If you have read The Da Vinci Code

[g91a]

Dan Brown tries to pass himself of as a historian and his fictionary novel The Da Vinci Code as more than just that, fiction.

It saddens me that so many people will read this novel and accept everything in it as truth just because the author claims to have done extensive research.

First off, the Priory of Sion is crap (see article by real researcher)
http://www.anzwers.org/free/posdebunking/

This sums most of it up (be sure to click though all 4 pages)
http://icq.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13519_1.html

Didn't even research Da Vinci that well
http://www.newagepointofinfinity.com/new_page_10.htm

Apparently ripped off someone else
http://ideaworx.com/daughter-davinci.html


I will be interested in other peoples comments that have read this book

[Blade]

i am in the process of reading this book and as soon as i'm done i will offer my opinion...but from what i can see, it is all fake and according to actual historians of art (my boss being one) that this is entierly false

[nicholasburrus]

I will look for it

[james_schwartz]

omg... I LOVED that book but is it really fake because one of the big networks recently did a documentary on it called "jesus mary and leonardo" (i think!)?? I thought the book was fab.... It would be sooo cool if it were all true.

[g91a]

Keep in mind that it is a fictitious novel. Dan Brown claims to have done extensive research, but if you carefully read the links I posted above, you will realize that he is pushing ideas that are false. And one more thing, the argument, "well it was on TV, it must be true," and "they could not have published it if it was not true," are very dangerous.

[Lord Jacob]

It's very seldom a best selling novel has got all the facts correct. I've always loved great conspiarcy theories though...

[seeker]

i agree, having only read Angels and Demons, and it reminds me of micheal Chrichton

no, the only true historical fiction author was Voctore Hugo. He did 3 years of research for The Hunchback of Notra Dame!

[hellodolly]

i liked the book very much however i liked it more because it got people talking about jesus, religion ect. With this modern world of ours we need dialogue, discussion and exchanges of ideas...make sense? I am sure much of it was inaccurate however it terms of "fiction" it was quite the page turner and i enjoyed reading about da vinci.

[Jester]

I'm in the process of finishing it and was dubious before and willing to look at the information and do the research myself seeing that it seemed fictitious (there's so many books out there that present an idea or a set of ideas that have some basis in reality but only about one or two percent and you take the story on belief and faith and say hey, sounds true so it must be) though i have to agree with soem others that its a really good page turner and great to read if your waiting somewhere.

I agree with hellodolly about dialogue, i personally believe that everyone should question there faith at least once and do their own research about what htey beleive in becuase either it will strengthen their beliefs or provide them with a whole new world and perception to look at (some of your links were odd... I wonder if there is an obvious credible source to believe, as a conspiritist (?) you can't say that a vatican issue on this would be completly wholeheartedly believed or that of the opposite... so technically this is one of those things that will be up in the air... however even if brown messed up on soem of leonardo's particulars may not mean that it does not exist... frequently I've been lead to believe that harry potter is real in the sence of magi and hog warts maybe not the kid himself..... :) ;) :P )

PS I loved the harry potter comment in that book

[IWilKikU]

Ok, I know that this is an old-as-crap thread that no one really wants to talk about but keeps popping its head up anyway, but I've got somthin' to say!

This book was sloppy tripe! However, the research it was based on was increadible. Go read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail Right now!!! It's the book that finally let me give up my silly belief in Christianity. The whole crazy church conspiracy makes so much sense if you just think about it open-mindedly for a minute or two. It suggests that it wasn't Jesus' intention to start a new Christian church at all, but to reform Judaism, and that he was just a normal (if increadibly intellegent and charismatic), married, guy. It really makes alot of sense and if anyone has read it or knows of it, please please share your thoughts.

[shilafi]

Well...im currently reading Holy Blood Holy Grail...and however interesting it all may seem...please keep an open mind to the possibility that this too may be false... You dont believe in a "Silly" (and i am only mocking) religion like Christianity because Christ was or was not married....or any of that other nonesense writers write...You believe because of that chasm in your stomach...the curiosity...the intrigue...and ill believe what i believe because i feel it , not because i read it somewhere in a book....Keep an open mind to all things while also keeping it closed.

[subterranean]

This book was sloppy tripe! However, the research it was based on was increadible. Go read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail Right now!!! It's the book that finally let me give up my silly belief in Christianity. The whole crazy church conspiracy makes so much sense if you just think about it open-mindedly for a minute or two.

Personally, I don't really have problem with the teaching but I always have serious problems with the authority :nod:

[IWilKikU]

There are alot of other posts on the board about the Church and its teachings and authority.

But Shalifi, get to know people before you judge them as close-minded. I've done ALOT of soul-searching and yada yada yada before coming to my current confusion, but meanwhile I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, dabled in Catholisism, generic Protestantism, New Age type -isms, Islam, and Atheism, my mind is far from closed, its just made up... for the time being. Christ being married was just one of the examples of the case against his divinity and biblical authority made in Holy Blood. Forgive me for being so brief... and wearing briefs.

[no iS yroirP]

i enjoyed the book, some facts where infact bent, but most of it was based on actual evidence! I have alittle more evidence that points to what da vinci is trying to say in his paintings...it is so obvious once you look!
but i cannot say aloud. overall although dan doesnt have it 100% spot on, he does however have it almost...i'd say about 80% correct!
rehtaf dnilb eht ediug.
no iS yroirP.

[Hilarion Zerrud]

Hi,
Let me share my piece after reading "Holy Blood Holy Grail". There could had been a cohesion in religion had it not been that the new testament was "created". Some powerful group had invested their thoughts and influence on "beliefs". Thru unheared cruelty and blood shading they were successful in catapulting themselves into great power. By way of tradition, but under the watchful eyes, a great portion of the subjects just follow them without comprehension, without questions. Why are so many beliefs/religions/interpretations created becuase of the new testatments.

[crisaor]

Go read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail Right now!!! It's the book that finally let me give up my silly belief in Christianity. The whole crazy church conspiracy makes so much sense if you just think about it open-mindedly for a minute or two. It suggests that it wasn't Jesus' intention to start a new Christian church at all, but to reform Judaism, and that he was just a normal (if increadibly intellegent and charismatic), married, guy. It really makes alot of sense and if anyone has read it or knows of it, please please share your thoughts.
Did you think it was silly while you kept it? Was the book the main reason for that change or just the catalyst?

[OedipusReD]

you will realize that he is pushing ideas that are false.
sounds like michael moore

[lhaeber]

I liked this book, and Angels and Demons. I am an athiest, but a lover of theology. I think this book came out of a reason to always question what we know, what we have been taught all of our lives. Whether we were raised in a church, with religion in our blood, or as non-believers. I would love to believe in a god, but I have an issue, or many issues with the holy benevolent thing, amoung other aspects. This book simply let me enjoy reading and learning the practices of catholicism, like Angels and Demons did...especially what with the pope being so near the end, health wise. I appreciated the mixture of controversy and conspiracy, it kept me interested, and this whole conversation as well as others may very well spark interest in those like me who are agnostic but could be inspired. My only disappointment is knowing it will be a movie starring Tom Hanks. I mean, really, Tom Hanks?

[Yorkie]

The daVinci Code is FICTION and should be read as such. I actually thought it was quite a good story, but poorly told. I found the construction of the novel poor, and had particular problems with the way felt it necessary to keep the readers attention by ending each short chapter with a cliff hanger - a device often used to mask a paucity of writing skills. Some of the 'detective' elements were simplistic, particularly the use of the Fibonacci Code and the ending was, to my mind, disappointing. One thing that the book has going for it is that, like Harry Potter, it has encouraged people to read who wouldn't have done so otherwise.

[lhaeber]

I wonder what Joseph Campbell would think of the code? of his book, i mean. anyone guess?

[Jacqui]

Hi,
Found this on the Grail and the Da Vinci Code.
Authors Phillip Gardiner and Gary Osborn claim they know the truth about the Grail and the code.



[SIZE=1]"In fact the Da Vinci Code is a million miles off the mark. There is no "bloodline" of Christ and there never was a cup which caught the blood of Christ or even used by him at the Last Supper. The truth of the Grail lies much deeper and older and has seriously been covered up by the Catholic Church because of the fact that it brings doubt onto their belief systems - which are very nicely used for manipulation and control. Religion is the tool of those in power.

The Grail is based upon an object and yes these objects will be shown and revealed in the book. But much more interesting is the fact that this object was used originally as a ritual and symbolic object for the fabled Elixir of Life. The concept of the Elixir itself has two distinct elements. On the one hand it was a real physical mixture created to extend life and improve health. But it was also the concept of an esoteric and Gnostic belief system made popular under the early Gnostics known as Ophites or "Snake worshippers". This (and other elements of the myth) gave rise to the Medieval Grail folklore. Even King Arthur was used etymologically as a tool to this system. His name was Pendragon - where pen means head and dragon is a serpent - Arthur was therefore the head serpent. Guinevere was Queen of snakes too, and as such together Arthur and Quinevere were the aspects of "duality" that must re-unite in-order to become One again - like the Alchemists hermaphrodite (Hermes and Aphrodite joined as one). This pattern has been repeated again and again throughout time. Jesus and Mary being the latest missused concept and taken "literally" as if they both really existed. Others as we show in the book are Robin and Marion, Osiris and Isis, Enlil and Enki etc. It is a repeating pattern found "coded" in much ancient literature, encoded because it is esoteric. That is only for those with the eyes to see, and if you don't have the "Gnosis" or "Knowledge" then you can't see it and you scramble around looking for literal truth, when in fact it is a psychological and inner truth for each and every one of us. In this way, it appears hidden and secret.

I hope this clarifies the situation a little.

Kindest
Philip Gardiner"

http://forevergeek.com/news/new_holy_grail_clue.php


Jacqui.

[lhaeber]

Watched a show on the history channel last night called the real davinci code, fell asleep halfway through, but they were talking about the very first novel ever written, how it included the grail and that's where the idea of the grail came from. Anyone else see it? Interesting to hear of the very first novel ever written, around 1100 I think, name of writer was Chretien.

[Tirananniel]

The daVinci Code is FICTION and should be read as such. I actually thought it was quite a good story, but poorly told. I found the construction of the novel poor, and had particular problems with the way felt it necessary to keep the readers attention by ending each short chapter with a cliff hanger - a device often used to mask a paucity of writing skills. Some of the 'detective' elements were simplistic, particularly the use of the Fibonacci Code and the ending was, to my mind, disappointing. One thing that the book has going for it is that, like Harry Potter, it has encouraged people to read who wouldn't have done so otherwise.
In a way I agree that it is fiction. Da Vinci was catholic, and during his time period many of his contemporaries had Catholic themes. There were no "codes" as people say; they were making too much out of a simple religious painting style. I have done much study on many artists, Da Vinci being one of them. I had heard rather bogus things about the Mona Lisa even. What next? The Madona of the Rocks has subliminal messages as well, while it is only supposed to be the baby Jesus, Mary and her mother? (for those who are not catholic and do not understand, Mary is supposed to be divinely conceived like Jesus.) I just believe that it is bogus trying to find hidden meanings in very simple paintings. Anyone who uses common sense while researching his work will grasp his style quickly. I find it a disgrace to the highly talented artist. A good book to read is Breaking the Da Vinci Code.

[Kilini]

Oh bah. Don't be so harsh. I found the Da Vinci Code entertaining. Yes, it's fiction. So what? I spent a happy two hours reading it, like I did on Harry Potter. Dan Brown's purpose is probably to entertain, and if he thinks people are going to accept it as absolute truth or if some people do, that's sad.

[LV_Designs]

I found the Da Vinci Code to be a great read, however obviously not a true story. Sure, some of the book was based on facts. He did a wonderful job in researching and describing the architecture visited in the book. Maybe I notice things like this because I'm an Architecture student. But, as far as the book being factual from a religious standpoint.....it's laughable. However, I would love for it to be true.

I think the reason so many people have gotten upset over the work is because the masses are easily convinced. They see something on TV or read it in a book and automatically accept it as truth because whatever they saw or read told them it was true.

If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code opened up people's minds to realize that what they have been told by their religions may not be factual. And for this reason, I think the Da Vinci Code did good when some people thought it was really true.

[Natalie]

Did he ever claim that he was trying to be perfectly factual? I'm bumping this because a friend just read it and had some questions -I could not remember. ?

[lawdog]

The DaVinci Code is enjoyable fiction. I found author Rick VanWyhe's "Gospel of the Nazarenes" much more informative about the actual alternative gospels behind Brown's work. If you enjoyed the Da Vinci Code, you'll love Gospel of the Nazarenes. There's an older, more expensive version in hardback - I found mine in paperback (much cheaper!) at gospelofnazarenes.com

[glax]

i think that the story is right

but as it touches the church you will find lots of people saying
that it is fake!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

This book is an excellent example of how to write a page-turner. It keeps you interested from beginning to end. But to even consider that it might be 'true' in any sense of the word is ridiculous. Brown's only fault is that he (quite deliberately, I'm sure) presents this as a fiction based on fact, rather than pure fiction. It is based on one stretching of an apocryphal fact after another - total hogwash (not warts - wash!)

That so many people keep on proclaiming that it 'has some truth', 'is not completely fictional' or 'makes sense', is as much a testament to their credulousness as to Dan Brown's credibility. Oliver Stone should have hired this guy as script writer on JFK - he has a gift for sidestepping the holes in his arguments that is truly staggering.

I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination but I am gobsmacked by the way in which both christians & atheists alike have fallen for this hokum.

In fact, forget Oliver Stone, I suspect that GWB has already hired him to convince the US people to grant him a third term.

80% accurate? :lol: :lol: :lol: Not even 8%!

And the comparison with Michael Moore was very true. As I said before in another thread (and will no doubt say again) - why spoil a good conspiracy theory for want of a grain of truth?

[crveniormaric]

It's fiction but there are some authors who are investigating so called alternative history. Dan Brown pulled his ideas for books from them. Such as:
M. Hopkins, G. Simmons, T. Walace - Rex Deus
Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh - The holy blood and the holy grail
Who knows maybe alternative history is real history? History is written by winners but maybe the other side has (the ones who lost) has another opinion what is true or not.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Keep in mind that it is a fictitious novel. Dan Brown claims to have done extensive research, but if you carefully read the links I posted above, you will realize that he is pushing ideas that are false. And one more thing, the argument, "well it was on TV, it must be true," and "they could not have published it if it was not true," are very dangerous.
I have been saying to people all along that the book's "research" is just the lazy, naive adoption of the script of "Holy Blood Holy Grail". The "research" of that earlier book was itself all a hoax, the socalled documents used in it nonexistent until the appearance of 20th century duo-tangs in the Bibliotheque Nationale, starting around the same time as the Beatles and LSD.
Suddenly the HBHG writers are suing Brown for stealing what is not true evidence, but their own innovation of lies.

[Mililalil XXIV]

There are alot of other posts on the board about the Church and its teachings and authority.

But Shalifi, get to know people before you judge them as close-minded. I've done ALOT of soul-searching and yada yada yada before coming to my current confusion, but meanwhile I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, dabled in Catholisism, generic Protestantism, New Age type -isms, Islam, and Atheism, my mind is far from closed, its just made up... for the time being. Christ being married was just one of the examples of the case against his divinity and biblical authority made in Holy Blood. Forgive me for being so brief... and wearing briefs.
Ironically enough, the only "evidence" "Holy Blood Holy Grail" uses to invent this lie of CHRIST being married is a passage from one of the Gospels the writers disparage! Any one carefully reading the misappapropriated passage on the Wedding at Cana, will note that Mary the mother of JESUS was invited, and that HE merely came along as the SON of the one invited. The writers are so eager for JESUS to have been married that they don't even look into the possibility of lineages deriving from the Brothers of the LORD, etc.
They use a statement from an ex-Jesuit, Malachi Martin, to the effect that the Pope wouldn't remove already ordained Bishops from posts the LORD's relatives had always maintained. But no where is the source for Malachi's statement ever given (these writers just quote it from Malachi, who quotes no particular source). This wouldn't be all that bad if it were true. However, if it were it were true, then all of the Church Fathers that governed Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and other capitals, would have to be considered the LORD's own relatives - but none of them seem aware of this priviledge within their perigrees so early after the days of the LORD's Incarnation.
And how would they have failed to remain Bishops in the first place, before the Pope even was sought out in the matter. If it were true, though, it proves that the LORD's own relatives recognized the Pope, and it would have been evil to remove people ordained as Bishops, putting human identity above the HOLY SPIRIT.
It's just all so shoddy.
Even the big joke of saying that all the talk of "the one JESUS loved" has to equal the same person in every case, or specifically a brother-in-law. There was a Tradition from the first that John was the chief writer of the Gospel, but was in the company of other Witnesses, who signed to It their Testimony that they agreed to all he had seen and written as the Truth. Each of these saw themselves as the one JESUS loved.

[Theshizznigg]

Ahh society.

Jesus going round, babiesmama can find a good man, goes get himself crucified for all ya'll sins, child founds royal dynasty, another day in the life of the BI obble O L.
Now throw in some poor Knights Templar, some gypsys for a bit of dash, and some old crack pot inventor, whom many believe was Merlin, paintings of rocks shaped like dicks, and stones shaped like porpoises, and you have a best selling novel.
Saw that in a supposed documentry, laughed my *** off.

Tsk, tsk.

So eager to decry the poor bible, because Jesus was without falt we instantly have to find things to peg on him.
I've heard it all.
Was a homosexual, was a drunkard, was a wizard, was the anti-christ, had children, was really a space age stoner come back in time.
I made up the last one. :D

So lets look at the facts behind the Da Vinci code, that you would notice to be overly theorized even for a fictional work, and even taken from other previous novels.

God/Jesus a perfect beings, lowers himself to having a child, which doesn't make his ultimate sacrifice so ultimate. Their was only one Jesus, but wait his son is here in his stead. :confused: What the hell, how can he cover all our sins, while making himself a substitute?
I mean really, think, the child of Christ, it would be a reliquary before it could walk.
It would no longer be, "The world has lost our only Jesus, holy father and Teacher." It would be like this. "Little J? Why does it hurt when put sharp things in my ears? Why does the sun come out? Oh little J, why can;t you be more like your daddy?"
I'm just humouring myself, but you get the point.
Also there is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question of this supposed line related to Jesus, I say related, not descended, because a fact the bible mentions, and few ever read, is the fact that Big J had lots of siblings.
Two of his disciples are even mentioned to be his Brothers, his cousin was the baptist of biblical fame. I guess religion runs in the family :D
What it doesn't mention, like the bible seldom does, are facts that are not inclusive to the gospel.
We don't find verses of Jesus sitting on the Jon, nor do we find verses of David groping his wives, nor do we find out that after Goliath's death his bones were turned into the first Hebrew amusement slide.
Nor do we find truthful facts like, Thomas's journey to India, where he was kiled by the Hindi's because of rapid Christian conversion, (Indo-Christians) and that he is mentioned in Hindi legend as well.
Peter and Pauls journeys into Rome and France and Britian, so on and so forth.
So then it is natural in our discourse, that we may come to the conclusion that the bible does not mention Benny IE, Jesus's little brother because he pursued the life of a carpenter who didn't preach. Or maybe to be creative, Jesus's sister, Sarah who married a Grecian, and moved to Athens.

Then it is safe, and natural to presume, like we do, that this holy line of Kings, could be related to Mary, through one of her children perhaps? And have come from the line so blessed to have Jesus Christ on its family tree.

As for the rest of the book, the world has not yet come to realize that the Knights Templar are not a finished order. That they do indeed protect such things that they consider sacred, Titular, mandylion, the grail.
But all that falls under Church history, and Modern World Banking.
If you want a good mystery with the Templars, then buy Broken Sword, Shadows of the Templar, or Circle of Blood as it was formerly known.

And as for old Da Vinci's code, the man had blue prints for tanks, helicopters and submarines, some say he is a time travelling, some say he is Merlin the magician, some say he discovered the fountain of youth, or was the wandering Jew.
All I can say about him, is that for his age in time, for his lifetime and even by todays standards, his works, drawings, ideas, and blueprints were nothing short of revolutionary genius.
His drawings on the human nervous system even by todays standards are still not obsolete to any other standard of drawing.
All in all, If there was a code in his drawings, I'd expect it not to do with the church, (for he wasn't a religious sort) but to do with some world stopping idea that he didn't want falling into my hands, or yours.
Like some sub-atomic deathray with built in waffle maker.

Anyways these are my thoughts on the book.
Please remember Christians, if it isn't in the bible, then it is always suspect to errors.
As for a piece of fiction, Its ok, but nothing I haven't had regurgitated in front of me before in other books.

Thanks for listening.
Shizz.

Jesus loves you!

"How often is it that you come here? Not often enough it would seem!"
-Words of wisdom from an angry prod stick.

[Uncybob]

The problem for me with Brown's book is it's unremitting plagiarism of others work. Regardless of whether their work is fictional or historical there is still a case to answer in how Brown has used the research of Baigent and Leigh.

There was never a case to answer with respect to the veracity of the storylines of DaVinci Code or Holy Blood... the storylines are incidental even fictional, if you like, and both, most obviously in the case of Brown's work, are designed for commercial purposes.

The other important point to make here is that the work of Baigent and Leigh (and thus Brown) is predicated on what is NOT in the bible and what is SUGGESTED by the Dead Sea Scolls and the gnostic gospels contained therein. Baigent and Leigh are quite clear that there work is speculative. The so-called discreditting of their work is therefore interesting in so far as the speculative nature of their work makes the debunking equally speculative and thus of little value.

The threat, or rather the percieved threat of Brown's book - and therefore Baigent and Leigh's - is that the traditional vision of Christ is jepordised. Which is to say that the rosy, flawless image of the son of god is changed. This is what makes people angry and breeds vitriolic and emotioanl responses.

More than this however, is the challenge to the veracity of the bible as an authoritative document which chronicles the life of a central figure of a religious and historical movement that underpins much of the law and culture of western society. Poeple get uncomfortable at this. Moreover, it follows that if the bible does not tell the whole story then how much more is there to be discovered? This is the real core of the Davinci Code/Holy Blood Holy Grail.

Interestingly though, the teachings of christ are never under threat. Whether he was married, had kids or got drunk is, I would suggest, completely irrelevant. Why? Because divinity is not a prerequisite for being a good and noble person.

The down side for the Catholic Church is that it is exposed as a power focused organisation that changes biblical text and removes opposition in order to preserve it's own power base. This is no great shock because it's a matter of public/historical record for any citizen to research. For this we certainly don't need Baigent, Leigh or especially Brown.

[Mililalil XXIV]

The other important point to make here is that the work of Baigent and Leigh (and thus Brown) is predicated on what is NOT in the bible and what is SUGGESTED by the Dead Sea Scolls and the gnostic gospels contained therein. Baigent and Leigh are quite clear that there work is speculative. The so-called discreditting of their work is therefore interesting in so far as the speculative nature of their work makes the debunking equally speculative and thus of little value.

More than this however, is the challenge to the veracity of the bible as an authoritative document which chronicles the life of a central figure of a religious and historical movement that underpins much of the law and culture of western society. Poeple get uncomfortable at this. Moreover, it follows that if the bible does not tell the whole story then how much more is there to be discovered? This is the real core of the Davinci Code/Holy Blood Holy Grail.

Interestingly though, the teachings of Christ are never under threat. Whether he was married, had kids or got drunk is, I would suggest, completely irrelevant. Why? Because divinity is not a prerequisite for being a good and noble person.

The down side for the Catholic Church is that it is exposed as a power focused organisation that changes biblical text and removes opposition in order to preserve it's own power base. This is no great shock because it's a matter of public/historical record for any citizen to research. For this we certainly don't need Baigent, Leigh or especially Brown.
So much fiction.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have no anti-Catholic hint of anything. They rather clarify a link between an earlier generation of Judaism and the emmergence of that development of Judaism into the Covenant of the Catholic Church.

The debunking of such crackpottery as that of Baigent and Leigh and Lincoln, and of Brown is very elementary, and a mere looking back to well known facts. All of the former three writers' book was staged, not researched - they spent more time inventing then taking inventory form prior-wriiten books.

I would be thrilled to see what else there is to know: the names of all the LORD's relatives; how all the Apostles' Missions went; etc.

If CHRIST merely taught Morals, and did not introduce a New Covenant, HE would not have been crucified. I'll verify that in a future post, when time is not sparse.

That last paragraph above has never been demonstrated to have any basis whatsoever. Just try to scrape up any evidence for those harsh slanders.