spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Noble Realms → General Discussion → The Da Vinci Code
FYI: This book is now available for download in my files folder on the Noble Realms file archive.
FYI: This book is now available for download in my files folder on the Noble Realms file archive.
Thanks for that, it's how I was even able to read it in the first place. I'm just glad I didn't spend money on this book...........I would have marched back to Barnes and Noble for a refund.
Dear Friends
kind regards
I am well aware of the hype surrounding the Da Vinci code best-selling book.
The possibility of the Royal bloodlines decending from King David might be genuine.
King Davids decendants were not always honourable-even his own son Solomon took a stand against God almighthy in the end.
However I can also see the viewpoint of Montalk-how could such a monarchy that contributes to and allows the World problem to flourish be decended from Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
There are many viewpoints about this subject and here are two weblinks with different views on the British Monarchy and their supposed "lineage".
1. http://www.anycities.com/jahtruth/britmon.htm
2. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1678.cfm
I hope that these weblinks are of some use to you all.
yours thankfully
John
With the nearing release of "The Da Vinci Code," and its polarizing popularity, I dug up this thread.
I did read "The Da Vinci Code" and listened to the book-on-CD of "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown.
But it's "The Da Vinci Code" on my mind now.
I originally was very impressed with "The Da Vinci Code," with its research, its endorsement of the sacred feminine, of a more human Jesus figure, etc.
However, after sitting with it, two criticisms gradually surfaced from my subconscious. My criticism isn't necessarily supported by "sources," but rather I came to develop two aversions to the book on a gut level.
They are:
(1) I have a hard time buying into the idea that a truly benign, spiritual organization (the Priory of Sion in the book) would be as focused as they were (in the book) upon *bloodlines.*
I understand the concept that spirit and genetics match each other, but a hyperfocus on the preservation of the "purity" of the bloodline, or even a continuance of it, doesn't seem like a highly spiritual concern. It would seem to me that a continuance of the knowledge and the true teachings of the group would be of higher concern.
(2) I have a hard time buying into the idea that a truly benign, spiritual organization (the Priory of Sion in the book) would be as focused as they were (in the book) upon *ritual.*
The Priory of Sion, in the book, supposedly preserves (passes on) the bloodline of Jesus by ritual sex. I'm no prude, and I think of sex as very spiritual. And, I am, in fact interested in sex magic and the like. But again, the cleaving to a specific ritual (centered on the passing on the bloodline) over centuries gives me an impression of lower and not higher consciousuness.
The argument, in the book, for preserving the bloodline seemed weak to me. They did it so that, one day, they could tell the true story of Jesus to everyone--and tell everyone, "Hey, he was just a man, like us!"
To be sure, the perception of Jesus (for Christians) as an ordinary human being and not the literal son of God causes a definite paradigm shift. But if such information were hidden away, and then released to the public en masse NOW, would it really change much?
If it were proved that Jesus was born the old-fahsioned way, and had children, would it really topple the New Testament? Fundamentalists probably wouldn't change their minds at all. They'd say, "Well, okay, it wasn't immaculate conception and, okay, he had sex--but he was still the Son of God..."
The other inconsistency in "The Da Vinci Code," and a hole with the Priory of Sion plot, is that the Catholics more or less admit nowadays that Jesus wasn't born by immaculate conception anyway. I mean, I know that there is a split over this. But many Catholics, many Catholic leaders, don't teach immaculate conception.
...Catholics more or less admit nowadays that Jesus wasn't born by immaculate conception anyway. I mean, I know that there is a split over this. But many Catholics, many Catholic leaders, don't teach immaculate conception.
Ignore that comment. I got my facts wrong here. What is actually true is that others and Catholics confuse the teaching of the immaculate conception with the virgin birth.
I had read the Catholic teaching of the immaculate conception--which I believed referred to the birth of Christ (though it doesn't) and concluded that Catholics generally teach there was no virgin birth.
The immaculate conception belief--for those who care--means that Mary was born free of original sin.
However, I can anecdotally say that my few Catholic friends, and one Catholic writer, disbelieve in the virgin birth story.
So I still question whether or not a mass revelation of Jesus' normal conception would really be as earth-shattering as Dan Brown imagines in "The Da Vinci Code."
Dreamosis,
I've read it too. Found it to be an interesting, well told story. A novel. Whether there's any truth to it or not, doesn't matter to me.
And, I'd agree with you on this as it was one thing that was nagging me as I read it, all that focus on rituals and bloodlines by the P of S is highly specious to me. I consider that stuff to be hooey. They can all keep their "in-breeding". Look what that's done for the Windsors! 
Noble Realms → General Discussion → The Da Vinci Code
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.