you think about it?
Do you think, like Dan Brown is convinced about, that the story is real? That it is actually possible that Jesus had a wife and children, and that there's still a Royal descendant of Him living on earth today?
And what do you think of all the secrets hidden in the paintings of Leonardo DaVinci? Do you think he was capable of being a Grand Master of this secret society called the Priory of Sion?
I am so curious to all of your opinions about this story!!
Come on, let's start a discussion, debate-typ of thing here! :D

xxx
Petra

Finished the book at 11:45 last night

Seeing the movie (hopefully) at some point today.

Definitely loved the plot. Quite intriguing and very impressively researched.

Do I think that the story is real? Well, first of all, the book is a fiction thiller- so no.

Do I think that Jesus was married and had a kid? Not really.

Do I think it's at all possible? Sure.

Am I going to start worshiping the sacred female and believing that all religions are the same? Not so much. That's where my interest in the plot hit a speed bump- I'm a Christian so I believe that Jesus was Christ- fully God/fully man- etc. I do think that there could be glitches in what we believe- there usually are when people are involved- but that doesn't change my beliefs.

And I think people freaking out about it is pretty ridiculous- it's only going to boost the ratings (of the movie) and sale of the books (as it already has).

Ack, but now I have to run- tchao!

ps. And as for Da Vinci- heck, that guy was capable of anything (well, you know what I mean), so *laughs* who knows what he was a part of, haha...

Okay, first, yes like Jules, I am a Christian.

I read The Da Vinci Code last summer, and I loved it. People need to remember that it is fiction, should be approached by fiction and Christians and the Church need to just swallow their tongues and realize that not everyone sees the same way that we do. Dan Brown wrote this book, whatever his beliefs are, as a fiction; it is found under the fiction section of the library/book store/whatever.

I think that the plot was amazing and Brown is a genius. The introduction of the Opus Deius and the Priory of Sion was intriguing and I loved most of the characters. I can't wait to see the movie, actually.

There is, in general, way too much hype about this movie. Its another battle between the Christian God and the world, supposedly. You know, I think its ridiculous. The Greek Orthodox church said:


Source: About.com

How contradictive is that? There's so much drama about this that they're making marriage and children (within marriage) sound like a traumatizing sin. He was the perfect man, but did not have human urges and passions. Then, he was just God. The Church needs to just get their act together and shut their mouths in my opinion, since most of them have probably not even read the book.

Yes, there are other gospels besides the ones written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the most famous being Thomas'. I've been told those didn't go into the bible, because, if they included everything, how big do you think that book would be? We don't twelve, thirteen different views on a few years time.

Sorry if this is extensive or all over the place. I hate how hypocritical the Church is, and I like what Ian McKellan said in response to the demand for a 'fiction' label on the movie:

Then the bible should come with one too.

Who labels movies fiction? They label them "based on a true story" or "documentary" but never "fiction" because we assume.

Okay, I have to stop now or I'll go on forever.


I have heard, however, that the movie is confusing because of the twists, and some were confused who hadn't read the book. :)

:heartbeat:
Samma

A few comments/questions Sammi, if you don't mind :)

First of all, I'd like to note that I think it's pretty ridiculous for people to demand a "fiction" label on the movie. Do they think that other movies sans such a label are true? Besides:

1. The book has a "fiction" label on it, and the movie is based on the book
2. At the end of the credits for basically all the movies I've ever seen, there is a little paragraph that says something along the lines of "all characters, events and locations in this movie are ficticious, and any similarity to actual persons, etc is strictly unintensional etc etc" Therefore- movies already have a fiction label, in a sense. It's not movie people's fault that only weirdos like me stay and watch all the credits after a movie ;)

Personally, I do not consider the Bible fiction. I consider it a historical record and collections of letters; and, doubts aside, I believe that the words are divinely inspired, etc. (ie. God had a hand in what was written and collected to make up the Bible).

You're right Sammi about the movie being confusing for people who hadn't read the book. I hadn't read it, and I was like being shot with this and that during the movie, trying to absorbe it all to let it all make sense. It was a bit confusing here and there and to be honest I had to think about it after the movie ended, what I really thought of it.
I knew, going into the movie, that there would be something revealed that would shake the grounds under the Christianity, but I just couldn't quite put my finger on it at first, after I got out of the cinema.
I too thought that if Jesus was just a 'normal' man with a wife and children, why would that be so bad for the Church and Christianity?
Having children is necessary to keep man on earth right? But I guess, because it was Jesus we're talking about, it just made everyone go mad. Because he supposedly is the son of God (well, I say supposedly, but I do believe he was, don't get me wrong) and therefore should not involve himself in mortal 'sin' like having sex with a woman?
I do not consider that a sin though.
I kinda liked the idea of having someone on earth that is a descendant of Jesus, I don't really know why. Is that bad of me to think that? I mean, I am a believer in Jesus and God, but I just don't see what the big fuss is. If someone could explain, that would be helpful! :)
Anyways, the other day I saw a programm on the Discovery Channel called DaVinci Code Declassified. It talked about the evidence for and against what Dan Brown claims in his book.
Like the fact that DaVinci himself was a grand master of the Priory of Sion in his day. A woman on the programm said that would be impossible since the man couldn't end anything, he probably had ADD or something like that.
Also, they talked about this Cryptex, you know the scroll that supposedly contained the secrets to the identity of Jesus' descendant, which was protected by a code. But if the code was punched in wrong, vinegar would then be released and the paper inside would be gone? They've tested it, and the paper never vanished, so therefore they didn't think the Cryptex would actually have worked.
And a last one. In 1956 a man named Plantard came out and said he was the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion. He told the writers of the book the Holy Blood, the Holy Grail, about this Priory of Sion, and about the Dossiers Secrets that held all the proof; the papers that stated who were in the seats of the grand masters over the years, since its beginning in 1099.
But then as the book was published, Plantard became angry about what they'd written and came out with it all being a lie. He and a friend had made the Dossiers Secrets, so it was all a fake. Also, after research, the Priory of Sion indeed started to exist in 1956.
Now, all of these things I've mentioned, to me, are not proof that the Priory of Sion as the book states it is, does not exist. Maybe DaVinci had ADD, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't be involved with the Priory of Sion in some form of another.
Maybe the Cryptex was tested wrong, or wasn't used at all the way it is stated to be used.
And the last one, I don't believe a secret organisation would have their name published in any book to state they exist at all. So therefore the proof found that the Priory of Sion was started back in 1956 does not proof anything to me about the one that should have started back in 1099.
As a final note for now ;), since this is highly intrigueing, I am not sure what to believe of the DaVinci Code. First of all, I don't think it to be going that far as to not believe it. After all, my personal view on the bible is, that it's been written by men, and has some stuff in it, that I for one don't believe God would say like that (like not accepting homosexual people for starters, I just don't believe God would not accept anyone who he himself has created in the first place. He to me is a loving God, a God above criticism, above racism).
So if the Christians with high powers back in those days were so against the idea of Jesus having a wife and children, maybe they also had the power to adjust this in the bible, and make Jesus a man without 'sin', because that would give people even more respect for him?
I'm just thinking aloud here. Not necessarily believing it all, just stating my thoughts here :).
Anyways, I guess this is it for now with my rambling hahah. I'm still in PJ's so I honestly need to get showered and dressed before the day is over! Hahaha!
Talk soon, and let's keep this out in the open. Soooo fascinating!

xxx
Petra

I will probably add more to what I am posting now, and probably after I see the movie.
I read the book and did it in the same way I do read any other book. I was not disturbed by the hypothesis Dan Brown makes (and that he gives for granted) about a Jesus who turns to be married and a father, but at the same time I did not even feel to be in the position of asking myself if it is real or not.
I mean: I was reading FICTION! I was not reading a biographic essay on the life of the Christ. I was reading a novel where the writer (in a very skilful way) mixed up some historic notions with non real, or better, impossible to prove facts.
What makes the difference, I believe, is Faith: Faith in what the Christian religion teaches each and everyone of the people that do believe, in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. I did not ask myself if it was true or not, because I do believe that Christ was the one that the Gospels talked about. If he had a wife or not is something that I am not interested in. I am not a true observer, I mean, I was christened and generally speaking I see myself as Christian, although I have my own view on life, religion and the Church. But honestly: what Dan Brown wrote did not change the way I imagine Christ, did not change the way I see religion and religious facts.

TBC

Firstly: I do believe that it is POSSIBLE that Jesus had a wife and child, because

1. we do not know anything about him from when he is about 12 until he’s 30ish and travels Palestine to preach and spread God’s word
2. he was God’s son, but he was also human. In my opinion, that makes him a wiser, a more forgiving and gentler man, but it does NOT rid him of any human desires. After all, we’re all made in God’s image, and we love beyond just friendship or love towards our parents, so why shouldn’t Jesus?

Ergo I don’t think it’s impossible that he did found a family before he followed his destiny. It doesn’t even have to be Mary Magdalene, because he met her later, when he was fulfilling God’s will. Maybe it was someone entirely different, a good, gentle woman never heard of again.


Secondly: It is a sad fact that the church as an institution has been discriminating against women, intentionally or not.

For example: the original meaning of the Latin word virgo is not only virgin, but also young woman. In fact, virgin is only the second important meaning, so when the Bible was translated from Latin, Mary was turned from a young woman into a virgin, and therefore women were expected to stay pure and humble etc. I’m NOT saying she didn’t conceive Jesus via the holy ghost (I do acknowledge that), but the virginity was afterwards forced upon women as a virtue.

Another example for a wrong translation: when Eve takes the apple from the snake in the Garden of Eden, it is said that she accepted the apple of evil. malum in Latin can either mean fruit, or it derives from malus/mala/malum, an adjective that means bad. So, neither did Eve accept an apple per se but simply a fruit, not was it bad. Without interpreting the role of Adam here, it’s clear why women were accused of original sin for no reason.

And a third example for paternal authority: In Genesis 2, when God creates Eve out of Adam’s rip (opposite to Genesis 1, where they are created as man and woman at the same time), there’s this sentence that goes “flesh from my flesh”. In the first Latin Bible from about 300 A.D., this sentence does NOT exist! It was added later, with the intention to show that man and woman are EQUAL, that they need one another. But with time, it was turned against women as a pseudo proof that they were inferior to men.

I could go on forever, but I think you see my point. I know that there are also positive aspects about women in the Bible, but the most important parts have been totally reversed, which I think is fatal.


Thirdly: It is true that there are many more gospels than those included in the Bible, but as far as I know, only those that were most accurate were included. It’s not like they were written a month after Jesus died or so. It took a while, and when the Bible was being put together, one wanted to avoid speculation or exaggeration. That’s why many of the other gospels written weren’t included. And maybe they were just a little sexist and decided against including Mary Magdalene’s, which wouldn’t be much of a surprise really.


So my overall point (lol) really is: I can see where Dan Brown is coming from, but I don’t think that he’s right. If I didn't know he was a man, I'd suspect he was some mid-60s, radical feminist who's fighting for equality, lol. Besides, what would be so special about a descendant of Jesus still living on earth? 2000 years have passed, that kid would probably only shar one chromosome or so. And I don’t think the God-ness would have been passed on either. So: Nice book, nice movie, but that’s it for me. Anyone becoming atheist because of it makes me laugh

Okay, so I'm not really all that coherent about my debates, and most of what I have to say has already been said, but I'll give it a shot.

When I read the DaVinci code for the first time, I had just gotten out of my 'alternate-religions' faze (something that I really wanted to continue, but it was simply too difficult to do so in my Episcopalean family), and I was absolutely delighted about this idea coming out. Of course, in the few years that have passed, I have come to terms with the fact that the book is indeed fiction, was intended to be fiction, and always will be fiction.

First of all, I'm an atheist. I would really, really like to believe in a God(ess) but, I simply find the whole concept of an invisible (wo)man sitting up in the sky, watching everything you do slightly ridiculous. If anyone has seen Bruce Almighty (kinda a dumb movie), there is one really good point. In the scene where Bruce is trying to figure out a way to organize the prayers that keep coming in, I laughed out loud, not from the silly expressions on whatshisname's face, but from the entire concept. Christianity is the most wide-spread religion in the world (I am right about saying that, correct?), and Islam is quickly catching up. Judeism isn't doing to badly either. Now, considering how the god for Christianity, Islam, and Judeism is the SAME GOD, don't you think he'd be a little swamped? And if he's so omnipotent, why doesn't he simply stop people from starting genocides like the one going on in Darfur right now? How could a benevolent, omnipotent god allow something like that happen? Why did he allow WW1&2? Why did he sanction the Crusades, allowing common criminals as well as noblemen run around, killing innocent people, all in "His" name? Why do all his saints die in an incredibly bloody way? If he has favored them by allowing them to hear "His" voice, why not step in?

Now, there are some good points made by Dan Brown. I personally believe that Jesus was simply a man, and a remarkable one at that: a prophet like Elijah, Moses or Mohhamed. Now, I have been raised a good Episcopalean (which is basically Catholic minus the mass) my entire life, and for most of it, I really did believe that Jesus was divine. However, as I grew older and actually began to think about what was being taught in Sunday School, I realized that the entire religion is vaguely self-flattering. However, since this isn't a thread about Christianity in general, I'll try to keep on track.

I believe that is is quite plausible (and most likely true) that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. You cannot claim that someone can be half-man and half-divine and NOT have at least some man-like urges. I mean, honestly.

Now, I'm not claiming that Christianity is bad. Most Christians are good. There are always a few black sheep in every religion (lol), but the majority of Christians follow the pacifistic outlook that Jesus preached: turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, etc. I think that in many people's lives, their faith plays a very important role. Not so in mine. I have been at least agnostic for so long that not believing in an omnipotent higher power no longer bothers me. I meditate on a regular basis and I find that meditating, simply clearing my mind of all thoughts, helps calm me much more than praying did when I was younger. Of course, when I was little, I'd pray for a pony, and not for Aaron to come back.

There are always times in a person's life where they come to a turning point. Mine (so far) was on Febuary 25, 2006, when a very dear friend of mine (almost a brother to me) was shot in the side. The police officer called for backup before calling the ambulance, and in that span of a few minutes, Aaron drowned in his own blood. I have no idea if he would have survived if the ambulance had arrived earlier, but thinking about that just makes it harder for me. I think it was then that I stopped believing in a benevolent god. Aaron was a good kid. Not perfect, but good, and sweet, and kind. The shooting was completely unwarranted, and the officer looks like he might just get off with a slap on the wrist. He was an only child. I went to the distribution of his ashes on Sunday, and honestly, it was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do, not counting the funeral. Maybe Dan Brown also went through a moment like this, showing to him the futility that is modern life. Without asking him, I have no way of knowing whether or not this it true, of knowing what he actually believes.

Still. The book is fiction. If you don't believe in it, if it offends you that much, don't buy the book. Don't go see the movie. Personally, I liked the book, and I liked the movie. I think that Tom Hanks (while not the man I'd have chosen to portray Robert Langdon) did a good job, and Ian McKellen was absolutely amazing.

It's just a story guys. Stop going to see the movie and making snide comments all the way through it. It ruins the experience for the rest of us. You didn't see me rushing to the movie theatre to sit there and complain about what a stupid movie The Passion Of The Christ was, did you? No. Then don't do it for me. Geez. ((The person next to me did that. I nearly threw my popcorn at him. It made my girlfriend laugh.))

I believe that it's fiction, but the book was well written, so I give Dan Brown that. I haven't seen the movie yet, in my opinion I think that the actors had a great base to work with, and you can tell for sure how much fun Ian McKellen is having with his role.

:heartbeat: Pat

Firstly, Jules: I'm sorry its taken me so long to respond to you. I actually hadn't checked this thread again until tonight, but I'm glad I didn't. On Sunday, about ten of us had a discussion about the "other" gospels at my Youth Group, that really helps. And its no problem, your questions. ^_^

I'm saying that I have no idea. I'm indifferent about this. Like some have said, they're (being The Church) are basically saying that coming into a marital union and having children within that union is a sin not worthy of God, even though it was a gift just as much as salvation was. Jesus Christ was the son of God, like dear Petra said, but they forget that he was also the son of Mary. He was half man, which means he's be just as prone to human "urges and passions". By no means whatsoever does that make it sinful. Not every part of human instinct is sin or malevolent.

Really, I'm saying that I hate how fast the Church is to jump up and condemn sex because Jesus would never ever do that. Like Jen said:

1. we do not know anything about him from when he is about 12 until he’s 30ish and travels Palestine to preach and spread God’s word
2. he was God’s son, but he was also human. In my opinion, that makes him a wiser, a more forgiving and gentler man, but it does NOT rid him of any human desires. After all, we’re all made in God’s image, and we love beyond just friendship or love towards our parents, so why shouldn’t Jesus?

Although that second one was partly in my first paragraph. *points up*

Within our discussion (basically my youth leader, Marty, explaining some of it to us), it was relating to us the news of the gospel of Judas. Now, this came public about 200 AD. Jesus died in, what?, 3 AD... something like that. And, remember that Judas, soon after betraying Jesus, hung himself. So, this is the fishy thing. How could it take 200 years to surface, when others like Mark surfaced 30-40 years later?

Otherwise... knowledge of the other gospels has been about for at least a few years now. Thomas is the most reknowned. Think of this: Collosians is a relatively short, if not average, book, right? Do you think that those were the only letters Paul wrote that specific church to encourage them? I doubt it. From what Marty told us, the members of the church would pass the letters around for inspiration, and when asked to bind it, had to choose between these letters. Just like in a psychology textbook, not all the experiments ever performed can be put into the book, the churches had to choose which would be the best to bind. Maybe there were some letters contradicting each other, and I believe thats allowed to happen. You know how people say something, teach you something, then when you've developed that, they turn around and say something different, for you to grow both ways? I don't know if this makes any sense. I'm all scrambled here. :wacko:

I don't like calling anything a cult. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, it is:

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

And, honestly, thats pretty much every religion. So I really don't know...

Your numbers: this is why I liked Ian McKellan's quote. I mean, the only time you think that a movie is non-fiction is when it says something to the effect of "based/inspired by a true story". I don't think the Bible's fiction. Well, most of the time anyway. (I have doubts so often that I kinda sit there chuckling at it sometimes. But, I'm human...) The fact that the Church asked for a fiction label just goes to show how ignorant some people can be. I would listen so much more attentively if these accusatory people would sit down and read the book. Like you said, that whole "these characters, locations... yada yada" is there everytime. People just need to open their eyes.

Another thing is: there wasn't this much disrespect for Christian beliefs with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Take a leaf out of their book and give these people some respect, please.

I hope this wasn't too confusing... :unsure: If so, I'm really sorry. I confuse myself most of the time. :yes:

:heartbeat:
Samma

Hi everyone,

I'm glad to see this discussion going on so well. I'll participate of course :).

First off, let me start by responding to something you, Sammi, said about the Passion of the Christ. In my opinion, the Church weren't too upset about that story because it actually portrayed everything that Jesus Christ went through on that last day before his death.
I have seen the movie and was heart-broken by it. I of course knew the story, I've grown up as a Christian, but to actually see it happening is a completely different thing. At least, it was to me. So therefore I can see why the Church wouldn't make such a big fuss over that story.

But the davinci code, that's a completely different story. The Church is upset with the story, because of the fact that it's portrayed as the real thing. That it's the truth. That people actually may start to doubt what the Bible says on the matter. I think it's mostly fear that makes the Church be so upset about it.
Fear maybe because (parts of) it is true and they don't want to have this out in the open? Or maybe because some ideas the Church has are being burned with this book?
Like e.g. the whole idea the Church has about women. It's an all-known fact that women are lesser creatures than men when it comes to religion. Women cannot become the pope. It's always men. Why? Because women are lesser than men in the eyes of the Church. Women are there because they were build out of the rib or a man back in the day. If it wasn't for Adam, Eve wouldn't be there. (IMO: If it wasn't for Eve, Adam would be the beginning and end for the whole men on earth theory. How much fun would that have been?)
Of course it's highly interesting to see what a movie with a self-claimed true story does to the audience, but I doubt that the Church has actually read it themselves. I wonder why they don't stand above it?
The Church knows the truth, so they should not be so worried over it, if it actually is not true. People are curious creatures. People tend to find out what their personal truth is. If they want to believe something that is not true, then they will. The Church cannot change them in that perspective. That's called Own Will.
People can claim so many things, things that might not be true. But do you see others burning books over it, condemning it? Well, there are a few examples there, but I still can't see the big deal here.

So, let's assume the whole idea of Dan Brown is true. Though I must add, I find it strange that with the Davinci Code the Church makes such a big deal, when in fact Dan's idea is not even his own. Back in the 80s there was a book by the name of Holy Blood Holy Grail, not quite sure who the writer(s) were, that had the original idea of Jesus having a wife and Maria Magdalena being the Holy Grail (=held the blood of Christ in her).
Okay, let's assume the information of the book is real. So... what does it say?

It says Jesus was married. According to some information I obtained it was very very strange in that time to NOT be married. So, to me this could be a possibility.
Why would the Church be so against the idea of Jesus being married? Maybe because it puts him down to a human level, and not the divine level the Church thinks he is. I still don't see why that would be bad against Jesus' status. He still is the Son of God, BUT he also has his human half, from his mother, running through his veins.

It says Jesus and Maria Magdalena were lovers, they were married. Again, not so uncommon to think, since Maria Magdalena was the woman most mentioned in the Bible when you read about Jesus Christ.
Why would the Church have such a big issue with Maria Magdalena? She was portrayed as a prostitute. Again, this could just be misinterpreted. Back in those days it was not done for women to even touch another man who wasn't their husband. Maria Magdalena was very fond of Jesus Christ, so maybe in that way, since she wasn't married, she was found to be a prostitute.

And the last, most important thing, the book describes is the fact that Maria Magdalena was pregnant with Jesus Christ' child when He was crusified. Why would the Church be so agains that? Well, for starters, back in those days, and in some strong religions still, having intercourse was something evil. Was something unheard of. That, plus the idea that Jesus Christ, son of God, had intercourse with a woman (let alone a prostitute) was just too much to deal with. The whole idea of Jesus Christ, the son of God, would then be shattered. He wasn't divine as the Bible makes him, because He too had human urges. He too graved for love with a woman in the most intimate ways possible. That's just unheard of!
And also, the book uses the painting of Leonardo DaVinci as a proof. The painting of the Last Meal where all 12 apostles and Jesus are sitting at the table. The Holy Grail, the cup where Jesus drank from, the cup that held his blood when He was crusified, is NOT on the table. There is not one cup on the table.
The DaVinci Code explains this by saying that the Holy Grail actually isn't a cup. It's a womb. Maria Magdalena's womb. It states that on that day Maria Magdalena was carrying Jesus' child, Jesus' blood, in her womb. And also, the womb was portrayed as the same figure as the Holy Grail. Being a V-shaped object. Double evidence according to the DaVinci Code.

Now, let me just say, I do not agree with those ideas of what I think the Church has against the DaVinci Code. Personally I think it's all just a tad bit too much. Let's be openminded in this. It COULD all be possible.
After all, the information that made it in the Bible wasn't all of the information written about Jesus' life. They have found old documents that state different information about e.g. Judas. They have found contradicting information about a lot of things.
The Church has always had strict ideas about Jesus' life, like so many other things, and of course to have information out in the open that made the idea of Jesus being (in their eyes) less divine, was unheard of. Lots of information therefore would have been torn to pieces and burned to ashes. That's only a logical explanation.

Again, I am not saying I believe everything that's been said in the DaVinci Code. First and foremost I think it's highly entertaining and I love the whole idea of it. To believe it is something else. But I am openminded about it. I can imagine (some of) it to be true.

xxx
Petra

I think that it's virtually impossible for anybody to really know the truth of whether or not Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and whether or not their bloodline has survived to this day. I think that most people just crave controversy in their lives and like to elevate the significance of the facts and unfacts...

I haven't read the book yet I'm still trying to get into Dan Brown's style by reading bits from Angels and Demons...its a style I'm not used to yet. Haven't seen the film as I don't want to spoil it for me but, I am familiar with the concepts and controversy (who isn't?).
I think, the world wasn't ready for this book. Beliefs are still yet out-dated. We are still rather narrow-minded in our beliefs as in, why is it impossible that Jesus was married and had a child? Belief has it that Jesus was about 33 when he died, so does that mean he spent all his days preaching? I don't think so to be honest.
And so what if he did or didn't.
When I say that the world wasn't ready for this book and that fact that we're still rather narrow minded in our faith is - religion hasn't moved with the time. Time has gone ahead of religion.
The fact that this story has caused so much trouble, in my opinion, its because religious do-gooders and leaders are worried that it may prove the un-existence of God in the way that if ever they were to track the blood-line linking back to Jesus - could this person perform mircales or do anything that Jesus did? - would be a point on the ''God-doesn't-exist-scale'' for atheists.