I have read the disclaimer that Opus Dei is demanding to be added at the beginning of the film and it GIVES away the complete clue of the story! At least I know it is the clue, because I have read the book couple of months ago.

Nevertheless, I'm still going to see this film in cinema very soon

^^

Maani said it all!

Rosescar:

You are correct about the suppression of femininity - i.e., women - by the capital C Church.  Indeed, setting aside any alleged evidence of a "normal" (i.e., physical- sexual) relationship with Jesus, Mary Magdalene was unquestionably a far more important figure than the capital C Church has ever allowed.  Indeed, it is quite possible that she was equal to Peter and James.

Re a female pope, there is some evidence (about as much as there is for TDVC...LOL) that there was, in fact, a female pope, but she disguised herself as a man and served as pope for between one and two years.  This is the genesis of the story of "Pope Joan."

Minkia:

You say that "The forbidden knowledge is made up of several facts...but mainly by the fact that, according to sources that the Church has tried to cover up for centuries, the Nazarene personified did lead a normal lifestyle like everyone else, by having a normal relationship with Mary Magdalene who the Vatican has portrayed as a woman of low morals. The truth of the matter is that Christ not only shagged Magdalene, but he also fathered at least one child..."

Let me ask you something: Have you, personally, seen any of this alleged evidence?  Do you know anyone who has?  If not, to what do you attribute your claim that they are "facts?"  If you choose to disbelieve the foundational truths of orthodox Christianity, that is certainly your prerogative.  However, to state with certainty that any particular alternative view is "fact" is not simply insupportable, but shows a lack of knowledge of the history of the Judeo-Christian construct.  Certainly not everything we have been taught about the Judeo-Christian construct is correct.  However, the evidence to support the proto-orthodox (and later orthodox) view of Christianity is manifold times more solid than that for any alternative view, particularly one that flies in the face of even the most rudimentary of scholarly works on the subject.

Are you aware, for example, that all of the major 2nd and 3rd century (i.e., pre-Council of Nicea) scholars - Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen et al - agreed on the basic truths that later became the foundation for proto-orthodox Christian thought?  What makes this notable is that all of them disagreed vehemently with each other on various specific issues: indeed, among these five men are a Marcionite, an Ebionite, and even a quasi-gnostic Valentinian.  Yet despite their bitter disagreements on certain specifics, all of them agreed on many of the foundational truths that were later codified at the Council of Nicea.

This is a critical point because it gives the lie to the belief that the Council of Nicea - which was, admittedly, a quasi-"politicized" event - did not work with any "background," but merely unilaterally determined what "orthodox" Christianity would look like.

In fact, contrary to your assertion, those involved in the Council agonized profoundly over many of the issues.  True, the gospels and other writings that were eventually chosen to make up the “New Testament” were largely agreed upon.  However, even here, the facts do not bear out your accusation that they kept only what was “morally relevant.”  Rather, they kept those epistles and gospels which had been in widest circulation for the longest time.  And note that those writings were in widest circulation for the longest time not because the other writings (Gnostic, etc.) had been destroyed or suppressed – that came much later – but because they were both the oldest and most widely disseminated writings (pre-dating the Gnostic writings by as much as 100 years or more), and the most accepted by the populace at the time.  For example, the majority of scholars (including Gnostic scholars) agree that the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel written, around 60 A.D.  Thus, by the time the first non-apostolic gospels appeared in the latter half of the first century, the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation for decades.  And given that all four of the apostolic gospels, as well as the letters of Paul, had been written by 90 A.D., all of them had been in circulation for decades prior to the appearance of most non-apostolic gospels, and over 100 years before the first Gnostic gospel appeared.

This does not mean that, at a later date, the “proto-orthodox” group did not suppress and/or destroy later writings: they did.  But by that time, the four apostolic gospels and the letters of Paul were the most widely-accepted Christian writings – not because of any hanky-panky on the part of the “church fathers,” but because the majority of believers at the time knew that they were the earliest writings (and thus written closest to the time of Jesus’ ministry), and accepted them on that basis.

Again, this does not mean there were not other considerations taken into account by those involved in the Council.  There were.  And some of them are regrettable.  But this does not change the fact – fact, as accepted by hundreds of scholars (including Gnostic scholars) based on a wealth of evidence – that the foundational truths in the New Testament – Jesus’ ministry, ascetic lifestyle, crucifixion and resurrection –  had been agreed upon by a highly disparate group of scholars in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries (almost 150 years before the Council of Nicea) and accepted by the majority of the believing populace, and thus formed the foundation upon which the Council acted, and were not simply “cherry-picked” by the Council in some sinister, nefarious plot to “re-write” the Judeo-Christian construct.

Peace.