DaVinci Code

"The theories Dan Brown puts forth in his book are old and well traveled. He really had no new things in there. He has just managed to popularize a bunch of conjecture that has been around for hundreds of years. But in the past most folks saw fit to ignore them.

 

I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code. At best, it spurred many Christians and non-Christians to dig a little deeper into the actual rich history of Christianity. Unfortunately, some people have difficulty distinguishing between fact and fiction and were influenced negatively by this book.

 

I did too, Gold Dragon, I just started to read his prior book, "angels and demons". But I can distinguish between fact and fiction. The problem his he weaves fiction with fact in such a way that it is a problem for a lot of people. One of my colleagues said it shook her faith. Perhaps her faith was just weak in the first place.

 

I consider the "good" of The Da Vinci Code as also being its "bad". The reason that it was enjoyable was because it incorported enough elements of reality to present a believable Indiana Jones type thriller. The reason it was bad was because it incorporated enough elements of reality to convince people to doubt their faith, something churches are not preparing their members for but I think they should be.

I consider doubt and skepticism to be a regular part of my faith, but that doesn't mean I drop everything at the first sign of doubt or I would have left Christianity a long time ago.

 

But Golddragon you have to admit that he is advocating a certain view and posistion relative to Christianity, and it does coincide with his personal view.

 

I don't know what Brown's personal view is.

I don't think he really believes the stuff he wrote or the theories he referenced.

I think he found some convenient conspiracy theories that he could piece together to make for a good puzzle thriller involving a very convenient monolithic institution, the Roman Catholic Church. That seems consistent with his other books.

 

Isn't Angels and Demons supposed to be a "fact" book, or was it the book he did before Da Vinci Code?

I told my pastor about the Da Vinci Code and told him that people might believe it, so it might not be a bad idea if he reads it to get up to speed on how to answer questions. His response: "Oh, I already know about that "code" stuff, they've pretty much proven there isn't anything to this Bible code thing."

I just kept my mouth shut.

 

I hope he knows the difference between ELS and the DaVinci Code now. Someone should probably explain the difference to him.

 

I don't understand how a Christian can enjoy a book that attacks Jesus Christ so fervently. It doesn't matter if Brown believes it or not, the book takes a very strong anti-Christian position (not just anti-Catholic). It denounces the deity of Christ and God's word in very clear terms, and endorses the gnostics and a view of worshiping the "divine feminine."

The fact that it's fiction does not take away from the clear attacks on Christ and the Bible, because Christ and the Bible are not fiction. Whether a book is fact or fiction doesn't matter imo when it attacks my Savior, especially when I know it's influencing people.

 

Marcia, I am not sure if I would juse enjoyment to describe the experience. Just intrest.

Golddraggon, I watche the Davinci Code speacial on tv and it is clear the brown a pagan and advocates paganism. I have no doubts about that.

 

Mason Dan Brown is a Mason?like those guys who wrote hiram key.i thought Masons are hardcore to what ever religious group they belong

 

Some interesting reponses to questions by Dan Brown.

 

"Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers"--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And apparently one of those answers is that Jesus fathered a child and his decendant is here on earth waiting to be recognized. Can you think of a better credintial for the Antichrist to claim.

Golddraggon, I agree that you can read the books if you are informed and strong in your faith with no problems. But these are the wrods of Brown himself. Do you expect him to come out and say he believes the chruch is a sinister ploy to supress women and truth. All, I repeat, all of the things put forth in the book are antichruch and antichristian, so with that in mind read his words..........."While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit,"

He believes some of those Ideas have merit. Any of them would qualify him as a heretic in both chatholic and protostant circles. Simple as that.

 

Ummm ... ok. I would agree with that statement from Brown. Does that make me the AntiChrist?

So if he doesn't say it, he must believe it? I'm not following you here.

You missed the word may. Some theories may have merit. Those same theories may not have merit. Nothing heretical about that. I would also say that only a few of the theories he mentioned are heretical. The ones about the identity of the grail, the actions of the Crusaders, the conspiracy to suppress the feminine, etc are not heretical even if he truly did believe them.

 

"Ummm ... ok. I would agree with that statement from Brown. Does that make me the AntiChrist?"----------------------------------------------------

I did not say Brown was an antichrist. Reread my post.

"So if he doesn't say it, he must believe it? I'm not following you here"-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He said he thought some of the proposistions in the book had marit. If he believes even one of the major proposisitions he would qualify has a heretic in protestant and catholic traditions.

"You missed the word may. Some theories may have merit. Those same theories may not have merit."---------------------------------------------------

I watched his special on tv. It left me with little doubt that he is not a christian by any stretch of the definition.

If Jesus fathered a child and the apostles covered it up in there writing, then the whole Bible should be tossed out the window. And the Church should be rejected in favor of Browns new-old religion. But perhaps that is the point.

 

is that really a claim that's made? If so, how is it heretical if Jesus was married (the Bible is hugely silent about that issue. We presume he wasn't, but we just don't know). I thought the oft repeated theory was that Jesus had a brother whose decendent(s) may be around today. That's is not only possible, but highly likely.

 

Johnv, this is in fact the story. That Jesus married Mary Magdaline and that she had to flee to France because the Chruch Fathers were a threat to her and her child. There a royal line called the Moravians was produced form Jesus's seed. I don't think it would be heretical if Jesus fathered a child. But he did not. If the appostles were silent on this issue and actively worked to surpress the fact and to surpress women's roles in the chruch starting with Mary Magdaline and in general, which the book also purports, then the Bible and the new testament authors are liers. That belief, if not true, is heretical.

 

I'll take your word for it, because I'm admittedly not familiar with the story. Of course, the book is fiction, and since it's not directly contrary to scripture, it's of no concern to me. I'm not a big fan of religious fiction, so I probably don't read it.

The rest of the info about the apostles is neither here nor there. Those issues aren't addressed in scripture, and what they did outside of scripture doesn't concern me much, because they were still fallible humans who made mistakes. The only time I consider something about them infallible is in regards to scripture. In other words: I don't concern myseof with such things.

 

Well it would have a lot to say about who they (apostles) are as borne again christians and God's witnesses. It is a concern because it is a best seller and alot of folks say it shakes their faith. It is fixing to be released as a major motion picture. But what you have just said is like saying, I don't care if they murdered someone after they recieved the great commission, if they did not write it into scripture it is no concern to me. It would be like saying you have now concerns about the movie Last Temptation of Christ.

But he point is It is not fiction in the classic sence. It is fiction like Stones move, JFK, is fiction. It is put forth as fact and claims to have merit towards the truth. Brown says he believes some of the proposisition in the book have merit. So even he is not calling it pure fiction.