DeBunking the DaVinci Code, Part I: Is the book accurate?

[Longhorn85]

Now that a lot of you have had an opportunity to see the movie and read the book, what is your take on the DaVinci Code?

Here is an analysis:

<snip>

Brown’s assault on Christianity in the novel, the Da Vinci Code raises several questions that need to be answered.

1) Is the book accurate?
2) Are the “Priory of Sion” and their documents discovered in Paris in 1975 real?
3) Who are the Gnostics and What are the “Gnostic Gospels”
4) Who was Mary Magdalene?
5) Did Constantine and the Church turn Jesus into God?
6) Is the Bible from God?


http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

 

[Longhorn85]

The Book is filled with historical and factual errors. Here are just a few to make the point. If this book is wrong on such minor points why would anybody trust it for eternal issues?

- Brown’s Error: The book claims there are 666 panes of glass on the pyramid outside the Louvre. The Museum says there are 673. (Page 21)

- Brown’s Error: The book claims the Olympics were held for Venus in 8-year cycles but they were actually held for Zeus in 4-year cycles. (Page 36)

- Brown’s Error: Mona Lisa is an androgynous portrait representing the fusing of male and Female (Page 120)

However, Mona Lisa is a young Florentine woman who in 1495 married the well-known figure, Francesco del Giocondo, and thus came to be known as ``La Gioconda'‘. This is confirmed by the discovery of documentation in Florence, Italy archives. She had five children and two became nuns.

- Brown’s Error: Sir Isaac Newton was a secret “Goddess Worshipper”. Yet it is well known that he was a devout Christian …who wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel and Revelation and calculated the physical return of Christ between the years 2000 and 2050

- Brown’s Error: The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s and included the Gospels. History clearly show that these scrolls were found in 1948 and there were no Gospels found there.

- Brown’s Error: The Gnostic Gospel, The Gospel of Philip was not written in Aramaic as the Da Vinci Code implies but in Coptic, translated from Greek. (Page 246)

 

[Mr. dB]

It's a novel. Why don't you try debunking "Huckleberry Finn" or "Tom Jones" next?

 

[mrplunkey]

1) It's a novel, so no biggie

and

2) It's actually good PR for christianity because A) All publicity is good publicity and B) People will be drawn to the mystery and intrigue of christianity and some will convert.

 

[heatherrae]

1) It's a novel, so no biggie

and

2) It's actually good PR for christianity because A) All publicity is good publicity and B) People will be drawn to the mystery and intrigue of christianity and some will convert.

true Mr Plunkey. I had not thought about it actually drawing people to learn more about Christianity, but I suppose that is true.

I consider myself a Christian, but I don't worry much about the historical accuracy of a work of fiction.

 

[jenscats5]

I thought the book was FICTION??

 

[Goldprospector]

It is Fiction

 

[jnevin]

jesus

 

[Longhorn85]

It's a novel. Why don't you try debunking "Huckleberry Finn" or "Tom Jones" next?

Of course it is, but a lot of the material is presented as factual and many are using it to evaluate Christianity.

You'd be surprised at how many people do not realize that it is fiction.

Worth examining.

 

[AAP]

The book has FICTION written in letters right across the front of it.

I find it amusing watching zealots and Bible thumpers scurry around condemning it and writing long detailed essays of why it is wrong when it states in plain view it is FICTION. I guess this is a sign of inner doubt and their own insecurity of faith to attempt to debunk a work of fiction. This is akin to scientists and physcists throwing their hands up in the air and writing details on why there can be no such thing as a light saber after Star Wars first came out.

 

[mrplunkey]

The book has FICTION written in letters right across the front of it.

I find it amusing watching zealots and Bible thumpers scurry around condemning it and writing long detailed essays of why it is wrong when it states in plain view it is FICTION. I guess this is a sign of inner doubt and their own insecurity of faith to attempt to debunk a work of fiction. This is akin to scientists and physcists throwing their hands up in the air and writing details on why there can be no such thing as a light saber after Star Wars first came out.

True, but people also realize that one really good way to knock on an particular group is to provide a mixed fictional/factual piece of work aimed at the instituion. It's a legitimate tactic. Christians don't have to act on it, but all this saber rattling and finger-pointing can only stir-up more interest in Christianity. It's not like the movie is going to "unconvert" anyone -- so it can only have a positive effect.

 

[javaguru]

The farther back in history the more legitimate questions it raises but as it advances through history the less accurate it becomes. It's a work of historical fiction and not a scholarly text; Everyone loves a conspiracy.

 

[swole]

you mean Jurassic Park wasn't based on a true story??

X

 

[Longhorn85]

Christians don't have to act on it, but all this saber rattling and finger-pointing can only stir-up more interest in Christianity. It's not like the movie is going to "unconvert" anyone -- so it can only have a positive effect.

I've seen a lot of that at my church. It is full of new attendees with questions about things discussed in the movie.

 

[foreigngirl]

OMG!!! Welcome to like 2 years ago....Jesus Christ. Plus Dan Brown said himself that its fiction

 

[Longhorn85]

It's a novel. Why don't you try debunking "Huckleberry Finn" or "Tom Jones" next?

<snip>

While most murder, mystery novels would not cause much of a stir, the difference here is about the claims in the very first pages of this book. Prior to the prologue, the book makes a claim of fact.

Dan Brown was interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show, who asked, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?”

Brown responded, “Absolutely all of it.

The “Fact” statement allows the reader to assume the “Facts” in the book are true except for the fictional story line.
The reader then gives consent to these “Facts” allowing false claims about history, Jesus and Christianity to be weaved into the story

http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

 

[musclemom]

I've neither read the book nor seen the movie ... but I do have one question and it's one that's been on my mind for decades ...

Have they ever answered the question of why Jesus, a Jewish male, was not married? It's just so freaking WEIRD, Hebrew life and law revolves around family! What logical reason would Jesus have for not being married? He didn't take up his ministry until his late 20s, they generally married in their late teens, he had a trade. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[mrplunkey]

I've neither read the book nor seen the movie ... but I do have one question and it's one that's been on my mind for decades ...

Have they ever answered the question of why Jesus, a Jewish male, was not married? It's just so freaking WEIRD, Hebrew life and law revolves around family! What logical reason would Jesus have for not being married? He didn't take up his ministry until his late 20s, they generally married in their late teens, he had a trade. It just doesn't make sense.

I have questioned that too. It would make more sense for him to be married. If he was... and even if he had children... it wouldn't change the gospel or christianity either. Things would still fit.

 

[foreigngirl]

<snip>

While most murder, mystery novels would not cause much of a stir, the difference here is about the claims in the very first pages of this book. Prior to the prologue, the book makes a claim of fact.

Dan Brown was interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show, who asked, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?”

Brown responded, “Absolutely all of it.

The “Fact” statement allows the reader to assume the “Facts” in the book are true except for the fictional story line.
The reader then gives consent to these “Facts” allowing false claims about history, Jesus and Christianity to be weaved into the story

http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

can you get over it already, seriously?

 

[tiger88]

man gimmie indiana jones #3 again...that was a movie about the wine cup!

movie was dope

 

[Longhorn85]

can you get over it already, seriously?

Sorry if this is making your head hurt. Move on to Girl Talk!

 

[AAP]

I've neither read the book nor seen the movie ... but I do have one question and it's one that's been on my mind for decades ...

Have they ever answered the question of why Jesus, a Jewish male, was not married? It's just so freaking WEIRD, Hebrew life and law revolves around family! What logical reason would Jesus have for not being married? He didn't take up his ministry until his late 20s, they generally married in their late teens, he had a trade. It just doesn't make sense.

Exactly. The irony is that it would seem that most Christians would be hell bent (literally) to latch onto the concept that Jesus was married because face it.... that would certainly lend much more credibility to their anti-gay whinings and gnashing of teeth than does the fact that Jesus never married, traveled around only with males who slept together and took turns washing each other's feet.

 

[musclemom]

Exactly. The irony is that it would seem that most Christians would be hell bent (literally) to latch onto the concept that Jesus was married because face it.... that would certainly lend much more credibility to their anti-gay whinings and gnashing of teeth than does the fact that Jesus never married, traveled around only with males who slept together and took turns washing each other's feet.

Don't forget the fact he was betrayed by a kiss from Judas

 

[Longhorn85]

It would be logical that Jesus was married, and as was said, it wouldn't affect his holiness, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

If the story of Christ were centered around logic he wouldn't have knowingly put himself in a position to be crucified for the sake of a bunch of sinners.

 

[mrplunkey]

Exactly. The irony is that it would seem that most Christians would be hell bent (literally) to latch onto the concept that Jesus was married because face it.... that would certainly lend much more credibility to their anti-gay whinings and gnashing of teeth than does the fact that Jesus never married, traveled around only with males who slept together and took turns washing each other's feet.

The Bible, both the Old and New Testament, is fairly direct about male/male sex (with less text dedicated to female/female pairings) in saying that it's a "sin" (note the use of quotes there..). Portraying Christ as homosexual would be a tremendous stretch.

But the same text also teaches that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone", that we are to not only love those who love us but those who seek to hurt as well, and that we are to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

Considering that I've probably 1) lusted in my heart at least 100 times today and 2) wished bad things would happen to my "neighbor" probably 100 more, I find myself highly reluctant to even pick up a rock

 

[Longhorn85]

I agree with your sentiments Mr. Plunkey. Sometimes I think Christians are accused of gay bashing when that is not is what is happening. The desire to keep marriage as a sacred bond between man and woman is not saying that gays are hated.

 

[foreigngirl]

Sorry if this is making your head hurt. Move on to Girl Talk!

its not making my head hurt,a ss. I most likely know more onthis subject than you. Its just an old subject thats already drained from new discussions

 

[AAP]

The Bible, both the Old and New Testament, is fairly direct about male/male sex (with less text dedicated to female/female pairings) in saying that it's a "sin" (note the use of quotes there..). Portraying Christ as homosexual would be a tremendous stretch.

But the same text also teaches that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone", that we are to not only love those who love us but those who seek to hurt as well, and that we are to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

Considering that I've probably 1) lusted in my heart at least 100 times today and 2) wished bad things would happen to my "neighbor" probably 100 more, I find myself highly reluctant to even pick up a rock

The Bible was written by ordinary men who have no inkling to what God was all about other than their own conceptions, vivid imaginations and what they were told.

Jesus Christ was the son of God, a direct infusion of the Holiness that God chose to bestow upon the simple body of flesh and blood.

The men who wrote the Bible said all that about homosexuality. Their interpretation.

Jesus Christ himself never mentioned homosexuality at all. Not even once. So who are you going to believe? Ordinary men with questionable objectives and biased views or the Son Of God himself? This is pretty much a no brainer.

Additionally, I do not recall Jesus saying anything about slaves, or killing women who wore garments of mismatched materials, or those who failed to offer live sacrifice for their tithe, or any of the other so called "sins of damnation" that the Bible says. Instead, it is only homosexuality that is seized upon when convenient and the others discarded. Selective biasism at best.

 

[musclemom]

It would be logical that Jesus was married, and as was said, it wouldn't affect his holiness, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

If the story of Christ were centered around logic he wouldn't have knowingly put himself in a position to be crucified for the sake of a bunch of sinners.

Actually it's perfectly logical for those times. Blood sacrifice was a very common concept, it abounds in the old testament. Most major religions, monothestic, polytheistic, demand sacrifice to the god(s). NOTHING is EVER given in religion without there being a price that's paid, and that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, who sacrificed paradise as a price for the knowledge of good and evil.

Additionally, the Jews were LOOKING for a messiah who WOULD be sacrificed. Jesus could NOT become the Christ if he did not fulfill that prophesy. It's perfectly logical in it's own barbaric way.

 

[Longhorn85]

its not making my head hurt,a ss. I most likely know more onthis subject than you. Its just an old subject thats already drained from new discussions

Evidently others have more to contribute. Why don't you go post a picture of your ass or something that is more your speed?

 

[Longhorn85]

Additionally, the Jews were LOOKING for a messiah who WOULD be sacrificed. Jesus could NOT become the Christ if he did not fulfill that prophesy. It's perfectly logical in it's own barbaric way.

The Jews leaders who caused Jesus to be crucified were looking for more pomp and circumstance. They didn't think Jesus was the one and thought he was a blasphemer, not the messiah.

 

[musclemom]

The Jews who caused Jesus to be crucified were looking for more pomp and circumstance. They didn't think Jesus was the one and thought he was a blasphemer, not the messiah.

I never said that the Jews who pushed for Jesus's crucifiction thought he was the messiah, I said that Jesus KNEW he couldn't become the Christ without being sacrificed, big difference.

You were talking about the logic of Jesus' mind with regard to marriage and then the "illogicalness" of his sacrificing himself.

Perfectly logical: He couldn't be the messiah if he wasn't martyred. Didn't matter whether the populous as a whole saw his death as martyrdom, only he and his followers needed to see it that way.

 

[mrplunkey]

The Bible was written by ordinary men who have no inkling to what God was all about other than their own conceptions, vivid imaginations and what they were told.

Jesus Christ was the son of God, a direct infusion of the Holiness that God chose to bestow upon the simple body of flesh and blood.

The men who wrote the Bible said all that about homosexuality. Their interpretation.

Jesus Christ himself never mentioned homosexuality at all. Not even once. So who are you going to believe? Ordinary men with questionable objectives and biased views or the Son Of God himself? This is pretty much a no brainer.

Additionally, I do not recall Jesus saying anything about slaves, or killing women who wore garments of mismatched materials, or those who failed to offer live sacrifice for their tithe, or any of the other so called "sins of damnation" that the Bible says. Instead, it is only homosexuality that is seized upon when convenient and the others discarded. Selective biasism at best.

Christ's ministry on the Earth relied on the Old Testament scripture. There are also areas where he explicitly superceeded the scripture (i.e. an eye for an eye and loving your neighbor). Homosexuality wasn't one of those areas to the best of my knowledge.

I do think its disgraceful for people to elevate one sin above another though. Sin is sin and God hates all sin. I look at sin kind of like an athelete looks at a rules infraction -- if you're playing the game, you're going to be committing fouls, stepping out of bounds some, jumping offsides, and occassionally roughing the passer

 

[Longhorn85]

I never said that the Jews who pushed for Jesus's crucifiction thought he was the messiah, I said that Jesus KNEW he couldn't become the Christ without being sacrificed, big difference.

You were talking about the logic of Jesus' mind with regard to marriage and then the "illogicalness" of his sacrificing himself.

Perfectly logical: He couldn't be the messiah if he wasn't martyred. Didn't matter whether the populous as a whole saw his death as martyrdom, only he and his followers needed to see it that way.

I'm with you. Someone focused and dedicated enough to put himself on the cross in order to fulfill scripture can't be expected to have the same priorities of a typical man, i.e., marriage, family and picking out a nice set of drapes.

 

[foreigngirl]

Evidently others have more to contribute. Why don't you go post a picture of your ass or something that is more your speed?

I am a buisy person, I dont have time to repeat myself. This is all just going in circles and nothing new will be said. I dont waste my brain power on stale subjects.

 

[musclemom]

I'm with you. Someone focused and dedicated enough to put himself on the cross in order to fulfill scripture can't be expected to have the same priorities of a typical man, i.e., marriage, family and picking out a nice set of drapes.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you can't use that logic. He had a trade, he didn't begin his ministry until he was what? 29??? When he was baptised. Until that point in his life followed the trade of his father -- a carpenter. It's a pretty sound logical assumption that his life would have followed that of a normal Jewish carpenter UNTIL he was baptised. You cannot use the same benchmarks for life 2,000 years ago in that area that you would for today. There was almost a caste system in society, particularly in THAT era, in THAT culture/society: for the "average joe" (tradesman) you generally had male children that following their fathers into the family trade, female children were taught household skills and used as bargaining chips when they became marriagable and most marriages were arranged situations to benefit the families. Since the biblical texts SPECIFICALLY say that Jesus learned the trade of his father, a carpenter, it's a pretty simple assumption that he was married, because it would profit his parents and the community. This whole concept of chastity equating to peity is very recent and came out of Rome/the papacy ... I don't remember the exact circumstances but basically the popes were such pigs that they needed to make chastity a rule for the Catholic leaders.

Okay, John the baptist, now he was considered a prophet, living in the desert eating honey and locust ... now THAT's a good reason not to have a wife, but I'll guarantee you there were more than a couple of people who thought he was nutcase.

 

[Mr. dB]

Exactly. The irony is that it would seem that most Christians would be hell bent (literally) to latch onto the concept that Jesus was married because face it.... that would certainly lend much more credibility to their anti-gay whinings and gnashing of teeth than does the fact that Jesus never married, traveled around only with males who slept together and took turns washing each other's feet.

"They" seem to have difficulty with the concept that Jesus had siblings, too.

 

[mrplunkey]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you can't use that logic. He had a trade, he didn't begin his ministry until he was what? 29??? When he was baptised. Until that point in his life followed the trade of his father -- a carpenter. It's a pretty sound logical assumption that his life would have followed that of a normal Jewish carpenter UNTIL he was baptised. You cannot use the same benchmarks for life 2,000 years ago in that area that you would for today. There was almost a caste system in society, particularly in THAT era, in THAT culture/society: for the "average joe" (tradesman) you generally had male children that following their fathers into the family trade, female children were taught household skills and used as bargaining chips when they became marriagable and most marriages were arranged situations to benefit the families. Since the biblical texts SPECIFICALLY say that Jesus learned the trade of his father, a carpenter, it's a pretty simple assumption that he was married, because it would profit his parents and the community. This whole concept of chastity equating to peity is very recent and came out of Rome/the papacy ... I don't remember the exact circumstances but basically the popes were such pigs that they needed to make chastity a rule for the Catholic leaders.

Okay, John the baptist, now he was considered a prophet, living in the desert eating honey and locust ... now THAT's a good reason not to have a wife, but I'll guarantee you there were more than a couple of people who thought he was nutcase.

Paul was probably the most vocal New Testament writer about marriage, but he clearly had some hang-ups. He was anti-marriage, saying that marriage is an option only if you can't keep yourself pure and devote your live to God.

Paul said that "to some God gives the gift of marriage and to others He gives the gift of singleness".

There was, however, a lot of speculation that Paul was married at the time of his conversion and that his wife chose not to go along for the ride. He came from a place in society where marriage was a given. That too could explain his jaded views toward marriage.

 

[mrplunkey]

"They" seem to have difficulty with the concept that Jesus had siblings, too.

At least for me..

Him having siblings is no issue.

Him having children is no issue.

Him having a wife is no issue.

Now, if you bring-in a bunch of that garbage about how we "connect to God through the feminine" and some of the other ideas interjected by other religions of that time, you'd see more christians bent out of shape.

 

[hamstershaver]

I've neither read the book nor seen the movie ... but I do have one question and it's one that's been on my mind for decades ...

Have they ever answered the question of why Jesus, a Jewish male, was not married? It's just so freaking WEIRD, Hebrew life and law revolves around family! What logical reason would Jesus have for not being married? He didn't take up his ministry until his late 20s, they generally married in their late teens, he had a trade. It just doesn't make sense.

the book said he was married to mary magdalene and that they had a daughter and that the church had tried to hide it

 

[Mr. dB]

There was, however, a lot of speculation that Paul was married at the time of his conversion and that his wife chose not to go along for the ride. He came from a place in society where marriage was a given. That too could explain his jaded views toward marriage.

If she was a typical Jewish Princess type and gave him no end of tsuris, then it's easy to see why he may have soured on marriage.

 

[Lumberg]

Methinks Longhorn doth protest too much.

 

[Longhorn85]

Okay, John the baptist, now he was considered a prophet, living in the desert eating honey and locust ... now THAT's a good reason not to have a wife, but I'll guarantee you there were more than a couple of people who thought he was nutcase.

More than a few thought Jesus was a nutcase too. There is no evidence to suggest that he was married, and as others have stated, there would be no reason to try and cover it up.

 

[Longhorn85]

I am a buisy person, I dont have time to repeat myself. This is all just going in circles and nothing new will be said. I dont waste my brain power on stale subjects.

No one has asked you to say anything, you are the one who posted here. I'd agree that you clearly have little brainpower to spare.

 

[lowpro]

Yes, the book is clearly fiction.

Yes, Dan Brown contradicts the FICTION text placed on his cover.

Yes, the book was based on actual research Brown conducted.

Yes, this stirrs up controversy in the religious and non-religious communities.



With that being said, why all the fuss when someone wants to discuss or dabate the topic? All of you in this thread, as well as myself, post trivial banter from time to time - yet we don't rush to brash conclusion as to why and we don't post shit like, "get over it." If this topic is some LH wants to discuss, you have the option of either inputing your objections and opinions or you have the option to move your mouse over to this button:

...and move on.



Even though we know this to be fiction, some people are using this book to debunk Christianity. Nothing wrong with that. That's their option. No need to bash on someone who wants to debunk the book.

I've read alot of knowledgable post here concerning beliefs and the bible. Although, it's apparent that some of you have obviously never read the bible. Googling text or verses isn't enough to base an interpretation argument on.

Lastly,

NO ONE HERE can debunk the bible or any other religious literature nor affirm it because we were not there when it was written. How can we attest as to how and why it was written if we weren't standing right there when it was written. Those men who wrote the bible aren't around anymore to confirm anything. It could be one big hoax or it could be the writing of men inspired by a higher power. Who truly knows?

 

[pintoca]

you mean Jurassic Park wasn't based on a true story??

X

you broke my heart with that

 

[Longhorn85]

Even though we know this to be fiction, some people are using this book to debunk Christianity. Nothing wrong with that. That's their option. No need to bash on someone who wants to debunk the book.

...and people to lazy to get the facts or looking for a reason to bash Christianity are eating it up. That's why many Christians, not just myself, are taking every opportunity to point out where Dan Brown is spreading misinformation.

 

[JThompson24]

so stupid, this is like me painting the same picture and in 200 years someone making a movie about it.

 

[javaguru]

Well, using a work of historically based fiction is what Christians have been doing to advance their religion? To each his own.

 

[Longhorn85]

Reknown historians, anthropologists and scholars have studied the Bible for centuries and don't see it your way.

Like you say, to each, his own, even if its folly.

 

[javaguru]

Reknown historians, anthropologists and scholars have studied the Bible for centuries and don't see it your way.

Like you say, to each, his own, even if its folly.

There is only one secular reference to Jesus from the Jewish Nationalist historian Josephus. There is no evidence of a world ending flood, garden of eden and numerous other aspects of Christian mythology. Actual people and places can be backed up by the archaeology and historical documents but not how the events occured according to the Bible; Just like Dan Brown's book.

 

[Longhorn85]

There is only one secular reference to Jesus from the Jewish Nationalist historian Josephus. There is no evidence of a world ending flood, garden of eden and numerous other aspects of Christian mythology. Actual people and places can be backed up by the archaeology and historical documents but not how the events occured according to the Bible; Just like Dan Brown's book.

Only one secular reference? I take it you regard secular = truth. That's makes you a secularist, or a secular humanist, which is a religion all of it's own, and it explains your outlook.

You've contradicted yourself as you say there is no evidence of the flood, garden, etc, then go on to say there is archaeological and historical evidence. For some reason you just choose to deny the significance of these as confirmed by scholars, theologians, historians, etc.

Folly.

 

[Mr. dB]

Yes, the book was based on actual research Brown conducted.

...by reading "Holy Blood Holy Grail"???

 

[javaguru]

Only one secular reference? I take it you regard secular = truth. That's makes you a secularist, or a secular humanist, which is a religion all of it's own, and it explains your outlook.

You've contradicted yourself as you say there is no evidence of the flood, garden, etc, then go on to say there is archaeological and historical evidence. For some reason you just choose to deny the significance of these as confirmed by scholars, theologians, historians, etc.

Folly.

Multiple sources are considered normal for real research. I can accept a man named Jesus existed. However, their were numerous other men who were viewed as the messiah and performed similar "miracles" as those attributed to Jesus. Just because the walls of jericho collapsed doesn't mean God did it, it was more likely an earthquake since the city was built on a fault line.

 

[mekannik]

Reknown historians, anthropologists and scholars have studied the Bible for centuries and don't see it your way.

Like you say, to each, his own, even if its folly.

Just out of curiosity - do you have any female children?

 

[Lumberg]

Longhorn, you're never going to undo the misinformation that The DaVinci Code has spawned in the minds of millions.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Can someone that is pro-Catholic or pro-Christian write a book that is as well thought-out, well written, well executed, and well marketed as The DaVinci Code?

If you really want to accomplish what I think you're trying to accomplish here, get to writin', then get to shoppin' that manuscript around to the big publishing houses.

People don't like being told what to think. They don't like being told that what they read in such an entertaining and believable way is wrong. The challenge is for you to package the information YOU want out there in a way that is just as appealing as the way Dan Brown did it. If you can't make your posts on here as famous and fun to read as Dan Brown's novels (by mainstream America's standards, not yours), then I'd apply my energy somewhere else.

But that's just me, coldly analyzing the situation. I don't really care either way about the issues, but I DO care about YOU, Longhorn.

 

[lowpro]

so stupid, this is like me painting the same picture and in 200 years someone making a movie about it.

Nope.


That's a horrible analogy bro.

 

[Longhorn85]

Longhorn, you're never going to undo the misinformation that The DaVinci Code has spawned in the minds of millions.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Can someone that is pro-Catholic or pro-Christian write a book that is as well thought-out, well written, well executed, and well marketed as The DaVinci Code?

If you really want to accomplish what I think you're trying to accomplish here, get to writin', then get to shoppin' that manuscript around to the big publishing houses.

People don't like being told what to think. They don't like being told that what they read in such an entertaining and believable way is wrong. The challenge is for you to package the information YOU want out there in a way that is just as appealing as the way Dan Brown did it. If you can't make your posts on here as famous and fun to read as Dan Brown's novels (by mainstream America's standards, not yours), then I'd apply my energy somewhere else.

But that's just me, coldly analyzing the situation. I don't really care either way about the issues, but I DO care about YOU, Longhorn.

Brown has written a blockbuster novel and it has been turned into a blockbuster movie. I could argue that the Passion of the Christ, The Ten Commandments and many others were also blockbusters, and the best selling book of all time is the Bible.

Anyway, I don't have any delusions about trumping Brown, but the DaVinci Code has caused a lot of casual Christians to ask themselves, "why do I believe?" "Is Dan Brown right?" "Was Jesus really the Messiah?"

This is not a bad thing, to seriously evaluate and research your religion, if you haven't already done so. Next time you are in Barnes and Nobles check out the entire section on the DaVinci Code. There are a lot of people besides Brown that have joined in this discussion and that are selling books.

I have simply joined the discussion here on Elite, and I appreciate the responses.

Thanks J

 

[Longhorn85]

Just out of curiosity - do you have any female children?

Yes, I do. I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this. I had planned to start a separate thread about how women are affected by Christianity, but if you want to start it here, I'll jump in.

 

[mrplunkey]

Yes, I do. I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this. I had planned to start a separate thread about how women are affected by Christianity, but if you want to start it here, I'll jump in.

Women took a major backseat in christianity, but the reality is that christianity has morphed over time to accomodate the expanding role of women as well.

 

[alien amp pharm]

Jesus was the smartest man to ever live


Hence why he never married.

 

[Longhorn85]

Women took a major backseat in christianity, but the reality is that christianity has morphed over time to accomodate the expanding role of women as well.

Christianity is the best thing ever to happen to women on this earth.

 

[mekannik]

Christianity is the best thing ever to happen to women on this earth.

Yes, I do. I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this. I had planned to start a separate thread about how women are affected by Christianity, but if you want to start it here, I'll jump in.

Smart move/intuition.

From your last post that christianity is the best thing to happen to women - are you including both the old and new testaments with this statement? One not the other, if so which? Or are you picking and choosing book/chapter/verse?

 

[Longhorn85]

I am referring to the impact of Christianity on women throughout the history of mankind. Societies that have been influenced and shaped by Christianity are the best environments you can find for women. Conversely, societies that have not been shaped by Chrisitanity are where you will find abhorrent, systematic abuse of women.

 

[WODIN]

LMAO.

One work of fiction pissing off the supporters of another work of fiction. Greatness.

 

[Longhorn85]

It is greatness. My church has been filled up for the last several weeks with new people curious to get answers to their questions on this subject. The movie is selling, the book(s) are selling.

A national debate/discussion about Christianity has ensued. There are certainly worse subjects to talk about.

I don't see a lot of people pissed off, I see a lot of people doing research and learning the truth.

There is even hope for you, my man.

 

[foreigngirl]

No one has asked you to say anything, you are the one who posted here. I'd agree that you clearly have little brainpower to spare.

is that what christianity thought you?

 

[mekannik]

is that what christianity thought you?

What in the hell kind of sentence structure is that ^^ ? It is not Jedi, and sure as hell is not English.

 

[foreigngirl]

What in the hell kind of sentence structure is that ^^ ? It is not Jedi, and sure as hell is not English.

eh, I'm not english either.


I just like bugging Longhorn sometimes

 

[Lumberg]

Next time you are in Barnes and Nobles check out the entire section on the DaVinci Code. There are a lot of people besides Brown that have joined in this discussion and that are selling books.

Yep, I know. I loved the Da Vinci Code. Ate it up like muthafuckin' cereal.

Not about to go read someone's response to it though. It was fun, now it's done. Dan Brown wrote a book, that is flat out awesome and entertaining. The cottage industry that has sprung up consists of people with two agendas: 1) to correct the perceived wrongs of the original book 2) to cash in on the hype.

I don't like reading books that are written with an agenda in mind. So I won't be reading any of those books any time soon. I learned in college that analyzing something to death just takes all the fun out of it and leaves you feeling even emptier than before.

I read self-help books and fiction. Maybe the occasional bio/autobio but I consider that self-help in that they are generally people whom I admire. The only extra reading I'm going to be doing as a result of reading The DaVinci Code is perhaps more of Brown's work.

 

[dullboy]

dullboy wonders why hollywood had no passion for christ but is passionate about a movie that slanders christ.


lets be real about who has the real agenda here.


dullboy heard that dan browns next book is a nifty piece of work that dovetails the protocols of zion and painting the holocaust as a fairytail.

hot!

 

[Lumberg]

yeah maybe Brown has something against the Catholic Church. I dunno, does his other work carry the same theme?

Anyway I don't think his main motivation is to defame the Church. I think he writes to entertain and make money. I presume he also hates the Church, but I don't think that's why he wrote the book, as opposed to the entire new genre that has been created.

 

[TADHealth]

FICTION! It sells.

Anyone who is arguing parts of a FICTIONAL story has problems much worse then whatever some author wrote up in a FICTION novel.

If you are having issues at the church.... maybe the story you are reading at church has just as many issues if not more then some other FICTIONAL writing.

 

[motodawg]

Jesus was the smartest man to ever live


Hence why he never married.

lol it's better to live on the roof of your house than inside with a brawling woman hahahaha motodawg1:1

 

[mrplunkey]

Christianity is the best thing ever to happen to women on this earth.

Yes and no...

A lot of the other religions, particularly multidiety ones, had godesses reserved for women. They also worshipped fertility and some even thought that the way to connect to the divine is through the feminine component (and in all fairness... haven't we all had at least on one orgasm where we thought we "saw God"?).

In these societies, women had an "unsual" place... seen as objects... possessions... but also seen as gatekeepers to the gods. If you compared a 20 AD christian woman to a 20 AD roman priestess of Libra, the roman woman was probably better off at the time. Granted the priestess of Libra had to fuck for a living, but who knows -- maybe she liked it!

Christianity did free women to a certain extent -- with the idea that we are "all one in Christ"... but it still doesn't change the fact that women still took a backseat in the religion. It's Christianity's ability to morph over time that has helped women to progress as much as they have.

 

[Lumberg]

I think capitalism has done more for women than any religion.

 

[javaguru]

I think sufferage has done more to advance women than Christianity. How equal can you be if you can't vote?

 

[mrplunkey]

Making women viable without the help of men via education, employment opportunities, and equal protection under the law helped women in a big way too.

 

[Longhorn85]

Some examples of how women are treated in societies not shaped by Christianity:

China: Practiced foot-binding for women which was brutal and inhumane. It's sole purpose: to make women appear more erotic to Chinese males. Ended in part by Christian missionaries in the early 20th century.

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/04/hutchins/hutchins.htm


Hindu: Ever heard of the term Suttee? When the husband dies and was cremated, the wife was thrown on top of the pile right along with him. The practice ended in the 1800s some time after the British colonized India.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s/suttee.asp



Ancient Rome (before Christianity became the state religion): Any Roman male citizen had the right to drown any baby that was born female. His option, no punishment. If he drowned a male baby, he would be executed.

http://history.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/female-infanticide-fetal-murder


Africa: Female circumcision is still practiced today. Forced upon women by men. The reason? So that women will never, ever in their lives experience sexual pleasure. Christian missionaries have been crusading for decades to eradicate this practice.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/african_history/45388

Radical Islam: Honor killings are the duty, not the right of male citizens. If a woman guilty of adultery, she can be killed on the street by members of her own family. These killings still take place today in some islamic cultures. Unbelievably, if a woman is raped, she could be killed in this way to preserve the family "honor" with no punishment going to the man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

"Moderate Islam": The following can be found in textbooks in Saudi Arabian schools: "The life of a Muslim woman is worth the fraction of that of a Muslim man"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html



I challenge any of you to point out how cultures shaped by Christianity have been anything but good for women AND that cultures not shaped by Christianity have been a source of oppression for women.

 

[Longhorn85]

Anyone who is arguing parts of a FICTIONAL story...

Did you read post #16?

 

[Mr. dB]

The Enlightenment was really the beginning of better treatment for women, and it may have occurred in Christian Europe, but was not directly related to Christianity.

 

[WODIN]

It is greatness. My church has been filled up for the last several weeks with new people curious to get answers to their questions on this subject. The movie is selling, the book(s) are selling.

A national debate/discussion about Christianity has ensued. There are certainly worse subjects to talk about.

I don't see a lot of people pissed off, I see a lot of people doing research and learning the truth.

There is even hope for you, my man.

LMAO.

Non are so blind as those who will not see.

Jesus didn't die for any mans sin. It's a bunch of bullshit put forth by a lazy ass group of moralistic back sliders looking for a cheap way through life. Pay your $20 on Sunday for the sins all week and your good to go. What kind of fucked up life is that?

 

[nuthinbutagoodtym]

true Mr Plunkey. I had not thought about it actually drawing people to learn more about Christianity, but I suppose that is true.

I consider myself a Christian, but I don't worry much about the historical accuracy of a work of fiction.

Couldn't agree with you more (as a Christian myself).

Simple answer - the book is "Fiction"

 

[Lumberg]

I challenge any of you to point out how cultures shaped by Christianity have been anything but good for women AND that cultures not shaped by Christianity have been a source of oppression for women.

OK, well, you already did the second part. So for the first part, I have to ask you if you consider the US to be a culture shaped by Christianity.

 

[Anthony Roberts]

Now that a lot of you have had an opportunity to see the movie and read the book, what is your take on the DaVinci Code?

Here is an analysis:

<snip>

Brown’s assault on Christianity in the novel, the Da Vinci Code raises several questions that need to be answered.

1) Is the book accurate?
2) Are the “Priory of Sion” and their documents discovered in Paris in 1975 real?
3) Who are the Gnostics and What are the “Gnostic Gospels”
4) Who was Mary Magdalene?
5) Did Constantine and the Church turn Jesus into God?
6) Is the Bible from God?


http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

1. Yes, for a historical fiction.
2. Yes.
3. Books that were omitted from the Bible.
4. Likely, Jesus' wife.
5. Yes, the conversion of Constantine is historical fact.
6.

 

[mrplunkey]

I challenge any of you to point out how cultures shaped by Christianity have been anything but good for women AND that cultures not shaped by Christianity have been a source of oppression for women.

That's still a streatch. Christian influences have tried to undo some atrocities toward women but I wouldn't give the religion full credit for it. If we're going off correlations in society we should also give Christianity credit for high rates of cable television penetration, viagra usage and consumption of McDonalds food.

 

[mrplunkey]

LMAO.

Non are so blind as those who will not see.

Jesus didn't die for any mans sin. It's a bunch of bullshit put forth by a lazy ass group of moralistic back sliders looking for a cheap way through life. Pay your $20 on Sunday for the sins all week and your good to go. What kind of fucked up life is that?

Interesting "blindness" argument... that's the same thing Christians say about non-believers.

Then questioning morals... another christian technique.

Then a discussion of how to carry-on your life...

 

[WODIN]

Interesting "blindness" argument... that's the same thing Christians say about non-believers.

Then questioning morals... another christian technique.

Then a discussion of how to carry-on your life...

I know.

Fun isn't it.

 

[Testosterone boy]

One of the greatest challenges facing Christianity is its somewhat deserved reputation for boredom.

Dan Brown has provided them with a slice of energy. Something to bring people into groups and discuss things. One of two things will happens:

1) Some will decide that Jesus was married and had a child. I have been a Sunday School teacher and I found this thought personally comforting.

2) Some will decide that Brown is wrong.



Brown makes a bloody fortune. He is an extremely gifted entertainer and quality entertainment is priceless. Fine so far.

The church gains new members. Fine.


I just wish that Brown would dirent his talents at the financial wrecklessness of the Bushbarians.

 

[Testosterone boy]

That's still a streatch. Christian influences have tried to undo some atrocities toward women but I wouldn't give the religion full credit for it. If we're going off correlations in society we should also give Christianity credit for high rates of cable television penetration, viagra usage and consumption of McDonalds food.

How so?

 

[foreigngirl]

Now that a lot of you have had an opportunity to see the movie and read the book, what is your take on the DaVinci Code?

Here is an analysis:

<snip>

Brown’s assault on Christianity in the novel, the Da Vinci Code raises several questions that need to be answered.

1) Is the book accurate?
2) Are the “Priory of Sion” and their documents discovered in Paris in 1975 real?
3) Who are the Gnostics and What are the “Gnostic Gospels”
4) Who was Mary Magdalene?
5) Did Constantine and the Church turn Jesus into God?
6) Is the Bible from God?


http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

1. The book is written as fiction, so from historical point, no - its not accurate. Its based on some acuurate facts, the rest is built on fiction.

2. Yes, their documents are discovered in Paris, yes PoS is real, but its not an old order, its created in the XX century

3. The Gnostic people believe God is within us. God is not an entity separate from us, but one with us. Every single one of us is God and we carry him with us. They believe in enlightenement within ourselfs. Their Gospels are not included in the Bible, because they do not portray what the people at that time wanted the Bible to be

4. We cant know for sure. The only thing we know about her is that she was special to Jesus and the male desciples didnt like that. The men at that time of history didnt like women being on the same level as men, so they morphed her with the prostitute.

5. Yes, they did. There was another pagan Gods movement raging around. His b-day was on Dec 25th. Now Jesuses followers needed something bigger than that. They made all the cicrcumstances as if Jesus was really from royal blood, the stars, teh 3 wise men.....all that is made up

6. No

 

[Longhorn85]

1. The book is written as fiction, so from historical point, no - its not accurate. Its based on some acuurate facts, the rest is built on fiction.

2. Yes, their documents are discovered in Paris, yes PoS is real, but its not an old order, its created in the XX century

1. Please see post #16.

2. Dan Brown relies on a 1982 publication, Holy Blood, Holy Grail as the source of information on the Priory of Sion. (He states this as fact on his "fact page") The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail depended on documents provided to them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who was jailed for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion... he tried to establish himself as the King of France.

Throughout the 1960’s and the 1970’s Plantard created a series of documents “proving” the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include ---(surprise!) Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendents of the line of Jesus and Mary.

When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme.

The basis of the Da Vinci Code is a hoax created by Pierre Plantard.

http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

 

[foreigngirl]

1. Please see post #16.

2. Dan Brown relies on a 1982 publication, Holy Blood, Holy Grail as the source of information on the Priory of Sion. (He states this as fact on his "fact page") The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail depended on documents provided to them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who was jailed for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion... he tried to establish himself as the King of France.

Throughout the 1960’s and the 1970’s Plantard created a series of documents “proving” the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include ---(surprise!) Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendents of the line of Jesus and Mary.

When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme.

The basis of the Da Vinci Code is a hoax created by Pierre Plantard.

http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

I saw post 16. Brown also said that his book IS fiction.

Yes, his book maybe had the inspiration from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Plantard created that Prior of Sion himself, thats why I said its real. Not the way its portrayed, no. From what I've seen, that was created for shits and giggles and then Plantard was cought up with all that descendants of Jesus thing. He didnt plan it, but sure enjoyed teh spotlight and playing the role

 

[mrplunkey]

How so?

My point is that although you can correlate women being better or worse off in a particular society with a particular religion, that doesn't mean it's causal.

Look at "christian" countries... they tend to also be economically better off as well and that carries with it things ranging from cable television, viagra usage, more fast food consumption, more educated women, more work opportunities for women, etc. etc. I can't place all the credit for women being better of in christian cultures directly at the feet of christianity.

 

[heatherrae]

I've neither read the book nor seen the movie ... but I do have one question and it's one that's been on my mind for decades ...

Have they ever answered the question of why Jesus, a Jewish male, was not married? It's just so freaking WEIRD, Hebrew life and law revolves around family! What logical reason would Jesus have for not being married? He didn't take up his ministry until his late 20s, they generally married in their late teens, he had a trade. It just doesn't make sense.

Good question, MM. I, like you, don't think it makes a difference to my faith or anything. It just seems odd that he would not be wed.

 

[Longhorn85]

That's still a streatch. Christian influences have tried to undo some atrocities toward women but I wouldn't give the religion full credit for it. If we're going off correlations in society we should also give Christianity credit for high rates of cable television penetration, viagra usage and consumption of McDonalds food.

If we were comparing one Christian culture to one non-Christian culture then I would agree with you.

When, as I suggest, virtually EVERY culture that was shaped by Christianity in its schools, government, legal system, etc, has better living conditions, opportunites, protection, etc for women than non-Christian cultures, you've got to conclude that it is a factor, if not THE factor.

Furthermore, it absolutely kills any notion that somehow Christianity has been bad for women.

Can you point out any of today's cultures that is not shaped by Christianity which has better conditions for women than any Christian-shaped culture?

 

[Longhorn85]

3. The Gnostic people believe God is within us. God is not an entity separate from us, but one with us. Every single one of us is God and we carry him with us. They believe in enlightenement within ourselfs. Their Gospels are not included in the Bible, because they do not portray what the people at that time wanted the Bible to be

The word Gnostic is derived from the Greek word Gnosis meaning “To Know”. Gnostics believed that salvation was attained through the attaining knowledge.

the Gnostic Jesus, unlike the Jesus of the Bible, was not a Savior who died form sins. He was the bringer of “Gnosis”. According to many Gnostics he was a completely spiritual being separate from the flesh, because he was really projecting a phantom body.

Gnostic Gospel’s were named after known bible characters to justify “Gnostic” doctrines

Gnostic works contradicted the Both Old and New Testament scriptures…The God of the Old Testament was viewed as an evil demon and the serpent as good.
Gnostic works were not connected to the Apostles…but battled their teachings

http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/

 

[bluepeter]

Amazing that people would put so much effort into discrediting this and yet they accept the terms of their religion without question.

 

[musclemom]

I challenge any of you to point out how cultures shaped by Christianity have been anything but good for women AND that cultures not shaped by Christianity have been a source of oppression for women.

You mean like the Witch Hunts across Europe that eventually jumped the ocean and entered the new world?

How about the rule of Thumb? Hell, MOST of the laws that were created set women on a level LOWER than children, and certainly NOT equal to their spouses and that ALL came out of Biblical teachings. If women were equal, there'd never have been that little business of sufferage, and am I the only one that remembers the fact the ERA has yet to have passed??? Why should we even NEED it to pass?

Look, I'm not going to argue with you, you're absolutely right, many cultures have been and continue to be unspeakably BRUTAL to their women, but a shitload of cruelty has been done in the name of Jesus, too. The shit that was done to the American Indians by the Jesuits is enough to make you sick. The tortures that were committed on in the name of God for 300 years far more grotesque than anything the Romans thought up.

Anytime it's a paternalistic religion, the women get the shitty end of the stick and that abuse is justified in the name of some god or another, and that's the way it's been throughout time -- "God said we could beat her, god said I could have more than one wife, god said drown the girl babies ... "

Oh, little aside, foot binding was a cultural thing, no religion involved there.

Forced suttee did exist but again, it was cultural, not religious. The practice was theoretically supposed to be voluntary, and there were even ritualized self immolations that did not involving harming the widow.

Female genital mutiliation is quite a varied subject, but it's PRIMARILY an offshoot of radical muslim faith (they just love their women ...) Now here's an interesting little fact I ran across: Clitoridectomy means the partial or total removal of the external part of the clitoris. It was sometimes practiced in English-speaking nations well after the first half of the Twentieth Century, ostensibly to stop masturbation. Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies in the U.S.A. until 1977. Clitoridectomy is still being practiced in isolated instances. It is, however, quite common in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, east-Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and the Arabian Peninsula.

Longhorn, I appreciate your unshakable faith, seriously, I really do and I'm not just saying that. I appreciate ANYONE who has 100% faith, belief and confidence, but the fact is Christianity, like our own good old US of A, ain't perfect. I think the single worst thing it's guilty of is going into another person's land and telling them their faith, their spirituality, and their culture is WRONG and/or evil. To me, telling whole races of people to give up the religion and culture of their ancestors is just a passive aggressive form of genocide.

Peace, man, I don't wanna debate this point, it's my opinion and nothing's going to shake it. Christians stripped the cultures and languages and spiritual basis of indigenous people throughout the world and I think that's presumptuous.

 

[Longhorn85]

I the only one that remembers the fact the ERA has yet to have passed??? Why should we even NEED it to pass? (Yes, I remember it. It didn't pass because most Americans, including most women, did not feel we need an ERA)

Oh, little aside, foot binding was a cultural thing, no religion involved there.

Forced suttee did exist but again, it was cultural, not religious.

(never said these were religious. I said they were found in non-Christian cultures, and they were ended at least in part by the impact of Christianity)

I think the single worst thing it's guilty of is going into another person's land and telling them their faith, their spirituality, and their culture is WRONG and/or evil. (The fact of the matter is, there are many cultures out there that ARE wrong and evil)

I appreciate your well thought out comments and discussion.

I never held that Christians have been perfect people. My ancestors were no-doubt owned by some "devout" Christians.

I still believe that cultures shaped by Christianity are where women flourish TODAY, and that they suffer in cultures not shaped by Christianity TODAY.