In the movie( I didnt see it) how do they portray Mary Magdalene?
967492
Oh dear Lord. The first answer is that she was a prostitute. Apparently the Good Christian knew the answer without even needing to read the question.\n\nI'm not sure what movie you're asking about, so I can't really answer.\n\nBut for the record, the idea that Mary Madgalene was a prostitute came a few hundred years later. The Church Fathers engaged in frequent slander against women and against each other -- after listing all of the theological heresies of their rival Xians, they'd conclude with And furthermore, he was WOMEN FOLLOWERS!\n\nNow they pretty much ALL had women followers, in fact most of the ministry was supported by wealthy widows. Unfortunately, Xians got started with this holier than thou stuff real early in their history. And most of us grew up thinking that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
654116
Basically saying that Jesus was married and had a child with Mary Magdalene...that's the big "secret."  In the end, it would mean that there are living descendents of Jesus Christ alive today.  That's the secret that they were trying to protect.  And they say that the Holy Grail is not a cup...but rather it is the tomb of Mary Magdalene herself.
109438
That was Mary Magdalen.  Some people believe she was actually the wife of Jesus.
666731
It is a book that was just made into a movie-it is fiction- but hidden in D'vinci's paintings is a code that when they de-sifer it claims to be proof that Christ was a mere mortal and the whole consept of him being the son was God was a haux.\nSome want to expose the Hoax to the world and others want to protect the secret so that religion stays in tact.\nI need to see the movie to get the whole story but that's the basics.
653133
haven't seen the movie myself, but it very well could be. \n\nwe as humans tend to tell the same stories over and over again. very similar "savior" stories are found in many of the worlds religious traditions, not only christianity. \n\ni believe that we are expressing the archtypal truths of humanity through these stories. and that they will continuously manifest through out life. read "the power of myth" by joseph campbell. he documents this phenomenon very well.\n\n and i don't mean to to say that Jesus Christ wasn't a real man who did magnificent things. but just that there have been other incarnations of beings sent here to lead humanity towards it's true nature of Love and Unity. \n\ni do believe that most people miss the point or the lesson that the Holy Masters have come to teach. they get stuck in the dogma and miss the true essence of the Spirit. but we are evolving and this is part of that process. we will all get there eventually.\n\n*peace
995338
The movie is a cult classic. U have to see the movie several times and pick your favorite charcter, and dress the part when you got to the theatre, and act out that part w/ the rest of the audience.... Never seen the movie myself......heard enough about it to know I don't want to.....
684848
People who have absolutely no idea will scream, "LIES" without even reading the book or investigating the history behind it. From what I was able to find, here is what's true and what's not:\n\n- Gnostic Gospels: True, except the text in the Gospel of Mary Magdaline where is says, "Jesus kissed Mary on the lips" is actually, "Jesus kissed Mary on the (hole in parchment)". Brown took a liberty here. Also, there are several references in the Gnostic gospels as well as the bible itself that refer to Jesus "favoring" Mary Mag but they don't go into detail...leaving room for speculation.\n\n- Priory of Sion: A real org., however every bit of information about links it to one of 3 men in the 1950s, and there's no information or reference of the org before that. It's thought to be a hoax.\n\n- Myth of Jesus's Family: The book is correct that Mary Mag was not a prostitute. The bible makes absolutely no reference to that at all. As for the legend of Mary Mag fleeing to France, the only evidence that I know of is a reference in a 15th century book, and an old French myth. Supposedly she had a daughter named Sara, which in Hebrew means Princess. So, the conclusion could be reached that she was the child of Jesus, but its a bit of a stretch.\n\nDa Vinci: Some agree 100% that Mary Mag is in the painting of the last supper. Several art historians claim that during the Rennesaunce (spelling) John was often painted feminine.\n\nConstantine: This was about 80% true from my research. Yes, Constantine formed the Christian religon as it is now (more or less). History is a little fuzzy though as to how much involvement he had choosing which books to include in the bible (some say it was him alone, some say it was several people over several years). However, he DID remove all other religions claiming to follow another messiah, and shape the Christian religion the way he wanted it and make it mainstream. Whether that's following God's influence or a personal agenda, you decide.\n\nOver all, as for the history and theory part of the book I'd say its about 50% fact, 40% legend-theory-assumption, and 10% false. Dan Brown even admits that, "the opinions in the book are conclusions drawn by the characters". He is himself a Christian.\n\nNow...isn't that better than an angry Christian screaming "LIES" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about?
346999
there could be a huge possibility that the person beside jesus is mary magdalene and not an apostle (i think its peter) no one may ever know. it all depends on ones belief or research. \n\nsome people do believe that the cup of christ is mary magdalene and as the book "the da vinci code" explains to us that jesus may have had an offspring with mary magdalene, and that she started the merovingian blood line. \n\nsome people may say this as blasphemy or in-accurate but remember that there is still no REAL proof that jesus ever exsisted, we all base it on the bible and other written records but found not even one real evidence that he ever lived. so who could say that the person beside him is not a woman..
753585
Hollywood likes to do movies depicting "demons" and Catholic priests being overtaken by them, using "holy water" to defeat them, etc.  I've always wanted to see a movie that depicts demons from the biblical discription and have a Christian overcome them with the name of Jesus, and not wierd non-biblical things.\n\nThat's just me.  :o)\n\nSue
1061326
well mel needs to actually read the bible for there was alot of falsehood in the movie. but the depiction of Jesus's beating was very true according to romans law. however when the soldiers came to capture Jesus in scripture there should have been a great multitude as the bible says. for instance. in matthew,mark and luke it says a great multitude.\nMt 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. \nAND IF MEL STUDIED JUST A LITTLE HE WOULD HAVE SEEN IN JOHN 18:3 TELL US THE NUMBER OF MEN THAT CAME TO CAPTURE JESUS:\nJoh 18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. \nIN THE ROMAN ARMY A BAND OF MEN IS 600 SOLDIERS NOT COUNTING ALL THE OFFICERS, CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE PHARISEES. WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND 700 PEOPLE THERE TO CAPTURE JESUS NOT JUST A FEW LIKE IN THE MOVIE.\nNOW WHEN THEY ASK HIM ARE YOU JESUS OF NAZARETH AND JESUS SAID ((( I AM HE ))) YOU WOULD HAVE HAD CLOSE TO 1000 MEN FALL BACKARDS TO THE GROUND.\nTHAT WOULD OF HAD A GREAT IMPACT IN THE MOVIE.
563850
Well I´ve read the book and enjoyed it throughly! But sad to say there is a lot of thingd in the book that is false, \nbut it does makes you wonder. \n\nWhat I can´t understand is that a few years ago there were some old scripures found, but wouldn´d be accepted by the church. These scriptures underwent all the neccassary test to prove its validity(and it was found to be written the time Jesus was alive and 100 after he died).But it was a little bit contridicting to what is in the bible.\n\nAnyway what the da vinci code does is start to put doubt in the minds of people, and why did  the church reacted so strange to this book which is a novel! \n\nAnd okay the thought that Jesus actually has a living heir is strange, but Dan Brown was not the first to write about this there are many other listed books. And ´if´ that were true then the church would clear not want that knowledge to be known because it would loss a lot of credibility.\nSome modern writers,including Dan Brown, have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. These writers cite Gnostic writings to support their argument. Sources like the ´Gospel of Philip´ do depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple. \nHowever, there is no known ancient document that claims she was his wife and Gnosticism was generally non-supportive of sexuality. The closeness described in these writings depicts Mary Magdalene, representing the Gnostics, as understanding Jesus and his teaching while the other disciples, representing the Church, did not.\nMary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation, this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.\n\nAn argument for support of the married status of Jesus is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment) — "Be fruitful and multiply". According to this reasoning, it would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi.\nA counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.\nPaul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among Christians. Jesus himself approved of voluntary celibacy for religious reasons and explicitly rejected a duty to marry: "There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (Matthew 19,12)\n\nThe idea that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus was popularized by books like the pseudo-historical Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) and The Da Vinci Code (2003), a novel heavily influenced by the former book. These assertions have found no acceptance from scholarly circles.\n\nAnd secret societcy are meant to be kept secret so I don´t expect the historians to find a lot of concrete information about the Priory of Sion. \n\nAnd maybe Leonardo did discover something and instead of just saying or exposing it out right he decided to be clever and hide it within his works of art. After all he was known as a genuis.\n\nSo I(am born and raised catholic, but was taught to have an open mind about things.) personally an very intrigued by this idea of Dan Browns, but I am neither for it nor against it. I
687527
The book is an excellent mystery that will keep you turning the pages.  I would recommend reading the book before watching the movie because the movie may be hard to follow if you have not read the book.  At least for me it would have been.\n\nFirst thing you must realize if you are going to read the book, is that it is fiction, and should be taken as FICTION ONLY.  Even though there may be parts which ARE true, you should not get your information about history, religion, and art from a book of fiction.  Absolutely assume that it is all fiction.  Then if you want to later find out where the truth is, you'll just have to do the work of consulting scholarly works, history books, and the Bible as well as the other Gospels that did not make it into the Bible.\n\nSo if you are looking for a good fiction and awesome mystery story, read it and see it.  If you are looking only for historical truth on the matters covered, then do not read it or see it, because it is a terrible source for factual information.  As I say, even though some of the information may be true, you won't be able to know the truth from the falsehood, and there is DEFINITELY falsehood in the book.  Afterall, it IS a fiction novel.
359708
I e-mailed National Geographic and got this answer back:\n"The actors featured in the re-enactment are Tunisian (those scenes were \nfilmed in Tunisia):  Sami Temimi (Judas) and Bahran Aloui (Jesus)."\nI can't find any info on them in IMDB or through Google. I hope this helps!
498000
The movie is nothing more than religious propaganda, and not as ineteresting as propaganda like "Passion of the Christ".  \n\nThe movie was pseudoscientific crap, full of deliberate lies and urban myths.\n\nThe scientists who appearded were all outraged at the way they were presented in that movie.\n\nBy all means watch it, but be aware that it is just a work of fiction intended to gain converts to a religion. Almost nothing they say is true or accurate.
741038
The Da Vinci Code is as explained by Leigh Teabing to Sophie Neveu, the figure at the right hand of Jesus is supposedly not the apostle John, but Mary Magdalene. According to the book Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ and was in fact pregnant with his child when Jesus was crucified. The absence of a chalice in the painting supposedly indicates that Leonardo knew that Mary Magdalene was actually the Holy Grail (the bearer of Jesus' blood). This is said to be reinforced by the letter "V" that is created with the bodily positions of Jesus and Mary, as "V" is the symbol for the sacred feminine. The apparent absence of the "Apostle John", under this interpretation, is explained by identifying John as "the Disciple Jesus loved", allegedly code for Mary Magdalene (see also Second Apocalypse of James). The book also notes that the color scheme of their garments are exactly inverted: Jesus wears a red blouse with royal blue cape; John/Mary wears a royal blue blouse with red cape  — perhaps symbolizing two bonded halves of marriage.\n\nAccording to the novel, the secrets of the Holy Grail, as kept by the Priory of Sion, are as follows:\n\nThe Holy Grail is not a physical chalice, but a woman, namely Mary Magdalene, who carried the bloodline of Christ. \n\nThe Old French expression for the Holy Grail, San gréal, actually is a play on Sang réal, which literally means "royal blood" in Old French. \n\nThe Grail relics consist of the documents that testify to the bloodline, as well as the actual bones of Mary Magdalene. \n\nThe Grail relics of Mary Magdalene were hidden by the Priory of Sion in a secret crypt, perhaps beneath Rosslyn Chapel. \n\nThe Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and the Jesus bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine. \n\nMary Magdalene was of royal descent (through the Jewish House of Benjamin) and was the wife of Jesus, of the House of David. That she was a prostitute was slander invented by the Church to obscure their true relationship. At the time of the Crucifixion, she was pregnant. After the Crucifixion, she fled to Gaul, where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseille. She gave birth to a daughter, named Sarah. The bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene became the Merovingian dynasty of France. \nThe existence of the bloodline was the secret that was contained in the documents discovered by the Crusaders after they conquered Jerusalem in 1099 (see Kingdom of Jerusalem). The Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar were organized to keep the secret. \n\nThe secrets of the Grail are connected, according to the fictional novel, to Leonardo Da Vinci's work as follows:\n\nLeonardo was a member of the Priory of Sion and knew the secret of the Grail. The secret is in fact revealed in The Last Supper, in which no actual chalice is present at the table. The figure seated next to Christ is not a man, but a woman, his wife Mary Magdalene. Most reproductions of the work are from a later alteration that obscured her obvious female characteristics. \nThe androgyny of the Mona Lisa reflects the sacred union of male and female which is implied in the holy union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Such parity between the cosmic forces of masculine and feminine has long been a deep threat to the established power of the Church. The name Mona Lisa is actually an anagram for "Amon L'Isa", referring to the father and mother gods of Ancient Egypt (namely Amun and Isis). \n\nA number of different authors also speculate about the possibility of Jesus becoming a father. There are at least three children attributed to him, a daughter Tamar, born before the Crucifixion, and two sons Jesus (the Jesus Justus from the New Testament) and Josephes, both born after the Resurrection. Their names are now part of the common culture of conspiracy writers, however only two decades ago, when Holy Blood,
499062
I dont know if it will help and i didnt see the movie tho i have and have read the book, but it sounds like a symbol of male and female as the cross represents the sword and the male anatomy, and the 'v' shape of the heart is supposed to represent a females vagina in blunt terms. i tried to find my book but it is packed as im moving but i hope this sheds some light for you
217310
I have watched this movie several times and to tell you the truth, I felt bad after every viewing.  Not bad in the "I shouldn't have watched this" way, but bad that I have a part in nailing Jesus to the cross, even today.  I actually cried when I first watched it, and I am not one of those people that cry at movies, but this was a moving experience for me.  \n\nThe movie was adapted from a book that a num wrote a couple of hundred years ago.  She had visions from Jesus about what the Passion was like, and was told all of this in great detail, including how many times He was whipped, and the crown of thorns and everything else.\n\nI haven't read the book, but am still looking for it, but I have heard, from people who have read it, that the movie is very close to what this nun had written.\n\nI don't think the movie was supposed to "bring people to Christianity", but was meant to show people how Jesus suffered.  I agree that something should have been done about the Resurection, since Passion referes to the crusifixtion, death and resurection, but I did kind of like the ending, showing Him walking out of the tomb.