The Da Vinci code

[Beren3000]

Anyone read the book?

What do you think of the theory that Christ was a mortal?

[Beor]

Yeah, man, that book kicks ass!

Check it out, I think that theory is quite a theory. Being brought up a Lutheran, it is hard to totally go back on everything I have ever learned, but hey, here we go. I think it is a valid theory. I can imagine the church doing that kind of stuff, espically back then. And the divine feminine thing is quite a thing too, espically since I think that women could run this place a lot better than guys for the most part anyway. I like the book, but I like the stuff presented in the book better. It is pretty incredible

[TreebeardQuickbeam]

Originally Posted by Beor

Yeah, man, that book kicks ass!

Check it out, I think that theory is quite a theory. Being brought up a Lutheran, it is hard to totally go back on everything I have ever learned, but hey, here we go. I think it is a valid theory. I can imagine the church doing that kind of stuff, espically back then. And the divine feminine thing is quite a thing too, espically since I think that women could run this place a lot better than guys for the most part anyway. I like the book, but I like the stuff presented in the book better. It is pretty incredible

On what basis do you believe Dan Brown's account of History? What credentials does he have that make him an expert? Do you believe everyone who says something is true without investigating their credibility? Are you aware of how many historical, theological, artistic, and place name errors are in that book?

1) There are no monks in Opus Dei
2) All the Places in France Mentioned in the book are in error, the French publishers corrected those errors after Dan Brown refused to.
3) The Church does not hate women-if it did it wouldn't have called Mary Queen of Heaven and Earth or cannonized hundreds of women saints,-one of which, by the way is St. Mary Magdaline.
4) There was a fraudulant Priory of Zion founded in 1956 as a political manuver. The original Priory of Zion Merged with the Jessuits sometime arround the 16th century
5) The Pope who supposedly threw ashes into the Tiber was living in France at the time. If he can throw something from France to Rome he should try out for the big leagues.
6) The Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Mary Magdaline do not Say Mary Magdaline Married Jesus. The Kiss Jesus supposedly gave Mary Magdaline was exchanged with his disciples as well. This wasn't a sign of affection, it was the way the Gnostics communicated secret knowledge. Gnosis=Knowledgle. The Gnostics would never have Mary marrying Jesus because they hated matter. Marriage was evil. Far from believing that the feminine is sacred, there is a passage in the Gospel of Thomas where The apostles object to Mary Magdaline and Jesus says not to worry, she must become a man to be saved.
7) Would you die for a lie? Would you be tortured for a lie? The early martyrs of the first four centuries were tortured and murdered for what they believed. We're not talking about a few suicidal crazies here-there were hundreds of martyrs in those centuries. Why would they subject themselves to this Brutality for a lie?
8) Read the Church Fathers and the Gospels. Jesus Said He was God, the Pharisees reacted to his claims by trying to stone him in the Gospel of John. They knew what he was claiming and thought it was blasphemy. The Church fathers for the first several centuries all believed Jesus was God. This wasn't an invention of Constantine, nor was the vote at Nicea a close vote. Ouit of 300 attendees exactly 2 supported Arius in his claim that Jesus was not God. 298 for divinity, 2 against is hardly a close vote. There was no reason for Constantine to want to declare Christianity a State religion unless he believed it, but he didn't declare it, he granted permission for Christians to worship freely.
9) Dan Brown says the Church executed 5 million people. Some protestants have claimed 90 Million were killed in Spain. There are Pagan Witch sites that think 30,000 is a generous estimate. In the Middle ages There weren't 90 Million people living in all of Europe. To Kill 90 Million in Spain they would have had to import people from Africa and Asia, and I think the Witches would have known about it if they had. By the way, Most of those executions of witches and heretics were carried out by seccular governments without Church approval. There was noi such thing as Freedom of religion in the middle ages, and so to defy the state religion was considered Treason. There was a case of a Woman who was tried in an English kangaroo court, falsely accused of being a witch and burned at the stake. the Church exonerated her and cannonized her St. Joan of Arc.
10) Art experts and professionals consider Dan Brown to be inccompetant. He claims the paiinting is a fresco when it isn't. It was painted on a wall and began to deteriorate within a few years of being painted. Dan Brown claims John is Mary Magdaline, but there is no evidence for that. In fact, it was common to paint young men with effeminite attributes durring the Rennaissance. The scene depicted is where Peter is asking John to ask Jesus who will betray him. If that's Mary, she looks like she's all over St. Peter. If my wife were doing that in front of me, I think I'd be upset! Further, a Magnifying glass taken to the now restored original painting will show that there is no bosom on St. John.

11) there are lots more. If anyone is interested, read the books "The Davinci Deception," and the "Davinci Hoax" especially since I'm typing from memory and may have made some mistakes along the way.st. Joan of Arc

[Beren3000]

I can't say I didn't like the book. The mere conception and plotting of such a story is overwhelming in its own right.
I also enjoyed the insights on the divine feminine, Hieros Gamos, and all that symbolism stuff...
However, being a devout Orthodox, I can't bring myself to believe that theory in any way, because there is a LOT of arguments that can go against it. For example: according to the theory, Christ is a mortal man but a great one. If so, why then hallow and almost worship his alledged wife?

Anyway, there's one thing I don't get about the sacred feminine concept. If the concept preaches union between male and female to achieve harmony, how come it gives precedence to females; shouldn't it preach equality instead?

[Beor]

I think it is because women are supposed to be divine anyway, for they can bring kids into the world. They are the place where all the magic takes place (uh-huh). The premise is that the only way that a man can glimse "God" is through a union of "love" (sex) with a woman, the climax, or "orgasm" being the point of divinity. Thus, orgasm=good.

They could worship ol Mary Magdelene, because she held the royal bloodline, and is, since Christ is the center point of Christianity, the prime candidate for the physical representative of the divine feminine.

remember, orgasm=good

[Beren3000]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I don't think you need a novel to tell you THAT!!

But anyway, you just refuted yourself:

Originally posted by Beor
since Christ is the center point of Christianity

but according to the theory of the book, Christianity is wrong. So how can they then revere Christ's "wife" and his "bloodline" as royal??

[BeardofPants]

While it raised some interesting ideas, it really annoyed me how Dan Brown treated everything as factual. Misleading at best. And badly written. At times he almost came across as 'lecturing', in his efforts to cram some of his 'theories' in there. Characters were flat, and ill-developed.

[Coney II]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
While it raised some interesting ideas, it really annoyed me how Dan Brown treated everything as factual. Misleading at best. And badly written. At times he almost came across as 'lecturing', in his efforts to cram some of his 'theories' in there. Characters were flat, and ill-developed.

Agreed. Seems he did a lot of research and used quite a lot of his own educational background for the book. It's just a shame that he decided to write this novel for the "brain dead" bestseller list As a bog-standard thriller that didn't require much in the way of thought, it was ok tho' .

In the hands of another author, one who wouldn't pander to such a formulaic style.........this could have been a cracking novel

On the plus side. Dan Brown's attempts at conveying romance between the two main characters gave me some of the best chuckles from a book for a long time

[Beren3000]

I disagree with you there. I think the book was well written. As to the lecturing tone, well...it's a new approach isn't it?

[Beren3000]

Anybody here read other works by Dan Brown (I read Digital Fortress)?

[Grey_Wolf]

The plot of this book reminds me of Michael Baigent's The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy which is about the same thing.

[Jabberwock]

I've read Brown's Angels and Demons and I have to say that all the way through reading it I was thinking 'why am I reading this?' and yet I read it really fast and enjoyed most of it. It wasn't an amazing book. I would even say it was all that good, but I still enjoyed it. I'm thinking of reading The Da Vinci Code, but Im waiting for soft cover. I've heard heard critics say that what Brown does in his books is better done by someone like Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. I've read that and its .... well, daunting in it's erudition. I liked it too. I have to say that Eco writes novels that read like text books and text books that read like novels. Brown, from what I've read, is a second rate, but very entertaining author.

[Beren3000]

I don't get it! Why is everyone bashing Brown this hard?

[Beor]

hey, man, dont worry, I got Brown's back. I aint the smartest person in the world, but I think he writes well, and if it comes off as a lecture, then it does, but I like the style. It makes it seem more real, and I think it generally kicks ass. I also read 'Angels and Demons' and 'Deception Point', and I thought they were also good. Although it seemed like A&D was about the same story as the Da Vinci code, just with a different series of riddles and a different backdrop. Still, I liked them both

[Beren3000]

I'm with you Beor. I think the guy's style is great. So what if he sounds like a textbook from time to time? And by the way, is Deception Point interesting? I'm considering reading it.
I'd also recommend you read Digital Fortress

[Coney II]

Originally posted by Beren3000
I don't get it! Why is everyone bashing Brown this hard?

I don't think it's so much a case of bashing.....just that Brown doesn't write in a style a lot of people enjoy (and then, millions do enjoy it).

It's all about personal taste

Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum. I've read that and its .... well, daunting in it's erudition.

I was discussing daVinci Code with a coupla friends and they reccomended this title, as covering a lot of the same themes but better written......looking forward to getting into it in the next coupla weeks

[Jabberwock]

I wasn't so much bashing Brown as I was saying that I don't know what it is about his writing that makes me want to read it. I'm not normally attracted to such fast paced novels. I like something I can emerse myself in and live with the characters for a while, but when the events of a novel take place in a few days, as in A&D, I usually hate the book.

As for Eco. Expect a history lesson in every chapter. Foucault's Pendulum is not nearly as fast paced as Brown's writing. It's about Rosecrusians (sp), illuminati, freemasons, etc. Mostly it's about how people can let their imagination get the best of them. I loved the book, but I'm also a big fan of Eco's nonfiction essays, which are much better than his novels. THere is an essay in one of Eco's books called Serendipities which goes into a bit more detail on the historical stuff presented in Foucault's Pendulum which might help someone reading the novel. The other essays in Serendipities are really interesting too.

[Mercutio]

"Dismantling the Da Vinci Code".

Its a bit long, gives away some of the book (so if you don't want spoilers, I suppose you can't read it, sigh). It talks about errors Brown made in research (or lack thereof), his unreliable sources, etc. And the author of the article and magazine it appeared in are quite legitimate.

[Beren3000]

Mercutio, I can't thank you enough for this link! I'll read it fully when I have time *runs to grab GCE papers *

[Mercutio]

Don't understand me wrongly about this (and my post with the review). Go ahead and read "The Da Vinci Code" and enjoy it (as a fictional novel). Just make sure you understand it is very very historically inaccurate and misinterprets many Christian aspects (to a quite demeaning degree sometimes).