Da Vinci Code

[cm24]

I know this was probably a thread before, but what is this book about? I saw the preveiw for the movie, and I think I would want to read the book before I see the movie.

 

[mimykinz]

well...i just finished it and i need advice about it- im not sure to believe it or not- the thing about the last supper by da vinci is true so what else is??

 

[Mandrake]

If you believe that the wizard of oz or star wars is true, then I can understand how this might be an issue, but otherwise.......

 

[Robinsegg]

I know this was probably a thread before, but what is this book about? I saw the preveiw for the movie, and I think I would want to read the book before I see the movie.

I saw a documentary on this on one of the "information" channels (ie TLC, Discovery, etc). It pretty much debunked the whole thing, and said that people in Europe have known about this theory for a long time, but haven't said anything because they know it's inherently false. (This is a paraphrase of what the documentary said.)

I hope that helps!
Rachel

 

[mimykinz]

Thankies Rachel!

Mandrake- that's not fair. I mean look at this picture of The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci and you will see what i mean...

Magdelene is in it, Peter is making a cutting gesture at Mary's throat, Jesus and Mary Magdelene are in a M shape leaning away from each other and if you look a bigger blown up versions, there is an arm-not belonging to any disciples- holding a dagger .

Now do you see my concern??

 

[Mandrake]

Not really. If I thought I was seeing subliminal messages in a Picasso, you'd think I was nuts. Why is this different? Because Dan Brown wrote an interesting (fictional) book about it. You can't blow a painting into a real theory. There's a reason that things like this get published as fiction or pop pseudoscience, and not in real academic journals: no peer reviewed editorial board would take fluffy claims like these seriously. There's just no real evidence to support them.

 

[ReBjorn]

That's not Mary Magdalene, it's John, considered to be 'the disciple the Lord loved.' He was painted to look young, because he probably was young. He had no facial hair because he was young, yes, but also because this could be an attempt to express boyhood rather than manhood, especially considering he was 'the disciple Jesus loved.' This is also why he is sitting at Christ's right hand side. He would have looked up to him in great awe, listening to Him like a child would - and this is why John is painted like this in that picture. Also, please remember, he was the one who lived the longest of the apostles.

Da Vinci himself devoted his soul to 'God Almighty and all the Saints before he died. He was a christian.

'The Da Vinci Code' is very speculative and has no real root in truth.

I recommend this movie:
'The Da Vinci Code Deception'

The movie is based on two or three of the books released by christian theologians as an answer to the book. It really is very revealing. Dan Brown haven't really done his homework, but the problem with the book is that people who have no theologic insight may be in danger of actually believing what 'The Da Vinci Code' says is true, when it in fact is not. People read Brown's book rather than listening to theologians, who know 'The Da Vinci Code' is not true - this is the real danger with the book. Once the 'facts' of 'The Da Vinci Code' comes under the microscope, it falls apart.

 

[DanPev]

Of course it is not true, it's a fictional book made to entertain. Youve got to admit that Dan Brown is a good author, who makes very interesting plots.

 

[Mskedi]

Of course it is not true, it's a fictional book made to entertain. Youve got to admit that Dan Brown is a good author, who makes very interesting plots.

Actually, I found the book to be annoyingly predictable with horrendous dialogue.

I echo what Mandrake said. It's fiction. Neat ideas, but they don't hold water.

 

[mimykinz]

Thanks guys!

 

[sister_maynard]

If you come back, do notice that the shape is sort of sideways squiggly lighting bolt, and even calling it a V is generous. It plateaus quite smoothly off at the left.
The book is a decent thriller, but Dan Brown seems to have written one plot and merely changed the conspiracy and the characters to suit his needs for each book. I've read four, and after reading two I could predict most of the plots of the other two.

 

[Robinsegg]

I saw a documentary on this on one of the "information" channels (ie TLC, Discovery, etc). It pretty much debunked the whole thing, and said that people in Europe have known about this theory for a long time, but haven't said anything because they know it's inherently false. (This is a paraphrase of what the documentary said.)

I hope that helps!
Rachel

The documentary is called "Beyond the DaVinci Code" and is on The History Channel. It's come on again March 14.

Rachel

 

[mimykinz]

Em my Mum found a verse in the bible that sai something along the lines of

'Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said " Lord, who is going to betray you?")'

It was refering to John as the one whom Jesus loved. It is Verse 20 of Chapter 21 in John. The dagger could have been representing the killing of Jesus? Maybe?

Love *~ Mimy~*

 

[sister_maynard]

There are so many conspiracy theories about that book that I can't remember them all anymore.

 

[TALKS_2_JESUS]

Somebody had to bring it around here. I just read it so I'm a little behind everyone else, but when I started reading it, it was really good. Well, now that I reached page, 200 something, it started in on what the Holy Grail is and I got so angry at the book because it started talking about how the entire Christian religion is a copy of the pagan stories. Take the Jesus resurection thing. The Davinci Code says that it was a story taken from the pagan religion. I hate that book so much. DON'T READ IT!!! The stories good, but the information is horrible.

 

[Ainuhina]

I agree...the book is very well writen but the information it gives you is horrible

I had to read it for University class

There actually is a book about it which all the facts and backgrounds are explained - from a christian perspective....I just know the German title "Die Sakrileg-Verschwörung". It's by Darell L. Bock....I haven't read it though...

 

[Nienor]

I actually thought it was poorly written. The plot was interesting, but not enough to make it sell as well as it did. For that, I congratulate Dan Brown for showing that if you make something controversial enough it will sell no matter how crappy it is.

I did enjoy Angels & Demons

 

[Mandrake]

I also thought that the book was poorly written, but the ressurrection narratives really do have similarities to greek plays which use empty tomb scenarios. This continues through to Shakespeare, who twists it in Romeo and Juliet and goes from what ought to have been an empty tomb to one with half a dozen bodies in it. Of all of the things which you can rightly criticize Brown for in the book (at least if you think that fictional books are obliged to include only factual information), that's not one of them. One of my profs gave a paper on this recently, and I think the text for it is on the internet somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Mandrake]

http://www.stfx.ca/people/areimer/Empty.PDF

 

[Affinity]

Somebody had to bring it around here. I just read it so I'm a little behind everyone else, but when I started reading it, it was really good. Well, now that I reached page, 200 something, it started in on what the Holy Grail is and I got so angry at the book because it started talking about how the entire Christian religion is a copy of the pagan stories. Take the Jesus resurection thing. The Davinci Code says that it was a story taken from the pagan religion. I hate that book so much. DON'T READ IT!!! The stories good, but the information is horrible.

I just got done reading the book, and having a little knowledge of christian history, I was sort of able to read between the lines.

The whole premise of the book is actually based on the beliefs of the Gnostic sect of early christians, who were certainly a minority among the whole group of early christians. What Dan Brown did is try and make it sound like the Gnostics were the only group of early christians and that there beliefs represented the majority, pre-constantinian.

This is actually not true. The majority of early christian (although they weren't then called "christians") held beliefs about Christ that were very similiar to what we believe today. The only major difference was the ideology of the trinity, which didn't come about till the Nicene Councel. The major group of early christians were acctually a odds with the gnostics for there unorthodox beliefs about Christ, and when Constantine came to power, at the prompting of the church leaders of that time who represented the majority of christians, he proceeded to attempt to wipe out the unorthodox branch.

DM