DaVinci Code Bruhaha

This is driving me nuts. Why are people upset about "The DaVinci Code"? Set aside that it's FICTION. Set aside that it's very easy to debunk it, and find info from people who have (Discovery and the History Channel have done shows debunking it, fer heaven's sake!)

I know my spiritual beliefs are slightly out of the mainstream, but in this case the mainstream seems to have gone over the edge. Whatever Jesus was, it's pretty clear that anyone who can withstand crucifixion would worry damned little about a movie that takes liberties with his life.

To me (haven't seen the movie... did read the book), the more human Jesus was, the more it gives me hope for the rest of us humans. Rather than thinking that my idol was being desecrated, my thought was how hopeful it would be if Jesus was a man like me, but he had attained a relationship with God and an ongoing state of consciousness that was so pure.

And I keep hearing people say, "Jesus WAS God". Where does the Bible say that? Jesus referred to his "Father", and also referred when talking to others about "your Father" (the Lord's Prayer that he taught the people starts "Our Father..."). So, was Jesus not letting us know that, virgin birth aside, we had the same potential for conscious relationship with "our Father" as he did? And was he not also distinguishing himself from God?

Even the statement "I and my Father are one" contains in it a distinction between Jesus and God, though it does speak to a conscious connection.

Jesus spoke about himself in two ways, one was as a man ("the son of man") when talking about his physical activities on earth... his body. He also referred to himself as the "Son of God" when speaking about himself in terms of his conscious relationship with God. He was God's son, but he also referred to God as "OUR Father" as well as his. Isn't there a message in there about OUR potential to reach the level he did? And it doesn't denegrate him in any way to believe that, but it does give us the hope that we have the potential to actually be like him. "Greater works than these shall ye do." Isn't THAT the point. He said "follow me" as in "emulate me". He didn't say "worship me" and in fact he turned away from being worshipped ("YOUR faith has made you whole").

I would love it if people took this controversy around the DaVinci Code to take a long, hard look at what Jesus taught. Contextualize it. Notice what he was saying and how he said it. He didn't distinguish himself from us in any way other than what he had acheived in terms of his consciousness, but he continually let us know that we could acheive it too. Doesn't it denegrate him MORE to say, in essence: "Jesus believed we could be like him, but we've decided instead just to worship him as a god."

Like I said, the fiction in the "DaVinci Code" has been thoroughly debunked. Did you know that the "Priory of Sion" that DaVinci was supposedly part of was completely made up by a guy trying to create bona fides for himself? And he did it in, like, the 1960s and just chose the names on the list ahead of his own, including DaVinci. So... Come on! Let's not get all wound up about fiction. However, let's actually take the opportunity to take another look at Jesus and perhaps alter our relationship from a belief IN him, to a relationship WITH him. What made Jesus worth listening to and learning from was not the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but the consciousness he displayed and taught between the two. If he'd been born to a virgin, resurrected from the dead, and said nothing worth listening to in between, who'd have cared? He'd be an interesting anomoly. But, he gave us incredible teachings and showed us a path to follow. He gave us, among so much more, the parable of the prodigal son, which was a very direct indication to us that we COULD (and should) return to OUR FATHER in our own minds because He's just waiting for us with all of the Love we could imagine and more. How does a question of whether or not Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children diminish that in any way?

Update: Just saw the movie and am even more confused over the bruhaha. In it, it seemed to me that they had Langdon (the Tom Hanks character) go to great lengths to refute the theories about the Priory of Sion (even mentioning that it was exposed as a hoax in 1967 as mentioned in my original post. Now, in the movie it all comes out as true, but that's CLEARLY fiction). The Hanks character also makes a speech about how none of it matters, and that it shouldn't diminish Jesus in any way, which I totally agree with, obviously. Though I have to say I am unconvinced that, Priory of Sion or no, Jesus was married. I don't really care enough about it to delve further into research, because, as I said, my interest is in what Jesus taught, not theories about his life. To me, the movie was completely harmless.