Da Vinci Code?

[Rosencrantz]

Is this technically a religious text? It references religion, and is just one big flow of self-aggrandisement. It treats possibility as fact, and twists things so they are so ridiculously convoluted, resulting in a rather flabby, meaningless text that had such a large effect, some people started believing it. If you don't believe in anything, then you should still realise that what Dan Brown says is complete bilge.
To quote a film magazine,
"When you present conjecture as fact, you create myth," David McGroarty, Empire Magazine

or something like that...

Da Vinci code is guilty on all accounts.

[kari]

I don't think the Da Vinci code is suppose to be considered a religious text. I have the understanding that it is theories, ideas, whatever you want to call them. They however could be true. I suppose at this point, there isn't any way to verify it all, is that correct? I suppose however, there are people that probably feel the same way about the Bible, and other religious texts as well. As for people believing it, it is kind of up to them...and doesn't necessarily mean that they were tricked into that belief by the way it was presented. I myself, don't have much of an opinion or personal thought on much of it (other than it being very interesting), aside from the thoughts on Mary, and how her role may have been much larger. I personally think that could be very true, and even find comfort in that to be honest. I don't at all feel that things were presented to me in a way that influenced me to believe. Not sure if I really answered anything for you, but I thought I might help out with the discussion a bit..
Kari

[hyperborean]

The Da Vinci Code is a work of pure fiction.

[kari]

what about those documents of a secret society...aren't those proven to exist? That listed the lifeline of Jesus. Not that I am desperate for those things to be true or anything...I was just always under the assumption that those things were found, and along with some of the other stuff...sprouted the rest that could very well be fictional.
Kari

[JBI]

Read Foucault's Pendulum. That book will put you straight. As for Dan Brown, anyone whose dates don't make sense with the proposed event isn't worthy of being regarded as well researched, or even close to truth.

[Rosencrantz]

Read Foucault's Pendulum. That book will put you straight. As for Dan Brown, anyone whose dates don't make sense with the proposed event isn't worthy of being regarded as well researched, or even close to truth.

Exactly, he has dressed flimsy research as truth, and its irritating how people have believed it.

[Niamh]

Many of the issues that dan brown mentions in the book, i have heard of many years before hand. the whole thing about mary magdeline etc. Barnabas is supposed to be his son also. i think he just badly touched on theories many others have been working on for a while. many of the original gospels which were discarded by the church in the 5 or 6century AD ,like that of Philip and Judas, are supposed to touch on many of these topics and also make Jesus seen as a mere mortal than the son of god. best way to make a man a Zion is to discard anything to do with family, children, wives etc.

[weepingforloman]

Many of the issues that dan brown mentions in the book, i have heard of many years before hand. the whole thing about mary magdeline etc. Barnabas is supposed to be his son also. i think he just badly touched on theories many others have been working on for a while. many of the original gospels which were discarded by the church in the 5 or 6century AD ,like that of Philip and Judas, are supposed to touch on many of these topics and also make Jesus seen as a mere mortal than the son of god. best way to make a man a Zion is to discard anything to do with family, children, wives etc.

First of all, those "gospels" were written later--about a hundred years after Mark.

And, for Kari, those documents were forged... the guy who "discovered" them admitted under oath to have faked them. Besides this, the main point of the Da Vinci Code is that Jesus would have been a "mortal prophet" if he had children, right? But why? Why does that follow? He was a man, after all.

[Pendragon]

The major question would be why Da Vinci, a man far beyond his times in technological thought, would waste his time with a coded message about religion? He was already using a code (mirror writing) in his journals, and since he was fairly outspoken, you would think he would at least hint at something there. Others have said the same about Christ, some claim to be his lintel descendants openly, so what's the big deal with this book? A best-selling work of fiction, yes; a religious treatise, no way.

[Nightshade]

Umm was it code? I thought the concensuss on the mirror writing was he had that strain of dyslexia that leads to mirror writing and could only write 'backwards'.
Or that he was just more comfortable with mirror writing the way Im more comfortable with the book upside down somtimes.

[kari]

And, for Kari, those documents were forged... the guy who "discovered" them admitted under oath to have faked them. Besides this, the main point of the Da Vinci Code is that Jesus would have been a "mortal prophet" if he had children, right? But why? Why does that follow? He was a man, after all.

For Weeping...I didn't know that he admitted they were forged. New info to me. Like I said, I don't know a whole lot about it all. As for the last part you wrote, I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the Da Vinci Code gives a different light onto Jesus, if He had children...that would make Him a mortal prophet? I guess I don't get that line of thinking...or what your point is there, if that is what you are saying. Explain that a bit more....
Kari

[weepingforloman]

Dan Brown said in an interview that he actually believed what he said about Jesus... and that his evidence "proved" that Christ was a mortal prophet, because apparently having children is something that would compromise Christ's divinity... it doesn't really make sense, but that's what he said.

[kari]

Ahhh...ok weeping. That doesn't make sense.
Kari

[amanda_isabel]

DVC as religious text? hardly. whi8le others consider it blasphemous, technically it's fiction.

and as irritating as it is that so many people have been confused by dan brown's work, we can't take legal action against him for creating a false impression.

[weepingforloman]

DVC as religious text? hardly. whi8le others consider it blasphemous, technically it's fiction.

and as irritating as it is that so many people have been confused by dan brown's work, we can't take legal action against him for creating a false impression.

Touche. Touche.

[stephofthenight]

ok. it is a fiction book! yes it has religious refrences...it was wrote to make you think...but it is what it is still. FICTION meaning not true. what happend is what he wanted to happen pretty much, you to think about it and to show just how weak our nation is becoming.

[Vittoria666]

Many of the issues that dan brown mentions in the book, i have heard of many years before hand. the whole thing about mary magdeline etc. Barnabas is supposed to be his son also. i think he just badly touched on theories many others have been working on for a while. many of the original gospels which were discarded by the church in the 5 or 6century AD ,like that of Philip and Judas, are supposed to touch on many of these topics and also make Jesus seen as a mere mortal than the son of god. best way to make a man a Zion is to discard anything to do with family, children, wives etc.

you are so right! Dan Brown made a pretty story out of it!

Althought fellow bloggers and forum readers, you should know that The Da Vinci Code consists of Dan Browns understanding of religeon!

he admitted this on national television...