Hay anyone read or see the move DaVince Code? Are the facts about Jesus correct? Is Dan Brown right?

Answer 1

he pulls stuff out of his **** and calls it fact



What’s wrong with The Da Vinci Code?

It’s only fiction. What’s the big deal? The author (Dan Brown) does not think he is reporting fiction. On a June 9, 2003 interview on the Today show Brown said that it was his goal to "challenge certain long-held beliefs or truths about religion.” So he is obviously interested in persuading readers to a certain point of view.

Works of fiction are very capable of changing people’s minds about facts. In the Civil War era, the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was instrumental in getting Americans to reject slavery, even though it was a work of fiction. The author of that book, Harriet Beecher Stowe, defended her book’s accuracy when critics attacked it. Why won’t Dan Brown defend his book from critics, if he really thinks it is worthy of challenging “long-held beliefs or truths”?

What’s wrong with it? The Da Vinci Code is filled with errors of fact on nearly every subject it touches. Here are some samples:

Jesus. The book says that Jesus had “thousands” of followers who recorded his life’s story, and that more than eighty gospels were produced. This is a practically an impossibility to begin with, because some 90 to 95 percent of people who lived at the time of Jesus could not read or write. However, the number of Gospels written over time by various parties (80) is inflated. No more than 50 such documents are known, many of them just by a title, and those otherwise known as full documents are often not properly “gospels” in form (in other words, they are not in the format of biographies as they were written in the first century, which the Gospels of the New Testament are). They are also certifiably written much later than the canonical four Gospels, and are not regarded as credible sources for the life of Jesus.

Constantine. The book says that Constantine “collated” the New Testament collection of books. Constantine in fact had nothing to do with the canon; the formal declaration of the canon occurred at a council that took place after Constantine’s death, and prior to this, consensus among the leaders in the church was the determining factor in what books were considered authoritative.

Mithra. The book claims that this ancient deity was a mirror image of the figure of Jesus: That he had been called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. All of these claims are false, and are unknown to scholars who study Mithra. Mithra never died himself but was acclaimed for killing a cosmic bull (of the constellation Taurus).

The Council of Nicea. Contrary to the book, this Council did not decide that Jesus was divinity and not a mortal man. Both sides in this Council agreed that Jesus was divinity. The question at hand was whether Jesus was a created deity or an eternal deity.

Leonardo da Vinci. There is no evidence that da Vinci was a "nature worshipper" as Brown claims; he did many sketches of nature, but none of them had religious elements. Brown depicts Leonardo as being into the "darker arts"; in fact Leonardo was severely critical of the occult and pseudo-sciences and only gave some respect to alchemy where it came closer to being chemistry. He did not, contrary to Brown, believe he could turn lead into gold. He did not design torture devices as Brown says, though he did design some weapons of war.

The Mona Lisa. Brown claims that the painting was named by da Vinci to indicate a secret code made of an anagram for the Egyptian deities Amon and Isis. But the painting was not called “Mona Lisa” by da Vinci. In his time it was called “La Gioconda”. It is also not, as Brown indicates, a version of da Vinci dressed as a women, but the wife of a local merchant, as records of the time indicate.

Everything Else. It would take several pages to list all of Brown’s errors, but here are a few others:

Brown often refers to the "Vatican" as though it were synonymous with the Catholic Church. He refers to Constantine creating a "new Vatican power base." The Vatican as such did not exist until the 14th century as the Pope's residence; in Constantine's time it was still a swamp.

Brown says that Pope Clement V burned Templar knights and threw their ashes into the Tiber River. It was King Philip who burned the knights, and Clement could not have had their ashes tossed in the Tiber River (in Rome) even if he had burned them, because the Popes resided in Avignon (France) at the time; either the Tiber was diverted hundreds of miles, or Clement had a good throwing arm.

Brown applies the "Divine Proportion" to the population of beehives. The author of this commentary spoke with several beekeepers, all of whom scoffed at this idea. The ratio of male to female bees in a hive is not 1.618 to 1. A hive is usually at least 95% female. One beekeeper said that a hive with the proportions Brown describes would be dead within a few days, since females do all the real hive work. Perhaps some species of bee comes close to having the proportions Brown describes at some time, but it is clearly not a bee universal.

For further reading: Please consider these brief notes food for thought. If you wish for more details on this issue, please check If you do not have access to online resources, please see either The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olsen and Sandra Miesel (for a detailed treatment) or The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? By Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier (for a summary treatment).

Answer 2

Having read the book, seen the movie and read and seen many of the books and videos that have been published since it was written. Is Dan Brown right? Yes, he states that the book is a work of fiction - "a history mystery" and he gets himself into a jam with a lot of academics because of the fact page.

On several of the controversial subjects he is right and takes a lot of his background material from other source like Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln - Holy Blood and Holy Grail that put forth many of the hypothesis for the relationship of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Margeret Starbird has written many books on the same subject using biblical references to show the relationship. The Gnostic Gospels (Karen King and Elaine Pagels have done extensive studies) which may be many more than we have today are another source of information that are being studied. The identification of how the "church" became the church and changed is a matter of the culture and the time of it's evolution. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince authors of The Templar Revelations and several other books are cited for their extensive research into this subject including the identification of Mary Magdalene sitting at the right side of Jesus in The Last Supper by Leonardo.
One of the best things to come out of this novel and others that are in a similar vein is the discussion we all are having on this subject about our "belief and faith" is something that does not change with a novel or even if Jesus would have been married.
So, like you, am still on a quest to look into the "facts vs fiction" and then decide what is real and what is not. It is different for each person. I know that the more that I discover the more I want to know....

Just think about the latest revelations about The Gospel of Judas but that is another story....

Answer 3

No.

Even some of the "facts" you can check are wrong. They may seem like minor things, but Dan Brown gets the number of glass panels in the pyramid in front of the Louvre wrong, he describes the painting Sophie picks up and defends herself with as being a different size and medium than it actually is and the "close vote" at the Council of Nicaea was actually something like 200-2.

Things that aren't flat out wrong are often misleading. Many sources have proven the Priory of Sion was a big hoax. It wasn't created until the mid 20th Century and its founder planted evidence in the French National Library to try and show it was much older.

And, while there are multiple "gospels" floating around (not quite 80, though) the four accepted ones are the ones that have been dated to the decades just after Jesus' death. They were likely written and read by eye witnesses and were accepted as holy scripture long before the Council of Nicaea. Many of the others were not written until a century or two after the events they describe - so "The Gospel of Thomas" really wasn't written by apostle.

The DaVinci Code claims all of its "facts" are true. But they obviously aren't. So I'm not going to trust Dan Brown about shadowy conspiracy theories either. A secret like that would have been way too big to stay a secret for 2,000 years.

Answer 4

As they have said in the news and other places, the book is pure fiction. I have read the book and even though it gets you thinking, it is just fiction. The Catholic may be trying to hide some information, but we will never know. The facts about Jesus may be correct, only in fiction may I remind you. That is what makes a good book, the plot that makes people think. Dan Brown is just a very talented writer that makes people think and question. Hope this resolved your question. I am Agnostic by the way.

Answer 5

he is right and takes a lot of his background material from other source like Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln - Holy Blood and Holy Grail that put forth many of the hypothesis for the relationship of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Margeret Starbird has written many books on the same subject using biblical references to show the relationship. The Gnostic Gospels (Karen King and Elaine Pagels have done extensive studies) which may be many more than we have today are another source of information that are being studied. The identification of how the "church" became the church and changed is a matter of the culture and the time of it's evolution. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince authors of The Templar Revelations and several other books are cited for their extensive research into this subject including the identification of Mary Magdalene sitting at the right side of Jesus in The Last Supper by Leonardo.

Answer 6

The things which are facts are correct. That is the definition of the word "fact". A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. Something believed to be true or real.

Some things in the book are NOT fact. They are made up to enhance the storyline.

The author has stated his book is a work of FICTION. Now that does not mean that everything in the book is untrue or not real. There is a place called France, there is a museum there called the Le Louvre, other places and information are correct or based on historical documentation, but remember the storyline is a work of FICTION - and remember an author can make up what he/she wishes in a fictional piece.

Answer 7

dan brown mixes fact with fiction in his book.

brown IS correct in his statements about Da Vinci's paintings and works of art. these findings have been speculated over many years. none of the asumptions brown made have ever been proven to be true. nobody will know whether or not Da Vinci Code is only something out of the mind of Brown along with other's for years, or actually true. nobody has ever proven anything about the speculations against the Bible, but you have to consider that neither have the beliefs the Bible actually teach you.

for the most part, The Da Vinci Code is fiction until proven true. It's like the saying, innocent until proven guilty.

Answer 8

There are things in the story based upon fact, for example there really is an Opus Dei organization and people who do support the idea that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene. However, the idea behind the book is fiction. I think that's what makes the story so great, though -- there is just enough fact woven in to make people wonder!

Answer 9

The book is fiction which has been grounded upon some basic facts e.g. the existence of the religious group Opus Dei, the paintings shown on the Louvre, etc.

Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus is entirely fiction.

Answer 10

i dont know if they are correct or not.. but it was defintly a good read.. i feel people should just take it as a work of fiction and move on instead of making such a big thing out of it... i agree there are people who are into christianity who do not believe in what dan brown states. but it is just a book..
and yes i have seen the movie as well as read the book.. reading is more fun.

Answer 11

There is an old maxim in the study of history; whatever can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. There are no infallible arguments to directly contradict Dan Brown. Nor are there any rationally plausible arguments to support him. Evidence is too scarce when studying the historical Jesus to definitely assert anything beyond existence and death.