Another Da Vinci Code Thread

[shanstress70]

I know this has been discussed to death lately, but I just saw the movie on Sat. and really wanted to discuss it. (It is my goal to read the book because I know there is a lot the movie left out, but I don't get to read that much these days with a small child and all.)

I have a couple questions/thoughts:

1 - I know that this is a fictional book, but a lot of it was based on facts. And Dan Brown, of course, was not the one to introduce this theory (about Jesus being married and having a daughter). How can we be so quick to discount this? According to his statement on his website (see FAQ page), history is written by the 'winners'. Supposedly the meetings to decide what to include in the Bible really did take place, for example.

2 - Not saying I believe this, and I don't, but I think we'll never know... IF Jesus was married and had offspring, why would that be so detrimental? That doesn't mean He would not be divine... right? Why is this so threatening to some?

3 - I was interested in the female/goddess aspect of all this as well. Perhaps Jesus himself wanted females to have more of a leadership role then many churches give them?

[Lindy]

I know this has been discussed to death lately, but I just saw the movie on Sat. and really wanted to discuss it. (It is my goal to read the book because I know there is a lot the movie left out, but I don't get to read that much these days with a small child and all.)

I have a couple questions/thoughts:

1 - I know that this is a fictional book, but a lot of it was based on facts. And Dan Brown, of course, was not the one to introduce this theory (about Jesus being married and having a daughter). How can we be so quick to discount this? According to his statement on his website (see FAQ page), history is written by the 'winners'. Supposedly the meetings to decide what to include in the Bible really did take place, for example.

2 - Not saying I believe this, and I don't, but I think we'll never know... IF Jesus was married and had offspring, why would that be so detrimental? That doesn't mean He would not be divine... right? Why is this so threatening to some?

3 - I was interested in the female/goddess aspect of all this as well. Perhaps Jesus himself wanted females to have more of a leadership role then many churches give them?

Shan~

Good questions.... and I think you have very good points.... If I think logically about things... well, I believe that so many things were left out of the Bible...by man.... on purpose. I don't think we will ever know the whole truth until later. And if Jesus was married? so what... Does it say anywhere in the Bible that he was untouched?

Females play an important part of many stories in the Bible.... Yet, I do have to think that if Christ chose men to be his disciples.... He did it for a reason.... Mary seemed to be everywhere with Him, yet she was not named as a disciple. Who knows.......

But good questions :)

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

I know this has been discussed to death lately, but I just saw the movie on Sat. and really wanted to discuss it. (It is my goal to read the book because I know there is a lot the movie left out, but I don't get to read that much these days with a small child and all.)

I have a couple questions/thoughts:

1 - I know that this is a fictional book, but a lot of it was based on facts. And Dan Brown, of course, was not the one to introduce this theory (about Jesus being married and having a daughter). How can we be so quick to discount this? According to his statement on his website (see FAQ page), history is written by the 'winners'. Supposedly the meetings to decide what to include in the Bible really did take place, for example.

2 - Not saying I believe this, and I don't, but I think we'll never know... IF Jesus was married and had offspring, why would that be so detrimental? That doesn't mean He would not be divine... right? Why is this so threatening to some?

3 - I was interested in the female/goddess aspect of all this as well. Perhaps Jesus himself wanted females to have more of a leadership role then many churches give them?

Shan~

Good questions.... and I think you have very good points.... If I think logically about things... well, I believe that so many things were left out of the Bible...by man.... on purpose. I don't think we will ever know the whole truth until later. And if Jesus was married? so what... Does it say anywhere in the Bible that he was untouched?

Females play an important part of many stories in the Bible.... Yet, I do have to think that if Christ chose men to be his disciples.... He did it for a reason.... Mary seemed to be everywhere with Him, yet she was not named as a disciple. Who knows.......

But good questions :)

I realize I'm getting way out there now, but it's just conversation, because I'm not convinced of any of this... BUT if He considered Mary as more of a counterpart, she wouldn't need to be labeled as a disciple.

[Lindy]

I realize I'm getting way out there now, but it's just conversation, because I'm not convinced of any of this... BUT if He considered Mary as more of a counterpart, she wouldn't need to be labeled as a disciple.

Good Point. I am sure that Mary had more a part in Christ's life than was written

[BenRaines]

have a couple questions/thoughts:

1 - I know that this is a fictional book, but a lot of it was based on facts. And Dan Brown, of course, was not the one to introduce this theory (about Jesus being married and having a daughter). How can we be so quick to discount this? According to his statement on his website (see FAQ page), history is written by the 'winners'. Supposedly the meetings to decide what to include in the Bible really did take place, for example. Of course there were meetings held to discuss what to include in the bible. From what I have read it took a number of years, I don't know how many but I am sure someone does. These were not even men who were considered religious that were the once who compiled the books that we find in the bible today. They were appointed by Constantine to compile the writings they felt should be in the book.

2 - Not saying I believe this, and I don't, but I think we'll never know... IF Jesus was married and had offspring, why would that be so detrimental? That doesn't mean He would not be divine... right? Why is this so threatening to some? To some to think that Christ, A God, or to some the, Son of God, to have relations with a woman would be beneath him, no jokes please. For those who believe that family is an eternal concept is it not so foreign a belief.

3 - I was interested in the female/goddess aspect of all this as well. Perhaps Jesus himself wanted females to have more of a leadership role then many churches give them? I believe that in some churches women hold a more important role that males. Perhaps not as the way the world sees it but as God sees it. They are partners with God in the creation of new life. They are the true educators of the next generation. They are the ones who set the moral standards for the family. Holding a position for the acclaim of the world does not make a man or a woman more important in God's eyes.

Ben Raines

[CaptainTux]

When I have time, I will come back to this thread. I need to preface it by saying that Dan Brown's book is a very entertaining read. However, the facts he claim are mostly easily discounted. I saw a History Channel deal on the book and most (including secular) historians discount much of what is placed as fact. I did some research on their take and found most of his "facts" to be more urban legend of it's day than facts.

More to come when I have time.

Here is a nice little write up

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/fait...cidebate13.html

At the end of the day, people love conspiracy theories. We eat it up. We will put logic and our own investigative skills aside and allow people to spoon feed us if it is conspiracy related.

I find it interesting that we have so many vast resources to verify the historical and archaeological veracity of the Bible, but someone writes a sexy pamphlet trying to discount it...people eat it up. Same with the JFK assassination. You can read Gerald Posner's Case Closed with over 700 pages of dry facts that make a strong point for Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Gunman...or a hot little 200 page read with lots of speculation and even more holes and intrigue and most will go for the easy read sensationalism.

[Guest Monica]

All the scriptures show that Jesus is single til He returns for His bride which is the Church.

Mat 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

[BenRaines]

I have read the book and seen the movie. What are the great discrepencies that everyone sees? There is a lot of fiction and speculation in the book and movie. What are the great falsehoods or urban legends that everyone else is seeing?

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

1 - I know that this is a fictional book, but a lot of it was based on facts. And Dan Brown, of course, was not the one to introduce this theory (about Jesus being married and having a daughter). How can we be so quick to discount this? According to his statement on his website (see FAQ page), history is written by the 'winners'. Supposedly the meetings to decide what to include in the Bible really did take place, for example.

My concern is that Brown's book will give some who might over time open their hearts to the gospel an excuse not to. "Hey, the churches are corrupt, they hide things, who's to know who Jesus really was?" Enough "seeds of doubt" to perhaps drown out a potential convert?

2 - Not saying I believe this, and I don't, but I think we'll never know... IF Jesus was married and had offspring, why would that be so detrimental? That doesn't mean He would not be divine... right? Why is this so threatening to some?

Ben hints at this in his response, but to traditional Christians, the idea that Jesus, whom the Bible says created us, to have physical relations with his creation seems unthinkable.

3 - I was interested in the female/goddess aspect of all this as well. Perhaps Jesus himself wanted females to have more of a leadership role then many churches give them?

There are Christian fellowships, including my own, that insist Jesus did so (without the marriage). There were women with leadership roles, such as Lydia. Jesus spoke with women in places where most Jewish men would not. It's been argued that just looking at the Holy Bible, we can find Jesus offering women a kind of empowerment that would be considered "feminist" by the standards of his era.

[CaptainTux]

I have read the book and seen the movie. What are the great discrepencies that everyone sees? There is a lot of fiction and speculation in the book and movie. What are the great falsehoods or urban legends that everyone else is seeing?

Ben Raines

The Da Vinci Code: The facts behind the fiction AMY WELBORN

Amy Welborn points out some of the many errors about religion, history, and art contained in The Da Vinci Code in this short pamphlet.

What is The Da Vinci Code?

The Da Vinci Code is a novel by Dan Brown that has held one of the top two or three places on best-seller lists since early summer. More than 3 million copies (ed: now over 40 million) are in print.

In Brown's novel, the "Da Vinci code" refers to cryptic messages supposedly incorporated by Leonardo Da Vinci into his artwork. According to the novel, Leonardo was a member of an ancient secret society called the "Priory of Sion" dedicated to preserving the "truths" that Jesus designated Mary Magdalene as His successor, that His message was about the celebration of the "sacred feminine," that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children and that the Holy Grail of legend and lore is really Mary Magdalene, the "sacred feminine," the vessel who carried Jesus' children.

Sounds like an intriguing bit of lost history. Is it? Long story short: No.

Is the Holy Grail really the "sacred feminine?"

The legend of the Holy Grail has taken many forms throughout history, but it has always identified the Grail as the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper. The idea of identifying it as the "sacred feminine" and tying it into a supposed bloodline emanating from a union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is lifted whole cloth from the 1981 classic of inventive esoteric wackiness, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Is the "Priory of Sion" a real group?

No. Brown begins his book with a statement, under the title "Fact," that there are documents supporting the existence of the Priory in the Bibliotheque Nationale. These documents have long been understood to be forgeries, placed in the archives by an anti-Semitic supporter of the Vichy government named Pierre Plantard.

Does Da Vinci's The Last Supper really contain a code?

St. John and Jesus from

The Last Supper

by Leonardo Da Vinci

(click to enlarge)

No. First, the idea that Da Vinci used any kind of code pertaining to any issue Dan Brown raises is unsupported by art historians.

Brown says that in this painting Da Vinci is telling us that the figure always identified as John the Evangelist is really Mary Magdalene, and that these two figures together form an "M," and that, because there is no grail in the picture, Da Vinci is telling us the "grail" is the sacred feminine of Mary Magdalene.

Unfortunately for Brown, art historians tell us that the effeminate-looking John is quite a typical representation for the time, as is a Last Supper portrayal emphasizing betrayal rather than the institution of the Eucharist. In addition, the Last Supper is a dramatization of a scene from the Gospel of John, in which the institution narrative is not even described. No chalice? No problem. In context, it makes sense.

Who was Mary Magdalene according to the Scriptures?

St. Mary Magdalene is mentioned 12 times in the Gospels. She was healed of demon possession by Jesus (Luke 8:2), was present at the Crucifixion and the tomb and was sent by the Risen Jesus to the apostles to announce the Good News. Her feast day is celebrated July 22.

Who was Mary Magdalene according to Dan Brown?

Brown says Mary Magdalene was of royal blood, of the tribe of Benjamin, and Jesus' wife. According to Brown, after the crucifixion, Mary, pregnant with Jesus' child, moved to France and became the root of the Merovingian royal family.

He also says Jesus intended for Mary to be the head of his Church (celebrating the sacred feminine, remember) but that Peter wrested power from her, suppressed evidence of Jesus' real intentions and set into motion a 2,000-year conspiracy to demonize Mary Magdalene.

But Mary Magdalene is honored as a saint in the Catholic Church. How is that "demonizing?"

Don't ask me. What is true is that in the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great conflated the figures of Mary Magdalene, the penitent woman in Luke 7, and Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, saying that before her conversion, Mary had been a prostitute or adulteress. This has always been a disputed identification, however. Church Fathers from St. Ambrose to St. Thomas Aquinas have been undecided on the issue, and in the Eastern Church, the three are seen as distinct figures. This question has never been pushed underground, either, as Dan Brown claims.

So, who is Dan Brown?

He is a former English teacher who began full-time writing in 1996. His second novel, Angels and Demons, featured the Illuminati, a vial of anti-matter and a papal conclave. He holds no advanced degrees in religion.

What's the basis for Brown's views on Mary Magdalene and her competition with Peter?

All that Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff, of course, but then there are also the Gnostic Gospels.

Gnosticism was a dualistic, esoteric mode of thinking that was widespread during the early Christian era, although its influence was not confined to Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels are works reflecting the Gnostic take on Christianity. Some have been known for centuries, but previously unknown works — in the Nag Hammadi scrolls — were discovered in Egypt in 1945.

Some modern scholars and religious writers have seized upon various passages from the Gnostic Gospels as indicative of a competing, woman-centered element of early Christianity, especially a passage from The Gospel of Mary in which Jesus kisses Mary and the apostles express envy of His love for her. Brown works this thinking into his novel, but, like many others, ignores a deeply anti-woman passage from another Gnostic gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus says, "For every woman who will make herself male will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

Gnosticism was rejected by Christianity, but not because of gender issues. Its claims (two gods, a belief that the created world was evil) were simply inconsistent with the rule of faith, as it was called, handed down from the apostles.

The canonical Gospels all date from the middle to late first century. The Gnostic gospels cannot be placed any earlier than the mid-second century. It is ironic, as historian James Hitchcock has pointed out, that elements of a profession that have for years derided the Gospels as unreliable history have now seized on later documents as reliable guides to Jesus' intentions.

Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene married?

Dan Brown has one of his fictional scholars say it's a "matter of historical record." No nonfictional scholars would claim this. The "historical record" to which Brown refers are those 20th-century conspiracy books, not early Christian historical records.

Are Mary Magdalene's bones buried within the glass pyramid structure at the Louvre, as Brown presents it at the end of his novel?

No. Many things may have been buried with the pyramid, including good taste, but Mary Magdalene's bones are not among them.

Dan Brown claims that the idea of Jesus' divinity was dreamed up by the Council of Nicaea. Is this true?

No. When you read the Gospels and the letters of Paul, all of which date from the first century, you see a clear affirmation of Jesus as Lord.

The Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 was a response to the threat of the Arian heresy, which claimed that Jesus was a semi-divine creature, not of the same being as God. This was quickly becoming a popular belief and threatening the unity of Christianity.

The Emperor Constantine, aware that disunity in Christianity threatened the empire, convened the Council. Traditional faith was re-articulated in the more precise, philosophical terms that the heresy demanded and was accepted as the most faithful reading of the evidence about Jesus given to us in the Gospels.

Brown indicates that the Gnostic Gospels were widely accepted in early Christianity and that Constantine ordered them destroyed. Is this true?

No. The process of discerning the authentic Gospels was a lengthy one, but it had already begun in the early second century. Some communities used various other Gospels, but second-century Church Fathers frequently cited the four Gospels as authoritative. Their criteria were apostolic origins and fidelity to the rule of faith, not gender issues. Brown's conspiracy theory is a fabrication. Moreover, the final determinations about what constituted the Christian canon of Scripture were made by councils held after Constantine's time.

So, the whole "Mary vs. Peter" thing isn't true?

The historical evidence simply doesn't support it. It's based on speculation and a dramatic over-reading of a couple of passages from second-century fringe writings.

It's also illogical. Brown's argument rests on the assumption that the early apostles were concerned with suppressing the scandalous and radical. If that were so, why would they have the founder of their faith executed in manner reserved for the most shameful criminals?

It also is dependent on the assumption that Peter and his "party" were all about power. For what purpose, we have to ask? Did they get rich from their "version" of Christianity? Were they celebrated in their culture? No, they all died as despised martyrs. Some power trip.

This whole thing should fade pretty quickly, shouldn't it?

Probably not. The movie rights to The Da Vinci Code have been bought by Columbia, and Ron Howard is set to direct the film, probably to be released in 2005.

Oops!

Besides being logically and historically flawed, The Da Vinci Code is filled with more minor, but no less risible, errors. Here are a few:

One of Brown's scholars says, "As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions and founded new philosophies." We'd like to meet those toppled kings.

The Emperor Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in A.D. 325. It happened under Theodosius 50 years later.

Gothic architecture was not "masterminded" by the Knights Templar, a medieval military order that had nothing to do with the construction of Gothic cathedrals.

The Church did not burn 5 million witches during the Middle Ages. During the period 1400-1800, an estimated 30,000-50,000 people accused of witchcraft (20 percent of whom were men) were executed by Catholic and Protestant institutions and governments.

[shanstress70]

When I have time, I will come back to this thread. I need to preface it by saying that Dan Brown's book is a very entertaining read. However, the facts he claim are mostly easily discounted. I saw a History Channel deal on the book and most (including secular) historians discount much of what is placed as fact. I did some research on their take and found most of his "facts" to be more urban legend of it's day than facts.

More to come when I have time.

Here is a nice little write up

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/fait...cidebate13.html

At the end of the day, people love conspiracy theories. We eat it up. We will put logic and our own investigative skills aside and allow people to spoon feed us if it is conspiracy related.

I find it interesting that we have so many vast resources to verify the historical and archaeological veracity of the Bible, but someone writes a sexy pamphlet trying to discount it...people eat it up. Same with the JFK assassination. You can read Gerald Posner's Case Closed with over 700 pages of dry facts that make a strong point for Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Gunman...or a hot little 200 page read with lots of speculation and even more holes and intrigue and most will go for the easy read sensationalism.

Yes, I saw something about that show on the History Channel and was miffed because I missed it. And I can't find that it is coming on again! There is a ton of stuff about it on the internet though - mostly debunking it.

I do not love conspiracy theories. I actually tend to be a skeptic on most issues. I think they are interesting sometimes, but that's about it. But this isn't something that Brown came up with - some of his premises have been dicussed for hundreds of years - some of them may be fact and some not (we will find out eventually, I believe). And a lot of it is pure fiction, as he openly admits.

It's hard to argue with the fact that winners write the history, which is why I like to keep somewhat of an open mind!

[CaptainTux]

actually, little of his research is hundreds of years old data. much of it is based off a sensational book given little credit by most scholars called Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I can write a book that says that all the founding fathers of the US were cross dressers and come up with some well woven thin hyperbole to back it up. Scholars will not give it the time of day. Then, someone will read it 20 years from now and write a hit comedic musical on the matter and claim the musical is based on facts using my book as documentation and then any book that references Ben Franklin and George Washington as founding fathers to convolute the matter and pad the facts. As I said, his book is good fun, but it is as factual as Santa Clause vs the Martians.

Please forgive my sarcasm. I am not trying to be rude. For me, looking into the what if's of his book is at the same level of imagining a galaxy far far way with some jedi's and wookies running amuck.

[Bob_oz]

In the past week I caught at BBC (UK) doco hosted by one of the "Black Adder" stars that took "the Code" apart, end product is that Brown's book is a darn good read, makes a good movie (I think the book is better) and has little/no relevance in historic fact.

Then there is the seperate point it highlights, was Jesus married, there we have a different topic and one we can clearly see divides LDS and non-LDS alike.

I find time and again that Ben Raines makes some logical, meaningful and rational comments that are worth a second read.

That Jesus was involved in the creation, or more correctly the organisation of matter, and therefore should somehow stop Him having his own specific eternal family, as well as being my older brother and recognising that Jesus and I/we have the same eternal Father. Again so much of this view of history comes from those who write it, as has been said! There again the majority of us would find the thought of having physical relations with a brother or sister as unthinkable but if we are Christians and accept the creation story and from an eternal view I am married to my sister!

From an LDS view its interesting that we have qoutes from GA's/respected writers indicating that Jesus may/was/could have been/etc married but I know of none saying He was not - does any one?

Don't you just love a good mystery with no clear cut, cast in stone, answer?

Bob

[CaptainTux]

Honestly, I would prefer the mysteries be centered around areas of theology and real tough questions, not ones that read like a trivial pursuit card (Was Jesus Married-What was Gomer Pyle's Middle Name/ What coach wears three Superbowl Rings?) It is silly and moot. Personally I do not believe Jesus was ever married...however, at the end of the day, it is not in the Bible one way or another...ergo..i is not of any relevance. What is relevant? The second coming, the great commission, what I have to do to be a better husband, the role of people in the church..these are the mysteries we should be fascinated with and trying to unravel.

I used to subscribe to a magazine called Biblical Archeology. The stuff that we really find in digs is far more exciting than arks and grails...here is the kicker...these are real. Do you know that archaeologists routinely use Paul's missionary journeys as a map and find stuff all the time? We have likely found Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so many other treasures. We have unraveled rel mysteries and the Bible contains so many other mysteries that are not locked in code, but study.