I am referring to the writings of D. Brown and what he says about that all.
Have you seen the movie yet? Are there any theological mistake in it?
ie - b r a z i l
2007-01-15 05:17:21 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As far as the religious history is concerned, it's about 40% true, 50% assumption / theory, and 10% false
For example:
- The book claims Jesus and Mary Magdeline were married. There is a little evidence to suggest this is POSSIBLE, but no evidence to suggest they had children.
- The book claims the Priory of Sion has been hiding the grail for hundreds of years. Actually, everything we know of the Priory links it to one of 3 men in the 1950's. It's thought to be a hoax
- The book discusses the Gnostic gospels, which really do exist. However, according to Brown one of the books claims Jesus kissed Mary on the mouth...acutally there's a hole in the parchment (we dont know where he kissed her)
- The history behind Constantine is roughly true, however Constantine did not shape all of Christianity...he merely unified it.
- The Nician Council. Mostly true. They really did decide on certain rituals, and voted on the divinity of Jesus.
2007-01-15 05:20:47 · answer #1 · answered by DougDoug_ 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well it's a big subject. The book was a page turner and much, much better than the recent "The Last Templar". Dan did a really good job of weaving truth in with fiction, giving it the feeling of being very plausible. On the other hand, the idea that the Templar's found the genealogy of Jesus, which was espoused in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a real stretch. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was at best historic fiction or a theory built on suppositions or assumptions. There are several problems with this whole premise, most notably the original 9 Templars probably did not read Hebrew or Arameic, and would have had to sort through a huge amount of decaying scrolls to find the right Jesus and his lineage.
It's probably more reasonable, and there is some evidence, that they found the Ark of the Convenant...
2007-01-15 13:32:04 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not so bad to twist facts a little bit in an obviously fictional book, but writers should use some common sense and if people will actually believe it, it is best to refrain. I had a great idea for an End Times book and I was going to include a part of people thinking they are descendants of Jesus and Mary, but when I saw that people were actually buying into it I did not even want to dare writing it, no matter how absurd I made it sound, because there are people weak enough to believe it.
The book begins, however, with this claim: all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate
Anyway I don't want to copy and paste so here are a list of some of the mistakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code
2007-01-15 13:57:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is plenty of evidence both from withon the scriptures and without. Seems someone didn't realise that Jesus was spoken about by those outside the faith. Roman Governor Tacticus spoke of followers of Jesus who had been crucified. His annals were written in in100 A.D. approximately. I don't have the exact year on hand at the moment. So contrary to the movie Jesus death wasn't invented in 300 A.D. Jesus was also mentioned by other early writers. And as far as scritures go there are no works of antiquity that can compare with their qaulity. There are over 25'000manuscripts part and whole books many whicch were written at a very early date. They were preserved in many different forms. Some on pottery and some on skins, and some on parchments. I am notsuggesting anyone has to believe them but what they should know is that they did exist and it is ridiulous to think Rome could have written them after 300 A.D. Some of these manuscripts have been uncovered by archelogists over the centuries, as late as 1970's remember the dead sea scrolls, again how would Rome have written these?
2007-01-15 13:28:36 · answer #4 · answered by Edward J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The greater truth in the Da Vince Code is that it got people thinking for themselves. Any time that the Catholic church demands people not read a book, everyone should rush out and read it immediately. People have the capasity to come to their own conclusions and do not need a church to tell them how to think.
2007-01-15 13:28:23 · answer #5 · answered by Militant Agnostic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was a great book and a good movie, a work of fiction. The author himself states that it is a work of FICTION, so why try to put more into it. Superman was also a great movie but I don't go around analyzing it and picking it apart for inconsistencies etc...
2007-01-15 13:23:55 · answer #6 · answered by Aine 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it was a well writen book, a good plot and interesting historical ties. However, people must get over themselves and realise that it was a work of fiction and no more.
2007-01-15 13:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't read the book but I saw the movie.
It was a pretty good flick, but it was based upon a lot of baloney. Still it was entertaining.
2007-01-15 13:46:56 · answer #8 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
reaaally intresting. I think it's a very nice work of fiction.
2007-01-15 13:23:53 · answer #9 · answered by Mz Bee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
false 100% fiction, proved by fact
2007-01-15 13:21:06 · answer #10 · answered by Cloud 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋