Glock Talk banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Let me revisit this sensitive topic because it’s such a huge talk in the media. It was on theaters in P.I. when I was there and I heard it was a decent money maker even with the demand for a boycott by some religious group. Russia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and who knows where else, also ban the release of the movie. Well, what d’you know, despite the controversy and bad reviews, the movie has the second biggest worldwide film opening in history.

Okay guys, let’s hear your take on the book/movie with emphasis on the storyline. As a Christian, did you find the idea uncomfortable and unacceptable? As you already know, it claims Jesus Christ married(?) Mary Magdalena who was pregnant when Jesus died and Jesus therefore had descendants. Remember people that this is a work of fiction, and fiction is just that…fiction. Remember Silas and Opus Dei, the secret society Priory of Sion, Langdon, Sophie, the Holy Grail, the Templars…

Also, can somebody contemplate what the worldwide scenario will be, if the central figure of a similar story, fiction or not, is Prophet Mohammad instead of Jesus Christ? (not the part about woman because, truth be told, one of them is married) Can somebody spell chaos?

What’s the feedback from other religions in the country? Islam, Iglesia ni Cristo, Ang Dating Daan, Aglipayans, Mormons, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. I don’t seem to read an awful lot of press release from them. Maybe somebody’s wishing Hollywood will make a movie version of Angles and Demons? Can we really trust the Vatican? or the Gospel itself? (if you can save the flame, please)

OK, let the debate begins…and let’s keep it clean.

PS. Let it be known, I’m a Christian and have a strong belief system. But I tend to ask questions and I’m inquisitive not the kind ‘close your eyes and just believe’. Leap of Faith? Hmmmmnn… guess not.

Premium Member
3,086 Posts
Mmmm'okay, I'll weigh in.
Just my opinion and impression lang naman, although
the forum should by now be inured to the sheer length
at which I can try to communicate ;)

Hang on for dear life...

I've been a fan/student of the history of the
'pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici'
since before high school, in the mid 1970's.

Actually, the main attraction for me was the
'Ordo Militiae Sancti Joannis Baptistae Hospitalis
Hierosolymitani', who have many successors today,
but the interest in the Templars was inevitable.

Dan Brown and a horde of prior conspiracy-buffs have
written a lot of cack about the Templars, based on
two things: the wealth possessed by the Order, and
the mysterious confessions supposedly extracted from
some of its members under torture .

The 'wealth of the Templars' is easily explainable by
looking at the Hospitallers. The latter are NEVER
accused of finding some secret treasure, and yet
amassed almost as much land and treasure simply on
the strength of pious donations and gifts of grateful
patients, never mind large inheritances from deceased
members of the Order who came from nobility.

Whereas the Hospitallers provided health care for a
flood of European pilgrims to Jerusalem, the Templars
had a near-monopoly on armed transport of the same
pilgrims, to Jerusalem and back. Both orders were the
beneficiaries of large donations in the form of land and
money, from the pious and the grateful.

It's well-known how the Templars developed modern banking:
pilgrims no longer had to risk hauling large sums of cash
to sustain themselves while in the Holy Land. They would
deposit cash in Europe with the nearest Templar commandery,
and obtain a receipt which could be redeemed with the
Templars upon arrival at the destination. Since the
'wealth of the Templars' was not personal in ownership,
but rather held in common use, it was exempt from the
moral ban on simony/usury. Interest was charged. From there,
it was a short step to financing all sorts of European

There was a large gross income generated, but relative
to the Templars' mission, was it enough?

If anything, the Templars were rather poor in spite of
the near-century of monopoly they had on both banking and
secure pilgrimage tours. This is because maintaining a
military presence in the Holy Land cost astronomical sums.
This is why at the end, separated from not just the Holy Land
but their raison d'etre, they were very strict in
collecting on loans: they wanted to mount another crusade,
and badly lacked the funds to pursue it.

In exchange for support in seeking papal imprimatur on
a new crusade, they had lent money to a client already
saddled with outstanding debt: that paragon of faithless
greed, the French King Philip the Fair.

(continued, ;))

toy soldier
1,197 Posts
just my .02 bukos, if people dont like the show then they dont watch the show, why would they want to ban it? what about me who want to watch it? if their faith is that strong why are they afraid of this work of fiction?? i am against censorship. and i do not trust the vatican:)

560 Posts
Originally posted by cebuboy
just my .02 bukos, if people dont like the show then they dont watch the show, why would they want to ban it? what about me who want to watch it? if their faith is that strong why are they afraid of this work of fiction?? i am against censorship. and i do not trust the vatican:)
Exactly! If it is all lies, then what is there to be afraid of? If their faith is strong, then it shouldn't be shaken by conspiracies written by an author just trying to sell books. Them attempting to ban the movie/book just makes it more attractive to watch because it is controversial. :upeyes:

255 Posts
I'm a catholic, i pray, i go to church... So what if Jesus had a wife and child? Does it make people believe less to his good works? I think it's the vatican that's afraid that people would start replacing them with women. It's not that i dont trust the vatican... The vatican is made up of men... men who can commit sins as well. If you give it much thought, there are more men who commit more sins than women. Ang dami kaya child molesters and manyak na pari. The director of our school (a jesuit) was expelled for having an affair with one of our school teacher. Yes it was proven (nabuntis yung teacher)! And this jesuit was also rumored to frequent a night club. Riding his expensive motorcylce, in his leather jacket labeled "Soldier of Christ" at the back. Astig noh? :) May nakita ba kayong madre na nang-rape? Nagnanakaw? E kung si mother theresa na lang or someone like her ang naging pope? Would that make catholics believe less of their faith? Just my opinion :)

Premium Member
3,086 Posts
I have never heard of the Vatican calling for a boycott of this movie,
nor of the book :)

(continued from a few posts up)

When news of the successful 'liberation' of Jerusalem in 1099
reached Europe, pious support for the eventual Latin Kingdom of
Jerusalem was guaranteed... for almost a century. So-called
'military orders' came into being, such as the Templars, the
Hospitallers (eventually 'miles'), and the Teutonic Knights.

However, even before the loss of Jerusalem in 1187 and subsequent
loss of all European territory in the Holy Lands, that support
had begun to dwindle --the existence of the Latin Kingdom of
Jerusalem was dependent on European money, and Europe was needing
more and more of all available cash for its own problems.

Dedicated to defending the Holy Land, the evicted Templars
naturally agitated for a new Crusade to reclaim it, and the
political support of monarchs and the pope was sought, over
many decades.

In the 1300's one of those courted by the Templars was King
Philip the Fair, and he promised his support in exchange for
loans he could not repay. Instead, he sought to cancel his
debt by obliterating his lenders the Templars (following the
Christian template of expelling Jews to whom outstanding amounts
were owed).

The Templars were charged with heresy, many of them arrested
and tortured to obtain the desired confessions. Never mind that
a Pope was kidnapped and eventually murdered as a mere sideshow
to this persecution, Philip got what he wanted.

Conspiracy-theorists got what they wanted too, in those
confessions obtained under torture.

One of them was supposed to be secret worship of an object/entity
called the 'Baphomet'. Nobody really knows what this was, but
Dr. Hugh Schonfield thought to apply an ancient Jewish decryption
tool, the Atbash cipher (which had been used to interpret portions
of the Dead Sea Scrolls). With that, 'Baphomet' can be intepreted
as 'Sophia' ---a Greek word for 'wisdom'.

Never mind that no other Templar trivia have yielded goodies via
this cipher, but this is where it gets REAL funky. A large number of
historical and invented 'mysteries' are linked together (only by
omitting much truth) to form the conspiracy that Dan Brown has been
only the most recent to promote.

'Sophia', as said, means wisdom or knowledge.
There was a heretical sect of Christians, from about 300 A.D.
onwards, called the Gnostics (the name alone suggests a worship
of knowledge and wisdom). They held, among other things, that
Judas was first among the Apostles for receiving specific, secret
instruction (knowledge) from Jesus (to betray the Son of Man, etc.).
A withered pamphlet (in Greek, not in Aramaic as Dan Bown claims)
of theirs describes Mary Magdalene as exceptionally devoted to Jesus,
and that the latter often kissed her on the... well, the word
is missing. Brown insists the missing word is 'lips', and that is
the basis for the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers.
The idea, however sacrilegous, is not new. It has been around in
disguised form since at least the 800's.

Jesus kissed his other apostles as well, according to the Gnostic
texts, but then a kiss was a more common greeting back then,
than it is today (beso-beso notwithstanding).

If Jesus and Mary Magdalene had offspring, then a 'holy bloodline'
was out there for any wannabe monarch to lay claim to, pursuing
unasailable legitimacy of his authority and rule.

(Later European nobility was fond of providing falsified documents
attesting to their patrilineal descent from Julius Caesar, or from
Alexander the Great, from Moses, saints and apostles. Bloodline was
everything, and the kings of Europe couldn't very well fess up to
having descended from the slaves and mercenaries of the Romans, eh?)

So, first we are supposed to believe the Templars actually worshipped
a 'Baphomet', and then believe that the word really reads as 'Sophia',
and then accept that Gnostic heresy was truth, and then that the
Templars had such proof of its truth: that is to say, that Jesus
fathered children.

We are to believe that the wealth and existence of the Templars
is somehow different from that of the Hospitallers, that it was based
on blackmailing the Church with the proof of Jesus' offspring.

Worse still, we are to buy into the 1956 falsifications committed
(and later confessed to, in 1993!) by Pierre Plantard:
the so called Les Dossiers Secrets, which he had had inserted
surreptitiously into the archives of the French Bibliotheque
Nationale, identifying a fictitious 'Prieure du Sion' and
hilariously listing an impossible line of 'Grand Masters' for it,
including Leonardo da Vinci.

One only has to look at all the fake Hospitaller Orders, with their
fake documents and lucrative recruitment of gullible members-knights,
to understand one reason for falsifying some secret 'Pieure du Sion',
and again now, Plantard has already confessed to the falsification.

But wait, there's even more suspension of disbelief required!
This fictitious Prieure du Sion is supposed to be the heir to
Templar secrets! As one of its Grand Masters, Leonardo da Vinci
--by all accounts a devout Christian to his death-- is supposed
to have inserted Gnostic heresies into the 'Last Supper', a
tempera he rendered in the dining room of the Convent of
Santa Maria delle Grazie --to the specifications of his patron,
Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan.

We are to believe that da Vinci's image of John actually
represents Mary Magdalene, the 'Holy Grail' that carries the
blood of Christ in her womb, all in the context of the very moment
the Lord consecrates 'His body and blood'.

A cursory study of Last Supper paintings by other artists of the
day, and their boyish, almost girlish, depictions of John, is
helpful. Furthermore, da Vinci's Last Supper doesn't depict the
consecration of 'Body and Blood' --it is the moment when Jesus
reveals that one of the apostles will betray Him! THAT's why
the apostles are so agitated in the painting. Further, we know
there were twelve apostles --if 'John' is actually the Magdalene,
where's John, then, 'ey?

I could go on and on... (you KNOW that I can ;) BWAHAHAHAHA!!!)
The Merovingians are another past interest of mine, and the
Carolingians as well, since their lessons apply to parts of the
dismal political landscape in the Philippines.

Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' is a lot like the TV series 24.
It creates tension by intoducing insinuations at a breakneck pace
but never really ties up all the loose ends satisfactorily. The sheer
volume and pace of such, distratcts the reader/viewer from noticing
many lapses. Bereft of these shock-value insinuations --which by
the way are largely borrowed (plagiarized, even) from suprisingly-
recent publications of wildly-varying quality (Baigent et al 1982,
etc.)-- Dan Brown's writing leaves me bored:

Check out his other novel 'Digital Fortess', which also dwells
on code-breaking. Without the Da Vinci Code's shock-value
allegations vs. the Church, it reads very badly. Cardboard
characters, weak grasp of mathematics involved in cryptology,
and a tin dialogue had me in a very irritable mood.

Perhaps that is NOT Dan Brown's fault.
He writes in a style that so very many have clearly enjoyed.
Perhaps it is my own shortcomings that prevent me from finding
such enjoyment through his work.

I did not 'boycott' the movie for any 'heresy', nor do I recall the
Church enjoining me to participate in a 'boycott'. If I did that sort
of thing in principle, I would boycott Sunday Mass first, as the
priests imposed on my congregation (SVD, Sacred Heart, QC) are
stupefyingly shallow in their presentations of Gospel and catechism,
and actually propose ignorant heresies in their sermons.

It is terribly hard work wading through all their bullshat to find
what I showed up for, but at least they don't charge
for admission.


105 Posts
there's really no debate.... when you read the original book of dan brown... he wrote on the book (on the preface) that's it's just fiction... albeit he used existing 'facts' to develop his storyline. i suggest to those who saw the movie, also take hold of his book to balance things out.

Premium Member
3,086 Posts
But, it is precisely the book that so many object to,
rather than the movie :)

It is Brown's claim of some factual basis that is so easy
to demolish. As for Brown's fiction, as I have said:
many have clearly enjoyed it (or it would not be the
bestseller it still is).

1,187 Posts
I am not sure if I have posted this but after reading the book, my wife and I had to change our travel plans in Italy. We went to Milan to see for ourselves Da Vinci's Last Supper. Our docent was really furious about the book and repeatedly stated, "It is fiction". The book was really believable and very convincing. Just like his other book Angels and Demons. However, the theologians and religious scholars have put up dozens of arguments denouncing the story of the alleged marriage. My 2 centavos.

544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
whoa! horge, you never fail to amaze me with your immense collection of knowledge on any subject, past, present and future. para kang walking encyclopedia! I just read the book The Templar Legacy by Steve Berry (which I think trying to piggyback on the popularity of The DVC) and the storyline is exactly n'sync with your writing. What exactly are you besides a Phil-based pistolero?

The first novel I read from Brown was the Digital Fortress. At that time, I have no idea who he was until Angels and Demons and later, The DVC.

keep them coming. I always enjoy writings that stimulates the brain or what is left in the space between my ears.
1,440 Posts

Originally posted by VICARA
whoa! horge, you never fail to amaze me with your immense collection of knowledge on any subject, past, present and future. para kang walking encyclopedia!
keep them coming. I always enjoy writings that stimulates the brain or what is left in the space between my ears.

Make your move
1,354 Posts
Originally posted by antediluvianist
Having sex is as natural as defecating and urinating. If Jesus did all three, so what?

The real question is : if Jesus had lived in modern times, would he have chosen a 1911 as his sidearm, or something else?
Blasphemy Sir Ante!

I think it will be either Micro-UZI, Desert Eagle or a Jericho 941:supergrin:

Premium Member
3,086 Posts
The real question is : if Jesus had lived in modern times,
would he have chosen a 1911 as his sidearm, or something else?

It's no real question at all, you heretic...
Stop suckling Satan's hind teat will you?
Cleave to the logic at hand:

The Lord generally observed Mosaic Law, nehhh???
Obviously, if He were to be desirous of carrying a 20th century sidearm,
it would be John Moses Browning's M1911 !

The M1911A1 is a Protestant's false conceit, and
the P35 (Grand Puissance) is a Charismatic digression.

God, give me strength...
You apostates, heretics, infidels and Glock-owners alike...
Damn the whole stinking lot of ye!!!

544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
oh, horge, you made me LOL with that last posting! cannot stop laughing my stomach hurts, napa-ihi pa 'ata ako!

btw, i totally agree, gotta be a 1911.
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.