How do you feel about the DaVinnic code?

Question

The author of this book is nothing more than Judas who did betray Jesus for thiry peices of silver!. And I beleive that Mary
Magdalene were the only true believer in Jesus and washed His hair with her tears. Any belief that she and our Lord & Savior may have been intimate is sickening. I would not want to face judgment-day from of God for this mockery...

Answer 1

I see it like this... it's good fiction, but nothing supports it. it isn't science it's just a way to be part of the cool crwod and say that Jesus had a '*****'. I feel sorry for anyone who believes it... like those people who believe evls and gnomes secretly roam the earth... Dan Brown did it for the money... If you don't believe that and in his book as fact than you live in la la land... with magical fairies and unicorns and who else cares. I like when stupid people get all huffy puffy about being wrong about fictional problems.

Answer 2

Sometimes I think it is good to be open minded to these things. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it with an open mind. Why are women treated as sinful burdens throughout history. Because the story took a turn and someone didn't like the way it was going so they looked for a way to straighten it out. Why is it sinful to believe that Jesus was married and had a child. That theory does not seem sinful. Jesus was a man/prophet, could it be possible that the work Jesus did while on earth was of more importance than his personal life and the stories that were told were to get people to behave themselves so his personal life again was of no importance.

Answer 3

Da Vinci Code?

I don't think the possiblilty of Jesus (a man) being intimate with a woman is sickening. He had a very elevated consciousness and came to deliver God's message, but still, he was in a human body and had human desires. There is nothing sickening about that.

Answer 4

its not mockery-its freedom of speech. But yes, i could totally see your point of view, about how the intimacy between a sacred figure and a 'whore' like mary magdalene could be offensive. But i found the idea that jesus was a human not obliged to celibacy interesting. Isnt the divinity of celibacy just social thing..Anyway i find it annoying how ppl take the bible to heart word for word--we cannot argue over something trivial that is most likely altered. However i am against the condemnation/censure of literature, freedom of speech is a valuable luxury hard fought for..

Answer 5

I only read the book, by Dan Brown. It is well written, as a best-seller, retaining the reader's interest almost to the end. But what concerns me greatly indeed, is the wrong spiritual message, and the negatively distorted image of Leonardo Da Vinci, that it conveys. Both these topics are close to my heart, and are a central part of my work.

The book capitalises on the growing interest of people in the truth about the religions, Christianity in particular. It re-collects the events of the year 325 when the Roman emperor Constantine declared Christ for the son of God, based on a vote. It was a political act that cemented the status quo of the power within the society. Christ's teachings encouraged self-responsibility, and the exceptional example of his life reflected courage and reliance on inner guidance, rather than obedience to the authorities. The church wanted to rule to a fearful mass of obedient subjects, ideally without a mind of their own. All original documents containing the teachings of Christ were ceased and destroyed, and a bible was subsequently construed including only text that invited passivity and subservience. Christ, who was an inspiring, passionate and determined leader, was declared a sterile and elusive Son of God who died for other people's sins. This left his followers forever guilty, small and helpless. The Church leaders announced themselves to be the representatives of God, at the same time. Many centuries of oppression and terror against those who wanted to keep Christ's true legacy alive, followed. These pertinent historical events are used as a backdrop to the story.

But then, the thread proceeds to those who sought to retain the true teachings of Christ alive, right to the present days. And this is where the book goes seriously wrong, and in my opinion, reaches the gutter. It becomes a cheap sex orientated "spiritual" thriller, the bottom line of which is the focus on female genitals. Even worse, the names of the leaders of some societies that acted as the protectors of the truth, become implicated in an utterly distasteful and shameful suggestion that the Holy Grail had basically a sexual focus and that group sexual rituals would have been performed by leaders of such groups. Leonardo Da Vinci is named as one such leader, besides other popular names in history.

It is further stated in the book, that Leonardo Da Vinci had a "dark side" to himself, and misconstrued interpretations of his actions are used to support that statement. This can only be an indication of the character of the writer himself, and whilst demonstrating his lack of an ability to comprehend the unique genius of Da Vinci. The writer seems only able to make suggestions about him from what he finds inside himself.

Much of the book's initial popularity is down to the roman catholic church issuing a statement inviting people not to read it. This had an opposite effect, and the book is a best-seller. Having read the book to the end, I would not be surprised if it would have been a clever move by the roman catholic church to discredit the spiritual movement, instead. The book is in my opinion simply an attempt to cash in on the precious and sensitive subject of the true legacy of Christ by putting it into a context that is repulsive.

The underlying story is presented in a cheap James Bond type of a cliché that ends in an entirely illogical anti-climax. The over 500 pages long quest for the Holy Grail is completely thrown away in the last chapter, that turns into a happy re-union with people who were throughout the previous 500 pages presumed dead.

The real last owners of the Holy Grail were the Cathars, and their priests and priestesses lived very simple and pure lives which was the main trait by which they are remembered and respected to date. Under Direct Divine guidance, their leader, Thomas De Montsegur, wrote up comprehensively into a single document the full account of the Spiritual Laws, as they had previously been suggested in the many fractional sources of the Holy Grail. But that information too, was ceased and destroyed by the church with the annihilation of the Cathars. It had been prophesied that the truth will be unveiled at the beginning of the 21st century. Thomas's work was channelled to me by My Divine Spirit Guide Lysseus and is freely available as the Concept of Rational Spirituality on www.dhaxem.com.

The only thing that the book left behind in me, is disgust. I completely separate myself from any of the statements and conclusions made on the interpretation of the Holy Grail by Dan Brown, and that must be clear to anyone who met me, or read some of my ideas.

Answer 6

The Da Vinci Code is just a movie and a book, that's all.

Answer 7

Did you read the disclaimer at the beginning of the book that says it is a work of fiction?

I wouldn't worry so much about Dan Brown's soul if I were you. At least he can spell DaVinci.

Answer 8

It's an ok book. And a decent movie. Not one of the best ones that Tom Hanks has done, but still good.

Answer 9

I wasn't morally outraged. I liked a lot of the plotting but thought his characters were weak. Overhyped.

Answer 10

It is just a book/movie not gospel