The DaVinci code does not make sense.

[amdforever2]

Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

 

[pclstyle]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

Faith, brother. Faith is all you need.




OR

We'll soon be seeing "Da Vinci Code 2: Quest for the Turin Shroud"

 

[Genx87]

It is fiction, nothing more, nothing less.

Just take it as it is, a story.

 

[Eeezee]

Most of the testaments say that she's not a prostitute, but that's beside the point. It's never mentioned that she was pregnant or gave birth to anyone, so finding DNA evidence would be pretty incredible.

 

[ATLien247]

They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

 

[imported_LoKe]

It is claimed in the movie and the book that she was pregnant when she fled the Holy Land. One is to assume that she gave birth only to one child, meaning her decendants would be decendants of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by: ATLien247
They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

The obok/movie claimed the Holy Grail was not the chalice.

 

[pclstyle]

Originally posted by: ATLien247
They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

?? they got both his and her DNA from her remains?

that's some resilient semen.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

That's easy. Just go to any Catholic church and siphon from the wine cup.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: ATLien247
They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

which would be her according to the movie

i think they aren't trying to prove Jesus had relations, just rather that she became pregnant, if in fact she did. all you would have to do would be to figure out the dates and see if they match the timeline of when jesus may have been with her, if he was.

the movie/book isn't too much fiction past the drama of the tom hanks character. a lot of what is said in the story is based of conspiracy theories and different opinions and research of historians.

 

[tweakmm]

MM wasn't a prositute.

The pope cleared that up some time ago.

 

[habib89]

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: ATLien247
They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

?? they got both his and her DNA from her remains?

that's some resilient semen.

well he is jesus after all...


but in the book, they mention that she wasn't really a prostitute.. it was just part of the church's conspiracy

 

[Patt]

Originally posted by: habib89

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: ATLien247
They got his DNA from the Holy Grail, obviously...

?? they got both his and her DNA from her remains?

that's some resilient semen.

well he is jesus after all...


but in the book, they mention that she wasn't really a prostitute.. it was just part of the church's conspiracy

ROFL

 

[amdforever2]

Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

That's where you're wrong. She had a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't need his DNA, they have hers.

 

[amdforever2]

SHE COULD HAVE BANGED ANYBODY!

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

That's where you're wrong. She had a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't need his DNA, they have hers.

while i believe she may have had a child.. how does having one child prove it is his though? im just throwin that out there because that's what the zealots would ask.
she could have had a child after jesus died.. right? i don't really know the story of mary, i don't follow a single thing from any religion cuz it makes me laugh.
but either way.. i figure if he had a child before she was with jesus (or even not with jesus) it would have been mentioned.. but there is still the chance of having children well after his death.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

That's where you're wrong. She had a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't need his DNA, they have hers.

while i believe she may have had a child.. how does having one child prove it is his though? im just throwin that out there because that's what the zealots would ask.
she could have had a child after jesus died.. right? i don't really know the story of mary, i don't follow a single thing from any religion cuz it makes me laugh.
but either way.. i figure if he had a child before she was with jesus (or even not with jesus) it would have been mentioned.. but there is still the chance of having children well after his death.

She could have, but according to the story, she didn't. She was "captured" and burned, or something like that. It's highly unlikely that, while being guarded by the Knights Templar, she would go off and have a child with some random man.

 

[pclstyle]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

That's where you're wrong. She had a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't need his DNA, they have hers.

while i believe she may have had a child.. how does having one child prove it is his though? im just throwin that out there because that's what the zealots would ask.
she could have had a child after jesus died.. right? i don't really know the story of mary, i don't follow a single thing from any religion cuz it makes me laugh.
but either way.. i figure if he had a child before she was with jesus (or even not with jesus) it would have been mentioned.. but there is still the chance of having children well after his death.

She could have, but according to the story, she didn't. She was "captured" and burned, or something like that. It's highly unlikely that, while being guarded by the Knights Templar, she would go off and have a child with some random man.

unless the "random man" was one of the Knights Templar...


OOH THE CONSPIRACY GROWS

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

That's where you're wrong. She had a child. If there were no other children, then it was without a doubt the decendant of Jesus Christ. They don't need his DNA, they have hers.

while i believe she may have had a child.. how does having one child prove it is his though? im just throwin that out there because that's what the zealots would ask.
she could have had a child after jesus died.. right? i don't really know the story of mary, i don't follow a single thing from any religion cuz it makes me laugh.
but either way.. i figure if he had a child before she was with jesus (or even not with jesus) it would have been mentioned.. but there is still the chance of having children well after his death.

She could have, but according to the story, she didn't. She was "captured" and burned, or something like that. It's highly unlikely that, while being guarded by the Knights Templar, she would go off and have a child with some random man.

unless the "random man" was one of the Knights Templar...


OOH THE CONSPIRACY GROWS

Their duty was to protect her and her child. It would be incredibly unlikely that one would involve himself and try to take the place of their lord and saviour.

A note for the OP : If you don't know anything/care about religion, then why did you see this movie? You have to understand both points of the arguement to see how good of a story it was.

 

[amdforever2]

It's not that I don't know anything or don't care.

I just dont understand how her having a baby automatically makes Jesus daddy.

As if she can't bang someone else.

 

[torpid]

It wouldn't PROVE that they were descended from Jesus, or Mary. Unless they have some way of proving that Mary is the corpse. How would they prove that? Everything is based on some vague riddles, many of which are no longer in existence. It would require a lot of compelling evidence just to prove it was Mary. Tom Hanks saying, "ok but there's this riddle that was in a rubik's cube in this vault that was being guarded by an evil dude who might have worked for this cult that hired people who whip themselves, see..." would not cut it.

They'd have to carbon date it first. Then you could maybe prove the approximate date of the corpse. Then you'd still have to prove that the corpse is mary's corpse, which would require either matching material from nearly exactly the same time, or solid evidence that the corpse was at specific locations at specific times and follow the trail precisely.

So let's say you do that and hundreds of other things and somehow miraculously prove it is Mary's corpse. How do you establish that she had jesus' child? You have a lot of work to do there. Everything is based on assuming that templars did X or that the bible is perfectly accurate. So you have even more work to prove that it would have had to be jesus' baby.

Of course, her having a baby in and of itself would be fairly exciting.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

That's easy. Just go to any Catholic church and siphon from the wine cup.

:laugh: <=== Protestant laughing hahhaha

 

[Attrox]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

That's easy. Just go to any Catholic church and siphon from the wine cup.

:laugh: <=== Protestant laughing hahhaha

Same here XD that comment is priceless.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Whether she is a hooker or not,

the fact she had children means NOTHING without his DNA.

Well it would prove that the church was wrong, which would raise other questions.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: amdforever2
Aside from the numerous other problems.....



Let's say they find the body of Mary Magdeline.

Let's say they prove the alleged PROSTITUTE has DESCENDANTS.


Where do they get the DNA of JESUS?

That's easy. Just go to any Catholic church and siphon from the wine cup.

Peter Griffin: Is that really the blood of Christ?
Priest: Yes.
Peter Griffin: Holy crap, that guy must've been wasted 24/7.