the Code

Blasphemous as I am, I used the evilest day in history to go and see the anathemised religious pulp-fiction block-buster, as I didn’t get what all the fuss was about. I mean, even if Jesus had a wife and kids, and it ever came out, I didn’t really understand why it would “devastate the foundations of mankind”. It’s not as if Christianity opposes marriage. Anyway, how would anyone be able to prove it? Based on hidden symbols? If you are looking for symbols, chances are you will find them. If one tried, one could probably find evidence that Jesus had a twin brother, who was actually the one married to Mary Magdalene, and crucified by mistake, so that when Jesus appeared, everyone thought he resurrected…
But details of the theory (any theory) are irrelevant. After actually seeing the film, which is, by the way, flat, badly constructed and visually unappealing, I realized that it’s not the story of this mediocre film/book that presents a problem. It is the basic principle of having theories, in the first place. The Christian church (in all its forms) is founded on a version of alleged events many many years ago - events which can themselves never be checked or verified. If you allow someone to dispute a part of this story, the whole story is in jeopardy. Whether someone is the direct descendent of JC or not, isn’t important. (It could never be proven, as there are no remains, and even if there were, how could you prove they really belong to Jesus, or his wife? Anyway, by now, he would have thousands of descendents all over the world, not one single heir.)
Therefore, what the fuss WAS about, is that regardless of whether Jesus existed, and whether he was the son of god, everything that happened after him was the work of men. So theories, such as the one in the film, do not necessarily question divinity of Jesus but the divinity of the church. The film reminds us that at certain points in history the church selected which scriptures to accept or reject, designing a mythology which suits its purposes. The church is a dogmatic structure within which thinking itself is a problem - the right to re-examine. It also reminded us that the church is, among other things, a powerful interest group, a political force, a financial giant, and as such uses any means to protect itself and its various interests, at the expense of anyone who stands in the way, with no more moral justification than others who do the same. So while I don’t believe in any of this anyway, and think this film is quite weak and most probably full of historical inaccuracies and deliberate misinterpretations, I kind of like the underlying tone of separating faith and religion and seriously questioning the other.