The Da Vincci Code

[ProCommunioneFacior]

It is comical that people actually think that the Da Vinci Code contains facts. Carly and Fireman could not be more correct.

 

[Paul12]

The story itself contains lots of facts that I never really thought of...i.e. why we have a 'Sun'day, and other references to pre-Christian traditions that made it into our world.

A lot of what is said is true...but as to the overlying truth we shall never know. At the very least, I will entertain the suggestion of Jesus having a child with Mary Magdalene, but I definately do not hold much credit to it.

 

[SeRapH&CheRi]

A lot of what is said is true...but as to the overlying truth we shall never know.

This appears to be a contradictory statement. Can you please clarify?

At the very least, I will entertain the suggestion of Jesus having a child with Mary Magdalene, but I definately do not hold much credit to it.

Now why would you entertain this so-called "theory" that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene? You said that you "definitely do not hold much credit to it", however, if you are entertaining the thought, then you are ascribing to this "belief". Quite antithetical if you ask me.

 

[Priest]

I just finished reading it the other week. I was just amazed at what could be thrown together. The book held my attention because I wanted to know what was going to say next to debunk Christianity. It was a decent book, but it was easy to figure out, and the ending was extremely flat for all the claims that were made in it. If you are new to the Christian faith I would HIGHLY reccomend skipping it until you have read and understood the New Testament, and Jesus's teachings.

 

[SeRapH&CheRi]

It was a decent book, but it was easy to figure out, and the ending was extremely flat for all the claims that were made in it.

The ending was quite predictable, I agree. About halfway through the book, I pretty much deduced what the conclusion was going to be.

If you are new to the Christian faith I would HIGHLY reccomend skipping it until you have read and understood the New Testament, and Jesus's teachings.

I fully agree!

 

[Crazy Liz]

This book is currently being discussed in another thread where I posted some references. Having just listened to most of the audiobook of Angels and Demons and having listened to The Da Vinci Code about 6 months ago, I can say they are OK fiction in the thriller genre, but I don't see the author seriously making any statements about religion or the RCC.

 

[ddlewis86]

Here is the danger as I see it.

There was a movie called "The Last Temptation of Christ". This movie was a twisted view of Christ but wasn't FAR from the sort of claims made by the "DaVinci Code". In both accounts it is the author's attempt to link Christ, in a sexual manor, with Mary Magdalene. I say author because this movie was based on a book written in 1955. There have always been attempts to discredit the integrity and the spirit of the eye witness testimony of the Gospels.

In an attempt to further justify the false claims of this particular movie, the following comments were made by this writer. In an article titled "The Last Temptation Reconsidered" Carol Iannone makes this statement.

Even the offended Bruce Bawer acknowledged the film as "the work of people who thought they were doing something devout." The film, like the book, seems to take as given that God exists, that Jesus is the Messiah, that he performs miracles, and that the culmination of his mission lies not in social gospel or liberation theology or societal revolution or even ethical teaching, but in the Cross and all the Cross entails. Medved's comparison to King David is inaccurate inasmuch as this Jesus, far from ending in bitterness and disillusionment, realizes that his "last temptation" has come from Satan, repudiates it, and in the film's final frames triumphantly declaims on the Cross, "It is accomplished. It is accomplished."

-Carol Iannone teaches at the Gallatian School of Individualized Study at New York University and has written for Commentary, National Review, and Modern Age.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/iannone.html

The quote above seems to be an attempt to justify the movie and all that is in it.

Unfortunately this is the same sort of attitude that many professing Christians had towards this film and many have had towards the "DaVinci Code" as well.

The truth is the truth as it has been handed to us in the Gospels. Anything that adds or detracts from that truth is false teaching. Anyone that attempts to justify or approve of this teaching falls under the definition of a false teacher. We have been warned that they are comming and that they have been around since the time of Christ.

Just my two cents on the issue.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Interesting, ddl. I made a comparislon between the two books in the other thread I linked above. Both are fiction, and announced early on as such by the authors, who (I think) had no intent to make any claims their works of fiction were historically accurate.

Now, one of these books is great literature and the other popular genre fiction. There really is no comparison. They also don't link Jesus with the same Mary.

 

[ddlewis86]

Interesting, ddl. I made a comparislon between the two books in the other thread I linked above. Both are fiction, and announced early on as such by the authors, who (I think) had no intent to make any claims their works of fiction were historically accurate.

Now, one of these books is great literature and the other popular genre fiction. There really is no comparison. They also don't link Jesus with the same Mary.

Did they both not attempt to link Christ with Mary Magdalene?

http://answers.org/issues/last_temptation.html

http://answers.org/issues/davincicode.html

 

[Crazy Liz]

No. The Da Vinci Code, following the Merovingian legend, links Jesus with Mary Magdalene. Last Temptation of Christ includes an extended fantasy of a hypothetical marriage between Jesus and Mary and her sister Martha. Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus is not the same as Mary Magdalene, although the two have become conflated in some folklore.

The first review you linked to are as poorly-researched as the Dan Brown book. I must confess I didn't look at the second, expecting drivel of the same quality. I do note, however, that the review of Last Temptation refers to the movie, which I have not seen, rather than to the book, which I have read. I've seen some really bad movie adaptations of books, and Last Temptation could well be one of them. I state no opinion, as I have no information on which to form such an opinion.

 

[ddlewis86]

No. The Da Vinci Code, following the Merovingian legend, links Jesus with Mary Magdalene. Last Temptation of Christ includes an extended fantasy of a hypothetical marriage between Jesus and Mary and her sister Martha. Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus is not the same as Mary Magdalene, although the two have become conflated in some folklore.

The first review you linked to are as poorly-researched as the Dan Brown book. I must confess I didn't look at the second, expecting drivel of the same quality.

I must confess that I have only read commentaries on both books and the movie. In every commentary that I have read and even in the original controversy sparked by the last temptation movie the reference has always been to Mary Magdalene. There may have been changes from the original book and the movie though.

In the movie Barbara Hershey played Mary Magdalene.


http://movies.go.com/filmography/Credits?movie_id=31650
http://www.skepticfiles.org/ignor/jesusflm.htm
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/mcguire/murphy2/opening.htm
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/dvd//review/2001/03/06/last_temptation/

 

[Priest]

Does it really matter if Jesus was married or not? Personally I stick with the Gospels view, but if some miraculous evidence becomes avalible it would not change my oppinion. The Bible does contain historical facts, but it is not a history book. It is a book of faith and a book of good news. The important facts remain the same, that Jesus is our redeemer, and that his blood poured out for our sins. And that God sent his son, not to condem it, but to save it. So the rest is just a moot point for me. Jesus could be married to Mary, and still be sinless. For marriage is not a sin but a blessing, just to add that fact, but again I am conservative, and I stay on the track of the Gospels accounts.

 

[MysteryProf]

Well, I've read both Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, and I really just read them as an interesting blend of fact and fiction. Do I buy into the theories presented? No. Was it fun to wonder about them? Yes. Basically I see Dan Brown's works as the equivalent of cheap detective novels with a little spice added for religion and art buffs.

As for "The Last Temptation of Christ," I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and the movie. After all, the author and the producers of the film made it very clear that the story was not intended to be seen as history, but rather as a fanciful exploration. The acting was great and I thought it was interesting. In my opinion, problems only arise when people try to take it too literally.

~MysteryProf

 

[shutterbug]

maybe this is just too much "book" learning, or public schools talking, but i think that it's not entirely impossible to think that there may have been some cover ups by the early church. the early church was corrupt in some ways, look what martin luther stood for, he found 95 things the church was doing that went agaisnt what his learning and faith told him. in the early days of the church many times the pope was pope because powerful secular rulers wanted a puppet so they could control the church as well. take the avignon papacy for example. then so many of our holidays were started by pagans and are celebrated the way they are now because the church wanted to put their own spin on things. i'm not saying that the church is corrupt now(i won't say it's perfect either because we are still human) but i think that the possibility exists that the church did some underhanded things in the beginning.

 

[ddlewis86]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1506047&postcount=34

 

[MichaelMullen]

I was going to run out and buy Da Vinci Code to see what the fuss was all about. I never considered it before because the whole idea seemed ludicrous. Now I see that most of the posts here are saying it's not a good book.

Maybe I'll go stand at the shelves in D&N and read it like the one person here.

 

[MichaelMullen]

Hey, what's a "blessing" and a "reputation." I am new here (Oh, I see "newbie" by my name. That's a good clue.)

 

[Filia Mariae]

maybe this is just too much "book" learning, or public schools talking, but i think that it's not entirely impossible to think that there may have been some cover ups by the early church. the early church was corrupt in some ways, look what martin luther stood for, he found 95 things the church was doing that went agaisnt what his learning and faith told him.

Martin Luther found many things that didn't fit with his personal theology so he shattered Christendom and started editing the Bible to suit his wants. Hardly a great spiritual leader. If you read some of the things he wrote about the Jews you might change your mind on what a great guy he was.

in the early days of the church many times the pope was pope because powerful secular rulers wanted a puppet so they could control the church as well. take the avignon papacy for example.

The Avignon papacy was not a papcy, it was an anti-papacy. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that the pope is nothimg more than mere political puppet?

then so many of our holidays were started by pagans and are celebrated the way they are now because the church wanted to put their own spin on things. i'm not saying that the church is corrupt now(i won't say it's perfect either because we are still human) but i think that the possibility exists that the church did some underhanded things in the beginning.

The Church has always reached out to the people of mission countries using language they understand. It's why we call the Resurrection Easter. The fact remains that we are still celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, not some pagan sun god.

The Church and individual members of the Church are not the same thing. Please don't confuse a member of the Church sinning with the Church doing something underhanded, its not the same.

 

[thekingster]

maybe this is just too much "book" learning, or public schools talking, but i think that it's not entirely impossible to think that there may have been some cover ups by the early church.

And interesting statement, one with which any seminarian (who's honest) has to agree. Take the canonization of the New Testament, for instance. Even a cursory understanding of "what" actually transpired reveals there was incredible political maneuvering to ensure which works were included and which were not. The Book of Revelation was one of the most hotly debated books even up to the Council of Nicea - and it serves as the main work in MANY eschatological models for Christianity. Is it reasonable that books were left out due to these political influences? Absolutely.

However, as has been stated, our Christian walk is one primarily of faith. Where reason points us to conspiratorial conclusions, we must conclude that our Omnipotent God superintended the process so that we have precisely what is needed. Scrutiny does not mean an absence of faith, however.

The DaVinci Code is amazingly written but is fiction. Dan Brown has obvious research capability and is able to synthesize fact and fiction very nicely. I have read Angels & Demons, The DaVinci Code, and Deception Point (Digital Fortress is on my desk. ) and can attest that Mr. Brown is a prolific author. It's amazing that people can not be joyous over someone's success but must "rip it to shreads" at first light. The divisiveness is causing Dan Brown to sell many more copies, so I'm sure he's quite happy about the controversy.

Keep reading!
Steven King
A room without books is like a body without a soul. - Cicero

 

[UKen]

Hello everyone!

Unlike most of the people using this site I do not yet have the faith or conviction to commit to a single religious group. I am now 45 and have studied a number of faiths over the years and have not found one that I am comfortable with. Before you judge me, which, no doubt some of you already will have done, please understand that in no way with my last statement am I trying to trivialize any involvement with any belief! The word "comfortable" is my way of simplifying my situation; I could have as easily used the words happy or even convinced by!



In my search for the “truth” I have talked at length with members of most of the better known denominations and some less well known sects. One underlying theme emerges every time I listen to them, the fact that most believe that their "text", be it the Bible, Koran, book of Mormon.................Is absolutely factual, and all others are completely wrong!



Very few people I have listened to are even prepared to consider that parts of the New Testament, for example, were influenced by the politics of the time. That certain "sections" or "Gospels" were left out to make it less clouded overall. Political correctness was used well before our time! History is linear in this respect. Imagine today’s politicians being influential in the way such a text was edited! We would end up with at least four or five different versions. All absolutely “true”! Can we seriously assume that Constantine didn’t take advantage of his position at the time and filter out some of the more controversial historical accounts? If there is a chance, who wouldn’t try to make life easier for themselves!



When ever a book like this comes along there is an instant knee jerk reaction to it. I read it! It is fiction, there are, however, some irrefutable facts which have been thrown into the mix! This is what makes it such a good read, for me. The fact that it contains references to parts of Christ’s life which some people don’t believe or aren’t happy about is enough for them not to even consider reading it. This is a matter of personal choice and I would certainly not judge anyone for making that choice.



I hope that some day I will find my answers. I don’t imagine I’ll be able to do that if I dismiss different theories with little if any real consideration.



Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.





Thanks for your time.



UKen