here is an article on The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown which i read in todays Sydney Morning Herald and am feeling really irritated. it is a book about the last supper painting by da vinci and this dan guy wrote a novel about how the disciple on the Left is not actually John, it's mary magdalene, and the novel elaborates on that picture and illustrates a marriage between Jesus and Mary and how they had a baby, and since there is no picture of a cup in da vinci's picture, Brown interprets that the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene sitting at the right hand of Jesus, the vessel for Jesus' daughter. the novel also explores ridiculous notions of God as feminine which the catholics are claiming is very helpful to the church, that feminists will finally relate to God the Father.
The very first thing i'd like to say is, what is the obsession with Catholics and the holy grail? its only a cup! it has as much ministry and effect in salvation as the plate his bread came from. = none.
I'm not much interested novel books solely focused on one ambiguous component of the Bible, because that is what they are. just novel. i am MUCH less interested in books rooted in abiguous components of a painting of a depiction of a moment in the bible, which draw on that root to expand and romanticise sections of the bible as it pleases. Down with romanticism! ! !

i'm beginning to find myself disinterested in reading the sydney morning herald. the closest to my thought in that article is "for many other theologians, the hyperbole, historical inaccuracies, sloppy scholarship and the presentation of church heresies as truth make any serious consideration of the book appalling." what is a jesuit priest anyway? and WHY is this article all about the opinion of catholics (or heretics)... i think if phillip jensen was hired to compile a christian page for the newspaper i would get a subscription. is it even possible for feminists to relate to God the Father? hm..~~
- posted by Bonnie @ 1:41 pm