The da Vinci Code

I have no interest in reading any of the Gnostic Works of which the Da Vinci Code surely a member of...

I will not knowingly support any work that is so eagerly and gleefully used by those that have no other interest in life but to destroy a young believers faith...

Mike Sr.

 

grahame

I dont think he was biting your head off...just answered that he had not and would not read it.

There are some excellent anti code books out there. They all say about the same thing. The hole in the boat of the Da Vinci Code is its eroneous and faulty research.

J

 

What is in the book is sordid falsity seeking to be viewed as truth by a reading audience who is lazy and uneducated, hopeing to get an education while being simultaneously entertained.

Salon.com, a decidedly non-christian source had this to say:

"You get the impression Brown never expected "The Da Vinci Code" to take the world by storm or that it would invite the kind of scrutiny his novel cannot withstand. As a result, Brown makes several dumb, careless mistakes that put the lie to his pretensions of extensive research, such as having a "Grail expert" describe the Dead Sea Scrolls as being "among the earliest Christian records," when the documents are Jewish and do not mention Jesus Christ at all."

..."Some of Brown's mistakes are minor but telling. For example, his "Grail expert," Leigh Teabing, smugly declares that "any Aramaic scholar will tell you" that the word "companion" used in the uncanonical Gospel of Philip in describing Mary Magdalene's relationship to Jesus, "in those days, literally meant spouse." But, as Ehrman explains, the Gospel of Philip is written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and the word in question is borrowed from yet another language, which is also not Aramaic, but Greek. And it does not mean "spouse" or "lover," but "companion," and is "commonly used of friends and associates."

http://tinyurl.com/gazxm

Brown claims that: No christian until the 4th century (Nicea) ever believed that Jesus was God.

This is patently false. Nicea was called because the nature of his divinity was called into question.

Brown claims that the Gnostics were the ones trying to show Jesus' humanity which the Church tried to cover.

This is patently false. The Gnostics usually left us with an etherreal Jesus who was in no way a man, for human bodies were to them things of evil.

Brown even claims that the name "Mona Lisa" is an anagram for Amon and Isis, to pagan gods. But Davinci never called his work the "Mona Lisa". He called it La Gioconda. The name "mona lisa" came a century later.

Brown claims the dead sea scrolls are the earliest christain documents. That's like saying "the Declaration of Independance" was foundational to the early British Monarchy. It's just retarded.

I don't blame the people who buy into it; I blame the public school system for doing such a poor job of teaching history and basic logic.

 

Here's a URL for a search I did at Christian Book Distributors...

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntk=keywords&Ntt=DaVinci+Code&action=Search&N=0&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1

You may have to copy it into Notepad and then paste it into the address line in your browser to get rid of the WordWraps...

Anyway they have some books and tracts on the DaVinci Code that some of our apologists might appreciate...

Mike Sr.

 

I have read the book. I read it about 15 months ago. I treated the book as a fiction book....read it as such...and enjoyed it for the mystery aspect.

 

I have a hard time with this statement: "I thought it was an enjoyable read" - even though it's personal opinion, for a few reasons:

1) The glaring historical inaccuracies presenting themselves as fact. The average, educated person, would laugh at a line that called the Dead Sea Scrolls the earliest Christian documents, and see that this is trash.

2) It's poorly written. It's a pulp novel at best used for airplane fodder and even then there are better pulp novels. Brown spends most of his time trying to impress the reader with his "vast ammounts of knowledge" so as to intellectually bully the ingnorant masses into believeing his deception - which is precisely what his book says the OTHER GUYS did!

3) Being that there are better options, one who "enjoys" this book must have a pretty limited library.

4) Were I to write a book called "the Moses Conspiracy", and then have this as the plot:

"Historicial Expert and Mose-ologist for Yale Richard Sanchez discovers a secret hidden for decades: The Real Moses was a Pagan Deist who believed in no moral rules that the wicked Levitical Priesthood then coopted to build up their own religion and gain power over the ignorant Jews"

I'd be labeled an anti-semite. Anti-Christianity in general (and Anti-Catholicism in particular), are the last acceptable prejudices in this country. My book wouldn't sell, but this one does because people want to feel smart...

It's a trashy piece of bad fiction.

Though if we're suggesting books, I'd suggest this one.

 

Did anyone really take this book seriously??

I have a hard time believing that to be true. It was a fun, fast read, nothing more.

 

Yes, and that's the problem. We're a lazy culture this modern western world. We want edutainment; we want to enjoy a good thriller while learning history at the same time so that we don't have to bother ourselves with research.

Then we get a book like this full of supposed "facts" that leave us feeling like we learned something and more "spiritual" to boot.

I know dozens of people who now attack christianity for "violently suppressing and supplanting" the wonderful pagan religion (as if there was only one) that existed before it. It's rediculous, but true...

 

Not a limited library at all. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I enjoy reading books for fun or knowledge. It was an easy read and for me was a page turner.
As I indicated I treated it as fiction and read it as such...nothing more.

 

I must really be missing the boat here. I did not see this at all as a serious attempt at revisionist history. The "history" in it is so far-fetched that surely no one could take it seriously. It was so historically off base that no thinking person gives it any credence.

How is this any more "dangerous" than Indiana Jones?

I love the comment that anyone who enjoys this must have a limited library .

 

The problem isn't necessarily how a *real* and *mature* Christian Reads or Views the information in the book...

The problem is that people who delight in attacking the faith of my weaker brothers and sisters in Christ for the express purpose of sending them to a Hell prepared for the devil and his angels...

It is _not_ more dangerous than "Indian Jones" because these are mentioned by many "so-called" academics and they are gleefully praising it as actual factual contrary evidence to Christianity...

Far too many weak Christians are easily swayed by the arguments of "Science, falsely called"...

The same goes for the gnostic gospel of judas...

Mike Sr.

IMHO: The problem would be less acute if all churches included pop apologetics in their Sunday School Curriculums and made it plain that you are _not_ a "Berean" if you don't avail yourself of the oppurtunity to Study to Show yourself approved...

Too many churches have dumped Sunday School because of lack of attendance...

What does *that* say about the threat of contrary evidence?

But, even the best of SS programs can't protect the new baby in Christ...

 

I do agree that a young Christian or a non-Christian might take the novel as the "truth". For people that are firm in their faith it is a fiction read...

 

I enjoyed the DaVinci Code as a fictional thriller. It doesn't take too much research to find historical inacurracies in the book. But that should be expected since the book isn't meant to be read as history.

It is meant to be read as fiction that has the appearance of history. Sort of like how Jurassic Park is fiction that has the appearance of science even though there are a lot of scientific problems in the book.

The appearance of history in the DaVinci code adds to its enjoyability like the appearance of science in Jurassic Park does.

We had a speaker come to our church and "refute" the history of the DaVinci Code. I felt that type of thing just gave more credence to the DaVinci Code as something that actually needed refutation.

Of course the average uncritical person will probably buy into these things hook-line and sinker. But then again, the average person also buys the latest exercise gadget from the television.

 

Good points, Gold Dragon!

 

I posted on "What are you currently reading" thread that I was reading this. And I agree with the above quote totally and completely concerning The Da Vinci Code.

 

LOL!! True true.

 

I'm on Chapter 40. About half way through the book. It's interesting. Captivating. Yet, I already see the inaccuracies. It's similar to Holy Blood, Holy Grail. A book about Merovingian kings and queens to be direct lineage to Christ through Mary Magdalene. That she fled to France and bore her and Christ's child. But these kings and queens were to be fair skinned.

When Jesus, probably looked like any other Jew in the middle east.From what I understand that means olive skinned, dark hair. He probably had short hair instead of long (he was no nazarite(information on nazarites: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10727a.htm).... from Nazareth yes but a Nazarite no.). A big nose. He probably wasn't....handsome but somewhat average looking if not below. It makes me laugh to think so many people swallow this stuff up. Like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the newest book The Da Vinci Code. But for pure entertainment, it proves to do well in that department.

Oh...and just to tell y'all....the Prieuré de Sion does NOT exist. It's a hoax. Sorry folks, unlike the books first few pages say it is accurate. Now, from my searching the Opus Dei does. *shrugs*

I didfind this and liked how opusdei.org put it...: "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, and it is not a reliable source of information on these matters." Referring to claims made in the book I presume. I would also like to add this:

"The Da Vinci Code makes it appear that Opus Dei members practice bloody mortifications. In fact, though history indicates that some Catholic saints have done so, Opus Dei members do not do this."

I also loved Dan Brown's lack of facts and specifics when it comes to writing down names and such.....it's like he has the truth and twists it ever so nicely to fit in his form of artwork.

Bravo.