AP: As Film arrives, "Da Vinci Code" debate renews

[Zguy28]

My thoughts on the book are two-sided. I think its heretical in its assertions, but at the same time it is bringing discussion of Jesus to the front page so to speak.

Nearly all of Brown’s assertions in The Da Vinci Code are based on several statements he presents on page one under the heading of “FACT”—before the novel even begins. Most notable among these “facts” is the following:

The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

At first glance, this may seem rather harmless. But Brown uses this “fact” (which in reality is completely untrue) to degrade and defame the name of Christ, the historicity of the Gospels, and the uniqueness of Christianity. Brown depicts the Priory of Sion as a secret society bent on covering up the scandal of Christ’s marriage to Mary Magdalene—who would have been the true leader of the church if she had not crashed into an apostolic “glass ceiling” erected by a male-dominated church. Much of what Brown trumpets as truth is based on a fabrication concocted by an anti-Semite with a criminal record. Yet Brown says he is so confident in the reliability of his claims that were he to write a nonfiction piece on the same theme, he would not change a thing.

But What is Truth?

The answer is simple: Truth is anything that corresponds to reality. As such, truth is not determined by the popularity of a book like The Da Vinci Code. Nor is it a matter of preference or opinion. Truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it. When deceptive reasoning, sensationalism, and superstition undermine the truth, our view of reality is seriously skewed.

That is precisely what The Da Vinci Code does. It is based on an odd brand of thinking that is fond of making dogmatic assertions while failing to provide defensible arguments. In sharp contrast to the fictional Christ parodied by The Da Vinci Code, the Christ of Christianity was proven to be divine when God raised Him from the dead. What happened as a result of the resurrection is unprecedented in human history. In the span of a few hundred years, a small band of seemingly insignificant believers succeeded in turning an entire empire upside down. While it is conceivable that they would have faced torture, vilification, and even cruel deaths for what they fervently believed to be true, it is inconceivable that they would have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie.

EDIT: Hank Hanegraaff and Paul L. Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004).

[Taylor 36]

My thoughts on the book are two-sided. I think its heretical in its assertions, but at the same time it is bringing discussion of Jesus to the front page so to speak.

Nearly all of Brown’s assertions in The Da Vinci Code are based on several statements he presents on page one under the heading of “FACT”—before the novel even begins. Most notable among these “facts” is the following:

The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

At first glance, this may seem rather harmless. But Brown uses this “fact” (which in reality is completely untrue) to degrade and defame the name of Christ, the historicity of the Gospels, and the uniqueness of Christianity. Brown depicts the Priory of Sion as a secret society bent on covering up the scandal of Christ’s marriage to Mary Magdalene—who would have been the true leader of the church if she had not crashed into an apostolic “glass ceiling” erected by a male-dominated church. Much of what Brown trumpets as truth is based on a fabrication concocted by an anti-Semite with a criminal record. Yet Brown says he is so confident in the reliability of his claims that were he to write a nonfiction piece on the same theme, he would not change a thing.

But What is Truth?

The answer is simple: Truth is anything that corresponds to reality. As such, truth is not determined by the popularity of a book like The Da Vinci Code. Nor is it a matter of preference or opinion. Truth is true even if everyone denies it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone affirms it. When deceptive reasoning, sensationalism, and superstition undermine the truth, our view of reality is seriously skewed.

That is precisely what The Da Vinci Code does. It is based on an odd brand of thinking that is fond of making dogmatic assertions while failing to provide defensible arguments. In sharp contrast to the fictional Christ parodied by The Da Vinci Code, the Christ of Christianity was proven to be divine when God raised Him from the dead. What happened as a result of the resurrection is unprecedented in human history. In the span of a few hundred years, a small band of seemingly insignificant believers succeeded in turning an entire empire upside down. While it is conceivable that they would have faced torture, vilification, and even cruel deaths for what they fervently believed to be true, it is inconceivable that they would have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie.

Great Post!!!:applause:

[Zguy28]

Great Post!!!:applause:

Sorry can't take credit for someone elses work. Hank Handegraff wrote that in "The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?"

I don't want to plagiarize...

[Xameil]

well...it's time for the Devils Advocate

Anyways, yes it is fiction, but thos eorganizations he states are real. They do/did exist. King Solomons temple did exist. The stories on staind glass do exist, and the things he's interpreting (Mona Lisa, Stained Glass windows, etc.) for the sake of his story do exist. The thing is he's doing his own interpretations off of old myths, legends, and stories. There has as far as I can remember a mystery about the Mona Lisa, and that Leonardo DaVinci hides stuff in everyone of his paintings. The Church at the end...in Scotland exists, and every detail he explains in his book is there. It's just how he interpreted it.

So, what am I saying? Is it possible that he nailed it on the head with his interpretations using stories, and myths? I personally don't know. Does it wive my faith at all? Not really no. But what his book did do was make me take a deeper look into my faith and background of something my family has been involved in for years. It helped me open my mind to see things that I once just dismissed in church and other places.

Honestly, I'll give you all another reason to hate that book....if it wasn't for that book, I probably would never take part in any of these religious discussions, because I would never have done the research and reading I have done .

The thing that always pops up in my mind though...Why is the Catholic Church making such a big deal about it? All they do is make it worse and make people want to question them more. :2cents:

[codeorama]

well...it's time for the Devils Advocate

Anyways, yes it is fiction, but thos eorganizations he states are real. They do/did exist. King Solomons temple did exist. The stories on staind glass do exist, and the things he's interpreting (Mona Lisa, Stained Glass windows, etc.) for the sake of his story do exist. The thing is he's doing his own interpretations off of old myths, legends, and stories. There has as far as I can remember a mystery about the Mona Lisa, and that Leonardo DaVinci hides stuff in everyone of his paintings. The Church at the end...in Scotland exists, and every detail he explains in his book is there. It's just how he interpreted it.

So, what am I saying? Is it possible that he nailed it on the head with his interpretations using stories, and myths? I personally don't know. Does it wive my faith at all? Not really no. But what his book did do was make me take a deeper look into my faith and background of something my family has been involved in for years. It helped me open my mind to see things that I once just dismissed in church and other places.

Honestly, I'll give you all another reason to hate that book....if it wasn't for that book, I probably would never take part in any of these religious discussions, because I would never have done the research and reading I have done .

The thing that always pops up in my mind though...Why is the Catholic Church making such a big deal about it? All they do is make it worse and make people want to question them more. :2cents:

Excellent post.

The interpretation is the key. Many things can be interpreted different ways and until something is proven beyond doubt, that's just how it is. People believe different things.

IMO, it's reasonable to assume that much of what is in the bible is exaggerated, people took literary license, just as people always have in myths and legends. Religion is and always has been used to explain what ws cannot currently understand, but IMO only, one day, we will understand exactly how the universe was created.

It's just like the sun. At one time, that was a god flying around the sky in a chariot. Now, we know better. Science explains more and more as we progress and IMO, "God" is not a manlike ghost being, but it's energy. :2cents:

[Air Force Cane]

The only good thing is that the Jews can't be blamed for this one!

imagine if there was a book that questioned the authenticity of Muhammed riding a horse up to heaven?

[Xameil]

Excellent post.

It's just like the sun. At one time, that was a god flying around the sky in a chariot. Now, we know better. Science explains more and more as we progress and IMO, "God" is not a manlike ghost being, but it's energy. :2cents:

I had to take this out for one major reason...a god flaming around the sky in a chariot became an angel named the morningstar being in charge of light. Kind of odd that you you read angelology, those greek gods never disappeared...they are now angels.

The only good thing is that the Jews can't be blamed for this one!

imagine if there was a book that questioned the authenticity of Muhammed riding a horse up to heaven?

hehe give me a minute...I'm sure I can find a way to blame ya (j/k)

[Midnight Judges]

I am not a religious schollar so I read the Da Vinci code and interpreted it as complete 100% fiction. Then I picked up a book called "Debunking the Da Vinci code" and they confirmed so many things that I never dreamed were true about Christianity. While debunking Dan Brown's book they actually showed me that more of it was true than I originally thought. They unwittingly gave creedance to Brown and did very little debunking.

[Zguy28]

well...it's time for the Devils Advocate

Anyways, yes it is fiction, but thos eorganizations he states are real. They do/did exist. King Solomons temple did exist. The stories on staind glass do exist, and the things he's interpreting (Mona Lisa, Stained Glass windows, etc.) for the sake of his story do exist. The thing is he's doing his own interpretations off of old myths, legends, and stories. There has as far as I can remember a mystery about the Mona Lisa, and that Leonardo DaVinci hides stuff in everyone of his paintings.

What I think is interesting is that nobody questions the credibility or motive of Da Vinci, yet they question peoples motives who died horribly for their belief. If you look at some of Da Vinci's other works you see other feminine figures who are men obviously, such as Angel in the Flesh. Also, Da Vinci appears himself in the Last Supper, second from right. Whenever he paits himself in a painting with Jesus Christ, he always has his back to Him. Why is that?

Why is the Catholic Church making such a big deal about it? All they do is make it worse and make people want to question them more. :2cents:

The only thing I can think of is that if someone said your family was full of liars, you'd be pretty incensed too.:whoknows:

[Zguy28]

I am not a religious schollar so I read the Da Vinci code and interpreted it as complete 100% fiction. Then I picked up a book called "Debunking the Da Vinci code" and they confirmed so many things that I never dreamed were true about Christianity. While debunking Dan Brown's book they actually showed me that more of it was true than I originally thought. They unwittingly gave creedance to Brown and did very little debunking.

Read this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1414302797/103-2460280-4196641?v=glance&n=283155

[Xameil]

What I think is interesting is that nobody questions the credibility or motive of Da Vinci, yet they question peoples motives who died horribly for their belief. If you look at some of Da Vinci's other works you see other feminine figures who are men obviously, such as Angel in the Flesh. Also, Da Vinci appears himself in the Last Supper, second from right. Whenever he paits himself in a painting with Jesus Christ, he always has his back to Him. Why is that?

The only thing I can think of is that if someone said your family was full of liars, you'd be pretty incensed too.:whoknows:

You're right, no one ever questions DaVinci, because they are all just speculation...with the exception that he puts himself in the paintings. It is well documented though that DaVinci intellectually was WAY ahead of his time, but most people just see him as an artist when he was SOOO much more.

As for the last part about people calling the Catholic Church a bunch of liars...if the shoe fits . Seriously, they have done nothing to really prove otherwise that they are VERY motive driven, and not always in the name of God. They have however done MANY things to prove that they are only about their own self-interests, and have played a HUGE role in several wars, killings, torture, government, and what religious documents are released to the public and given credit to. But that's just my :2cents: and what I observe.

I am not a religious schollar so I read the Da Vinci code and interpreted it as complete 100% fiction. Then I picked up a book called "Debunking the Da Vinci code" and they confirmed so many things that I never dreamed were true about Christianity. While debunking Dan Brown's book they actually showed me that more of it was true than I originally thought. They unwittingly gave creedance to Brown and did very little debunking.

I agree, but that's my opinion. Everytime they try and debunk something, it opens another door that they should have left shut. That's what I was saying...if the Catholic Church did what it preached, and turned the other cheek, then it would give no credit to it. Instead, it makes it look like they have something to hide. Did they learn nothing from Area 51? :laugh:

[Baculus]

The subject and ideas of "The DaVinci Code" are not new. Over a decade ago, I read a book called "Holy blood, Holy Grail," that discussed Mary Magdelaine, the Prieure de Sion, and the Knights Templars. It is a fascinating book, well-documented, and rasies some valid questions. It also postulates questions on the true nature of the Knights Templar, which, as speculated, had a mission to protecting the bloodline of Jesus, and hence the bloodline of David, and this mission is related to the Masons (who are theorized as being direct descendents of the Knights Templars).

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" isn't the only book that has discussed this subject, but it is one of the better known books that is now available. Also, the writers had access to documents and new discoveries that were previously unknown, researched, or investigated.

This page discusses this book has links to some other sites that discusses similiar subjects:

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/

Edit: For spelling.

[Rumrunner6900]

Mostly by people whose only frame of reference is...

The Davinci Code :doh:

Don't believe me? check out a few of the religious debate threads. If ES posters had to site sources for their posts, Dan Brown's name would be all over those threads.

Pretty funny, actually.

.....

I am amazed how many people believe "The Da Vinci Code" so quickly!

The movie looks great, I can't wait to see it.

All politics / religious debate aside, it is a great plot. I think Ron Howard will do it justice.

I hope they make Angels & Demons, too. Much better book, and it would make an awesome movie.

...

Not to hijack, but I read Angels and Demons first...then The Da Vinci Code....

They are almost the same book!! :2cents:

[dfitzo53]

I am amazed how many people believe "The Da Vinci Code" so quickly!

Not to hijack, but I read Angels and Demons first...then The Da Vinci Code....

They are almost the same book!! :2cents:

All his books are the same. I really enjoyed the story of the Da Vinci Code, but once I read his other works I was disappointed to find out that he uses the same stock characters in every one.

I'm still looking forward to seeing the movie though. How can you go wrong with Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Paul Bettany and a good plot? Not to mention Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen and Jean Reno.

[techboy]

The subject and ideas of "The DaVinci Code" are not new. Over a decade ago, I read a book called "Holy blood, Holy Grail," that discussed Mary Magdelaine, the Prieure de Sion, and the Knights Templars.

Remember I mentioned that Dan Brown used discredited sources? This would be the primary one.

From a Wikipedia article:

An international bestseller upon its release, Holy Blood spurred interest in a number of ideas related to the authors' thesis. Response from mainstream historians and academics, however, was all but universally negative. Critics argued that the bulk of the claims, mysteries and conspiracies presented as fact, were concocted by the authors, thus making Holy Blood a work of pseudohistory at best, if not simply fiction.

and

It is claimed that the Priory of Sion was formed in 1188, but there is no evidence of this. The actual Priory was formed in 1956 as a society promoting low-cost housing, attacking the property developers of Annemasse (the town where Pierre Plantard lived during the 1950s), supporting the opposition to the ruling local Government Authority, as outlined in the pages of its journal, Circuit. The Priory of Sion was named after the Col du Mont Sion that was located just outside the town of Annemasse.

The popular version of the Priory of Sion that involved Godfrey de Bouillon, the Knights Templar, the Merovingians, etc, was contrived by Plantard during the early 1960s when he first met author Gérard de Sède and when they first began writing articles and books on the Gisors story that was first started by Roger Lhomoy (Lhomoy was Gérard de Sède's pig-farmer at the time). The Rennes-le-Chateau connection with the Priory of Sion came later.

The last Merovingian king was Childeric III who died about 751 CE. Plantard's claim to be directly descended from Dagobert II was first made only during the early 1960s, and this was inspired by his reading a 1960 article that was published in Les Cahiers de l'Histoire arguing that Dagobert II was the last true Merovingian monarch before the Mayors of the Palace took over with the Merovingians becoming mere puppet kings.

The Priory Documents never refer to the New Testament, and they never claimed that the Priory of Sion had had any agenda dealing with the figure of Jesus Christ. Pierre Plantard, speaking on on French radio, distanced himself from the "Bloodline theories" contained in Holy Blood shortly after its publication (an extract was broadcast on the recent British Channel Four documentary "The Real Da Vinci Code", presented by Tony Robinson).

Pierre Plantard was in fact a traditionalist Roman Catholic who opposed Vatican II, which was why Plantard tried to link priests and clergymen like the Abbé Georges de Montes, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre and Abbé François Ducaud-Bourget (all of whom were anti-Vatican II) with his Priory of Sion.

The authors of Holy Blood were told prior to the publication of their book that their various theories weren't plausible. The true facts about Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion were passed on to them by the French journalist and author Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has an extensive archive on this subject matter.

and perhaps most damning:

It is generally presumed the authors knew these claims to be at best unprovable, or false. In fact, Richard Leigh has stated on television that they only set out to offer a plausible hypothesis, but "never believed it to be true."

Don't trust wikipedia? Try this book review for more documentation of just how poor Holy Blood, Holy Grail is. (I can't even say "poor scholarhip", because that would imply it was scholarship, and not just wild fantasy).

Don't trust that review because it's from a Christian source? Try reading The Priory of Sion Hoax. That sort of dismantles the whole premise, huh?

Or, consider that the book advocates the "swoon theory", which has been pretty much totally abandoned by secular and Christian scholar alike.

Or, perhaps the point that even secular scholars find the idea that Jesus was married laughable, since marriage was so important in those days that SOMEONE would have recorded it.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was one of Dan Brown's primary sources is enough to laugh off his claim of "FACT" and meticulous research.

Oh, and as an aside, I tried to read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I really did. I LOVE conspiracy theories (after fighting through the first fifty pages, I thought Umberto Eco's Foccault's Pendulum was wonderful). And, what conspiracy theorist doesn't love a good Knights Templar story? The fact is, though, that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was dry, rambling, and completely unreadable. I had to give up after 50 pages, which is a shame, because I was at least hoping for a good laugh.

[Baculus]

As a book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," like any books, is readable by some, and not so by others. If you get bored by the initial chapters, then skimming into sections is probably best.

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, this movie, accurate or inaccurate, has at least brought the subject of Jesus and the mysteries surrounding him as a topic of discussion. I doubt if we really know the true accounting of events at Jesus' time and over the years, so any discussion on the topic is healthy. And while some of the material of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" has been disputed or discredited, such as the Priory of Sion, the book does indeed touch upon subjects that have been at a source of debate for some time.

Also, it must be remembered that secret societies do indeed exist - it's just that the authors of these books and movies are looking in the wrong places.

[jrockster21]

*****SPOILER*****

I know the movie has altered the story a little.

There are allegedly two cryptics in the movie, instead of one (which was in the novel).

There are two cryptics in the book as well; the small black one inside the large white one. Unless you mean they are two separate entities....

Also, rumor is that Samuel Jackson will be trapped on a plane with Tom Hanks hair.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Xameil]

I am amazed how many people believe "The Da Vinci Code" so quickly!

Not to hijack, but I read Angels and Demons first...then The Da Vinci Code....

They are almost the same book!! :2cents:

not even close to the same book. How do you think that they are? The only real similarity is the main character, and the Catholic church. Oh yeah and clues within artwork.