how many of you think the da vinci code has veridic statements about christianity and Jesus and so on?

Question

i read the book and i have to say wow it has a lot of things that could easily confuse a christian... if what Dan Brown wrote in this book is all bogus, wow he has an extraordinary ability to make stories because it all ties in. i must say, the plot is very interesting, but do you think what they mention about christianity, Jesus, the sacred femenine, the list of grand masters of the priory of scion is true in any way? and please answer only if you have read the book dont spill your christian beliefs on this if you havent read the book. ANSWER OBJECTIVELY

Answer 1

Here is something I wrote about the Da Vinci Code back when it was popular. If you are serious about your question, you will take the time to read it.

On page 231, Teabing says, “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven . . . The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”

First of all, if you are going to criticize someone’s beliefs, you need to first get those beliefs right. The implied view that “the Bible arrived by fax from heaven” or “dropped out of the clouds” is a straw man. Christians don’t believe that and the Bible doesn’t say it. Yes, the Bible was composed by men, but men who were chosen instruments of God. 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by God, that they are “God breathed.” God made sure that what they wrote was accurate.

Now, “countless translations, additions, and revisions” is excessive hyperbole and you will notice that there is no specific charge here of what was translated, added, or revised. The truth is, there is a wealth of evidence for the integrity of the New Testament documents. How do we know that the NT is reliable, that it hasn’t been changed? Well, one thing we can do is compare its manuscript value to the manuscript value of classical histories which are generally received as authentic.

First, how many manuscripts do we have; how many have been found? You see, they didn’t have the printing press, so ancient documents had to be copied by hand. And so we don’t have the originals of any ancient literature, just copies. So, why do we care about how many we have? Well, the more ancient manuscripts you find, the more capable you are of being able to come up with the more exact text of the original, since little copying errors and additions can sneak in.

Now, we have 10 manuscript copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Of other ancient writings, some are more and some are less, but very few ever get over a hundred. You may want to hold on to your seat—the truth is, we have over, 24,600 ancient manuscripts of the NT that have been found, and over 5,600 of those are in the original Greek language. The next closest of any ancient literature is Homer’s Iliad at 643 manuscripts and that is considered to be unusual. The New Testament is by far the best of all known ancient literature in manuscript copies; the others are not even in the same league.

Second, how early are the manuscripts; how close to the author can we find copies? Why do we care? Well, the further you get removed from the original, the more you can expect intrusion of legends and errors to creep into the text.

Julius Caesar wrote around 50 BC and the closest manuscript we can find is over 900 years later. That’s plenty of time for changes to creep into the text. Of the 142 books of Livy’s History of Rome (59 BC–AD 17), only 35 of them have survived in 20 manuscripts and only one of them (that just contains fragments) is as old as the fourth century (400 years later). Many have much larger gaps than these and are never found in the generation of those who witnessed the events. Why are we not questioning those works?

With the New Testament though, we have manuscripts from the second and third century and even have fragments that have been dated by some to be as early as the first century, the eyewitness generation. We have fragments of the New Testament with only a 50-year gap from the originals, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole New Testament with only a 225 year gap.

Dr. John Montgomery said, “...to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.” You see, the truth is, the NT has more integrity in this area than any other ancient writing. Now, as far as “History has never had a definitive version of the book,” I'll talk about that in a bit.

Later on page 231, Teabing says, “Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen . . . Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land . . . More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them . . . The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.”

One problem is that Jesus became a figure of “staggering influence” really only after the day of Pentecost when the church began to grow. You see, Jesus was not a member of any known political party; He never addressed the Roman Senate; He never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine; His closest friends were fishermen; He associated with the despised and rejected; etc. There were thousands of people who heard Him speak from time to time, but in the beginning of Acts, He only had about 120 disciples, which means He could not have had “thousands of followers across the land” to write authoritative biographies. And there is also the problem that many scholars say about 90% of the people back then were illiterate, which means they would be unable to write such works to begin with.

What about the assertion that there were “more than eighty gospels” around to choose from? Dr. Craig Bloomberg says if we look in the first four centuries for every gospel found and even those that are simply referenced in other writings, the most you can come up with is twenty-four.

Later on, Teabing will make reference to the Nag Hammadi Library of gnostic writings discovered in Egypt (he calls them scrolls, but they were actually in book form). They consist of forty-five separate titles and only five were gospels: The gospel of Truth, Thomas, Philip, Egyptians, and Mary. From what I understand, the most generous count of this type of extrabiblical documents stands at about 60, but very few of those could be considered “gospels.” I'll talk more about these other gospels later.

He then says the Bible was collated by Constantine. There is no doubt that Constantine was an important figure in Christian history. He granted freedom of worship in 313 AD and held the council of Nicaea in 325. The church went from being persecuted by the empire to being endorsed by the emperor. But one thing he certainly did not do is collate the New Testament. We still have the proceedings of the council of Nicea and all the scholars I’ve read are agreed that there is not one line in there that refers to what books should be in the Bible.

The gathering of the New Testament documents began within the first century. Paul referred to Luke’s Gospel as “scripture” in 1 Tim. 5:18. Peter referred to Paul’s writings as “scripture” in 2 Pet. 3:15-17. The canon was decided by God and merely recognized by man (“canon” is a term that means “standard” or “rule” and refers to the books received as Scripture by the church).

In speaking about this, Dr. Phil Sanders said, “Nor should we think that Athanasius in 367 AD, the council of Hippo in 393, or the Synod of Carthage in 397 determined the canon of the New Testament. The church did not determine what had been believed for centuries, but merely recognized the canon.”

Now, the early Christian writers (known as the church fathers) constantly quoted from the writings we have in our New Testaments. Polycarp (69-156 AD) quotes or refers to 18 New Testament letters including all four Gospels. Ignatius (35-107 AD) quotes or refers to 24 New Testament letters including all four Gospels. Clement (first century) quotes or refers to the existence of 11 New Testament letters including Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Just from those three writers, we see that at least 25 of the 27 books we have in the New Testament were accepted and circulating by the beginning of the second century.

Geisler and Nix in their General Introduction To The Bible said of their investigation, “A brief inventory at this point will reveal that there were some thirty-two thousand citations of the New Testament prior to the time of the Council of Nicea (325) . . . Hence, prior to the period of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, there is overwhelming evidence in the manifold witness of the outstanding church Fathers to the text of the New Testament.”

J. Harold Greenlee wrote about the early church fathers and said, “These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament Manuscripts.” Sir David Dalrymple was asked about this one time and later reported: “That question roused my curiosity, and as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.” That’s amazing! If there are other gospels that should be considered authoritative, why didn’t the early church writers quote from them in the same way?

One more piece of evidence: In 303 AD, the Roman Emperor Diocletian gave an edict that called for the destruction of the Christian Scriptures, which makes no sense if there was no definitive version of the Bible until the time of Constantine, twenty-two years later. Obviously there must have been a set of books so well defined and universally accepted, that even outsiders knew which books the Christians considered as Scripture.

Next, on page 232, Teabing says, “Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras—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. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans . . . Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the sun.”

So, what about Mithraism and these other pagan religions? I know someone who fell away because of this pagan–copycat thesis.

In the book The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel, it says, “Unfortunately for Brown and the authors of ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail,’ there is little or no evidence that most pagan mystery religions, such as the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris or the cult of Mithras, existed in the forms described in their books prior to the mid-first century. This is a significant point, for much of the existing evidence indicates that the third and fourth-century beliefs and practices of certain pagan mystery religions are read back into the first-century beliefs of Christians  without support for such a presumptive act.”

J. P. Holding on his website (www.tektonics.org) talks a lot about these pagan mystery religions and the pagan–copycat thesis. He said this about The Da Vinci Code statement: “Not surprisingly, scholars of Mithraism know nothing of any of this . . . I have previously surveyed Mithraic studies literature and neither of these titles is noted by Mithraic scholars . . . He died, and was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. This is simply false. The Mithraic scholar Richard Gordon says plainly that there is ‘no death of Mithras’ – which means, there can be no burial of Mithras, and no resurrection of Mithras, either. Some amateur writers cite the church writer of the fourth century, Firmicus, who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras; but this is far too late to have influenced Christianity (if anything, the influence was the other way around).”

Josh McDowell (the noted apologist) said, “Indeed, it is a question of who influenced who. With Christianity exploding onto the scene of the Roman Empire, it is evident that other religions adopted certain teachings or practices from Christianity in order to stem the tide of departing adherents and/or to attract Christians to their side.”

You see, Dan Brown has it the wrong way around. There seems to be more evidence to the effect that pagan mystery religions more often borrowed from Christian themes. Now, it is true that Christians later stole the date of December 25, but as you know, the Bible never associates December 25th with the birth of Christ. It’s what the Bible says that we are concerned with.

What about worshiping on Sunday? It is pretty clear from the New Testament that the early Christians worshiped on the “first day of the week.” Acts 20:7, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread...” The context indicates that this is the Lord’s Supper. 1 Cor. 16:2, “On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper...” Why do it on the first day of the week? Because that is the day they were meeting.

And the early church fathers also make it clear that Sunday was being observed well before Constantine. Ignatius (in about 35-107 AD) wrote: “If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher.” And Ignatius and others specify the “Lord’s Day” as the day on which Jesus was resurrected, which was a Sunday.

Justin Martyr (100-165) wrote, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read . . . Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly...”

Constantine had nothing to do with saints assembling on the first day of the week. Christians have been worshiping God on Sunday ever since the establishment of the church in the first century.

Then, on page 233, Teabing says, “Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea . . . many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course the divinity of Jesus . . . until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal!” Sophie responds, “Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing added.

It is actually as Dr. Darrell Bock has said, “The vote at Nicaea, rather than establishing the church’s beliefs, affirmed and officially recognized what was already the church’s dominant view.”

The truth is, they were debating because heretics had come out against the already-held view that Jesus was divine. The heretical view, held by Arius, maintained that Jesus was created in ages past by God and thus He was not co-eternal with the Father. But something Brown doesn’t mention is that Arius believed Jesus created the universe and was sinless. The opposing view at Nicaea was not that Jesus was a mere man.

And Dan Brown’s “close vote” was actually “about 300 to 2,” according to Dr. Paul Maier and many others; it was a landslide. But that vote didn’t settle the matter regarding Jesus’ deity; it was settled by Jesus and the apostles in the first century.

The writings of Paul date between AD 48 and 68, almost three hundred years before Nicaea, and there are many places where Paul affirms Jesus’ deity. One example is Phil. 2:5-7, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”

And many of the church fathers who wrote before the Council of Nicaea affirmed the deity of Jesus.
Ignatius, “God Himself was manifested in human form” (AD 105).
Clement, “It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God” (AD 150)
Justin Martyr, “Being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God” (AD 160).
Irenaeus, “He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this” (AD 180).
Tertullian, “Christ our God” (AD 200).
Origen, “No one should be offended that the Savior is also God (AD 225).
Novatian, “He is not only man, but God also” (AD 235).
Cyprian, “Jesus Christ, our Lord and God” (AD 250).

And there are many more quotes like these that you can find much earlier than the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Even the Roman official, Plinius Secundus, wrote to the emperor in 112 AD about the Christians and said, “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not the commit any wicked deed.”

The Nicean council was certainly not responsible for inventing the idea that Jesus was deity.

Next, on page 234, Teabing says, “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned . . . Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms.”

We learn from Eusebius that Constantine did in fact commission 50 copies of the Bible around AD 330 for use in the church buildings being built in Constantinople. But this was not a new Bible, and he did not omit any of the already accepted books; this Bible simply reflected what the church had already accepted.

He says the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s and contained other gospels about Jesus. Well, they were actually first discovered in 1947 and contained Jewish writings from a Jewish religious sect, not Christian writings. They are mostly copies of Old Testament books, and internal documents for the Qumran community that were written between about 250 BC and 100 AD. What these documents do, is show us how accurately the Old Testament was copied through the centuries. But the fact is, Jesus of Nazareth is never even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, there is debate as to whether fragments of the Gospel of Mark were discovered—and if that is found to be true, then that is just more evidence against The Da Vinci Code.

Now, these other gospels that he is talking about (like those in the Nag Hammadi library) are the Gnostic Gospels and they are certainly not the “earlier gospels,” the exact opposite is true. While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John date from the first century, the Gnostic gospels date from no earlier than the mid-second century.

Now, I need to give you a bit of background. Gnosticism was a Christian sect in the second and third centuries. It was pretty much a combination of Christianity and Greek philosophy. The word “Gnosticism” comes from the Greek word γνσις meaning knowledge. You see, they claimed to have a special secret channel of knowledge that other Christians didn’t have; kind of like spiritual one-upmanship. They believed that they had access to advanced, exclusive teachings that other Christians did not possess. And to get people to more widely accept their writings, they assigned pseudo-names to them like the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Gospel of Philip” or the “Gospel of Judas.”

The church knew about their writings and the overwhelming majority of Christians immediately discarded them. As Dr. Phil Sanders said, “The other so-called gospels never met the criteria for canonization. They were not apostolic, orthodox, aged, or used widely in the churches. Instead, they were second-century fabrications of heretics. They were not lost or hidden; they were rejected and deserved to pass away into obscurity.”

Quite a few of the church fathers in the second and third century wrote against the gnostic heresy in their writings (like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Tertullian, and others). These church fathers were very critical of the Gnostics, insisting that their teachings and writings were at odds with apostolic teaching. Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Irenaeus (130-200) said, “They bring forward an endless number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged. They use them to bewilder the minds of foolish men and those who are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.”

Origen (185-255) said, “I know a certain gospel which is called ‘The Gospel according to Thomas’ and a ‘Gospel according to Matthias,’ and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only the four gospels should be accepted.” Did you catch that? The “four gospels.” It almost sounds as if Origin was commenting on The Da Vinci Code.

It was the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that were accepted by the early church. Iranaeus (130-200 AD) in his writings Against Heresies spoke against those who would only use one of the gospels and named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He then said in the next chapter, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are . . . He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.” With that, we can see that the four gospels were accepted at least 150-200 years before Constantine.

Lee Strobel said, “None of the later and fanciful Gnostic gospels, which Brown credulously touts in The Da Vinci Code, come anywhere close to matching the credentials of the four biblical Gospels. They were written at least 150 to 200 years after the events they purport to describe and thus have no ties to eyewitnesses; bear the obvious earmarks of legendary development; and are hopelessly tainted by esoteric theological agendas.”

I like what Dr. Darrell Bock said, “There is an irony in the use of such extrabiblical texts. It is that some people raise questions and doubts about some of the biblical gospel material because they regard it as prejudicial. Yet authors writing more than a century later, operating on what seems to be the fringe of Christianity, are treated as if they speak truth—no questions asked.”

Something else is the idea that these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms, which is absolutely false. Dr. Scot McKnight says, “...what is most alarming is that the gospels that were not included in the New Testament are, in fact, much more supernatural. They present Jesus as much more magical than anything close to what we find in the New Testament.”

The truth is, the Gnostic beliefs and gospels denied Jesus’ humanity. The Gnostics believed that matter was evil, and therefore it was inconceivable to them that Jesus could have ever been fully human.

Our next statement is found on page 245. Robert Langdon this time, speaking of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene said, “…Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor … Because Jesus was a Jew … the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood.”

First of all, I thought it was clearly affirmed that the New Testament could not be trusted; why is he arguing from what it does or does not say? But since he is arguing from the New Testament, I’d like to point out a few things. Whenever Jesus’ family is referred to, it is his mother and brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. And what about the idea that Mary Magdalene was His wife? Well, among the people who were at the crucifixion, there was Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene. Jesus singled out His mother and made sure she would be taken care of after He was gone, but there is nothing for Mary Magdalene (John 19:25-27). Doesn’t that seem a little strange if she was His wife? Special care for His mother, but not His wife? And in 1 Cor. 9:5 we have Paul (who was not married) saying, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” If Jesus had been married, Paul would have certainly cited Him as the ultimate example.

Now what about the idea that celibacy was condemned? We learn from rabbinical literature that there were exceptions to this, like someone who was studying the Law. Postponement of marriage was permitted to students of the Law so they could concentrate their attention on their studies. We also see that the Essenes (a Jewish sect from that time) were described by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny as being celibate. And there is the fact that many of the prophets throughout Jewish history were often celibate, like John the Baptist.

Although it would have been “normal” and expected for a young Jewish man to be married, we have examples like this where celibacy was accepted and even encouraged. And besides, Jesus didn’t always follow the cultural norms; He often cut a distinctive path, and many times criticized them for their traditions. And just to put the nail in the coffin, in Matthew 19, Jesus spoke of becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven.

Teabing continues with more “evidence” of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene on pages 246 by quoting from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip: “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’” And then he said, “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse.”

Scholars date the Gospel of Philip to the third century, about 200 years after Jesus lived, and therefore this was not a product of Philip, unless he lived to be at least 300 years old. My point is, even if the gnostic gospels flat out said they were married, what would that prove? They are too far removed from Jesus’ life. But the fact of the matter is, they didn’t.

First, let’s talk about the statement that Jesus used to kiss her on the mouth. First of all, if she was his wife, why would the other disciples be offended if He kissed her on the mouth and wonder why He loved her more than them? Of course He would love her more than them, if she was His wife. That right there is enough to discount it.

But another problem is that the quality of the manuscript is so poor that a word or two is missing in the original. The text actually reads, “Jesus kissed her often on the [blank] …” It could be hand, cheek, forehead, face, mouth, etc.

What about the idea that the Aramaic word “companion” means “spouse”? Well, Dr. Craig Bloomberg has said, “No Aramaic or Hebrew words for companion normally mean spouse.”

But that doesn’t even matter; this document was actually written in Greek and what we have today is a Coptic translation. So the word’s meaning in Aramaic is totally irrelevant. Josh McDowell talks about this and said, “...the word used is neither Aramaic nor Coptic, but is actually a Greek loan word, koinonos, which clearly refers to a friend or associate, not spouse. So the one shard of textual evidence that could support the idea, doesn’t.”

Dr. Katherine McReynolds said, “There is not a shred of credible evidence at all. Not a thing. Not in the four Gospels, not in Paul’s writings. And Paul even writes about marriage . . . You don’t see Jesus being married in any of the second or third century Gnostic gospels either. It is not mentioned anywhere.”

Dr. Darrell Bock said, “One of the few things on which a vast majority of liberal and conservative Jesus scholars agree is that Jesus was single . . . It is such an unusual situation in the study of Jesus for scholars of all persuasions to agree—when it happens, one should note it.”

And then we find on page 247, a reference that comes from the second-century Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In it Peter was disturbed because Mary, a woman, received a revelation from Jesus that the other apostles did not receive. Nothing in the text indicates anything more than that Jesus appeared to her alone, but Teabing explains on page 248 that “Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene.” And he later explains that Mary was supplanted by Peter and slandered by churchmen.

First of all, as J. P. Holding has said, “This gospel, however, fares no better than Philip under critical analysis. It, too, is a Gnostic document that reflects no reality found among Palestinian Jews of the first century. The earliest fragments, Jenkins notes, are dated to the third century, and most scholars date it no earlier than 180-200 AD, as far from Jesus as we are from the Civil War.”

But even if this was a valid gospel, there is nothing in this passage that says Jesus gave Mary instructions to start His church or even that Mary claimed to be given them. Peter is not jealous about Mary being chosen to start the Church, just contesting whether or not she had been given special revelation from Christ apart from the rest of the disciples.

Josh McDowell said, “This makes sense because The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a Gnostic Gospel, and ‘special revelation’ is a controversial element of Gnosticism.”

An interesting theory on Wikipedia says, “The closeness described in these writings depicts Mary Magdalene, representing the Gnostics, as understanding Jesus and his teaching while the other disciples, representing the Church, did not.”

And one last quote from Dr. Darrell Bock: “In my office there are thirty-eight volumes of early church documents, each of several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all of this material, only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory show how utterly unlikely it is.”

Next, on page 309 it says, “Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also his powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the temple to visit priestesses . . . and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH—the sacred name of God—in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Habraic name for Eve, Havah.”

Let’s start with “Shekinah.” There are two problems with this. One, the Bible steadfastly argues for monotheism (the belief in only one God). Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” The fact that there is only one true God is the testimony of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

And two, the “Shekinah” refers to the glory of God and certainly not to some “powerful female equal.” As Harper’s Bible Dictionary says, “Shekinah (she-kīi'nuh), a Hebrew word from the root ‘to dwell’ that is translated as the ‘Presence’ of God. God's Shekinah is not a being or reality separate from God . . . but a title for and designation of God in post-Old Testament writings, especially in His presence among humans and in the world.”

And as Dr. Ron Rhodes has said, “The term refers to the visible majesty or glory of the divine presence, especially when resting between the cherubim on the mercy seat, in the Tabernacle, or in the Temple of Solomon. Moses beheld God's Shekinah glory in the Tabernacle (Ex. 40:34-38) just as the priests saw it in the Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11). In view of this, Dan Brown's assertion that the Shekinah refers to a ‘powerful female equal’ is mind–boggling.”

Now, yes, there was a problem in Jewish history with temple prostitution, but this was the adoption of Canaanite rituals and clearly against the Law of Moses. For instance, Deut. 23:17-18 clearly says that it is an abomination, and we can see king Josiah having to stop it in 2 Kings 23.

As for the tetragrammaton, it’s actually the other way around—Jehovah derives from YHWH, not YHWH from Jehovah. You see, the ancient written Hebrew didn’t have any vowels. “Jehovah” came from inserting the vowels from Adonai (Lord) and then it becoming Latinized (the Y to J and the W to V). The name is derived from the Hebrew verb “to be” and has nothing to do with Eve. As for the word “Havah”—that is simply “Eve” in Hebrew which we find in the Old Testament; there is nothing “pre-Hebraic” about it.

OK, one last thing—what about the idea that Leonardo Da Vinci knew the secret and put clues in his paintings? For instance, it is claimed that the figure in his Last Supper to Jesus’ right, which is traditionally known as the apostle John, is actually Mary. You will notice, that is the only person there without a beard. And there is no Holy Grail on the table (they just have small cups) because Mary is the Holy Grail of course.

First of all, Leonardo lived almost fifteen centuries after Jesus; He wasn’t exactly a firsthand observer.

But artists from that time often gave male characters feminine features to portray youth, and John is traditionally thought to be the youngest of the disciples. Just look at how young men were depicted in the art of the Renaissance.

Dr. Katherine McReynolds says, “Many historians recognize this as John the apostle for three reasons. First, John is not seen anywhere else in the painting. Secondly, John is often depicted as being more feminine looking. And third, and probably most importantly, Leonardo Da Vinci himself recognized this as John the apostle, and he said so in his early sketches.” You see, he labeled his preliminary sketches, and we have them. But of course, Mary stole John’s seat and John is eating under the table.

There are many other things like Jesus’ bloodline, the Knights Templar, and Opus Dei that I could talk about, but because of space restraints, you are going to have to research those yourself. And if you do, you will find that there is an abundance of evidence to show that these areas are just as flawed. I have to agree with Dr. Paul Maier: “Detailing all the errors, misinterpretations, deceptions, distortions, and outright falsehoods in ‘The Da Vinci Code’ makes one wonder whether Brown's manuscript ever underwent editorial scrutiny or fact-checking.”

Answer 2

First, the single most important statement about _The Da Vinci Code: It's FICTION. Now let's get to specifics.

Knights Templar: FACT.

The original KT was a band of crusaders formed in 1118 CE, and exterminated by the Catholic Church ca. 1314. There is no evidence of any connection with any Priory of Sion. The modern KT is a Masonic organization that disavows any connection with the original, aside from inspiration.

Opus Dei: FACT

Opus Dei is an ultraconservative order of Roman Catholics founded in 1928. Opus Dei has disclaimed anything that the novel says about them, and i have no reason to doubt them. Self-flagellation has long been a Christian tradition, and has no connection per se to the order, AFAIK.

Priori of Sion: FICTION

The Priori of Sion is a proven hoax that originated in France in 1956.

The Nicene councils: FACT

The councils were called by Emperor Constantine to impose unity on Christianity. The result of these councils was orthodox Christianity, most notably the Roman Catholic Church. Contrary to the official Catholic party line, the councils did not merely ratify an existing orthodoxy of the Trinity. The issue had been debated for centuries, and the side that won the argument, by definition, became "orthodox."


I can find no convincing evidence confirming that the Bible canon was determined at Nicea.

The 4 canonical gospels had been selected by the late 2nd century. However, the gospels aren't the only part of the canon. Since Christians cannot agree on the Old or New Testament canons to this very day (some eastern churches dispute the NT canon), i don't know how meaningful it would be to say when or where the canon was defined. Suffice it to say, the process was extremely messy.


_Malleus Maleficarum_, the witch-burning manual: FACT

The text of this hideous volume is available on-line. It stands in damning indictment of the manner in which Christanity spake the "good news" during the dark ages.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene: SPECULATION

There's no reliable evidence that any such persons existed. The gospels were written too far removed from the events to be considered reliable (except by faith). Hence, any talk of romance between them can have no factual basis one way or the other.

The sacred feminine: I don't know.

Answer 3

The book raised a few questions, that is for sure. I find it disturbing that there really are books of the bible that have never been exposed, and several were written by women. The Christians who cannot fathom the thought of the Holy Grail being a woman could very well be closed minded in the box thinkers, and if they truly want to take the bible literal they should not pick and choose which beliefs to adopt for themselves, rather, apply every single belief; or accept the fact that it has been translated - by many - throughout the ages.

Answer 4

I know. I am amazed at how gullible people are at believing the so-called "facts" that this book brings up. Out of thin air! 80 gospels written!? And Constantine only chose 4, then corrupted them? First, including all the false gnostic gospels, there was hardly a quarter of that amount. Second, Constantine had nothing to do with the Canon of scripture.

Don Brown states that it was the council of Nicea that voted to say that Jesus was God--and that it was a "close vote". Yeah, a close vote of 316 to 2. Wow, how close. Funny, though, a few months ago they discovered in Megiddo, the oldest Christian church dating back to the 2nd century. 100 years before the council of Nicea did their "close vote", we see a mosaic dedication that reads, "dedicated to the God Jesus Christ". This belief was confirmed by the 2nd century writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenius and Clement of Alexandria.

And then he has the gall to say there were true gospels in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Man, this guy is delusional.There is not ONE mention of Jesus in ANY of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet people are eating this nonsense up.

Mary was Jesus' mother, and He told John, while on the cross, to take her into his home and take care of her. Mary Magdalene was there as well. If they were married, Jesus would have provided for her as well. Do you think after the resurrection that Jesus would have known that Mary M. was pregnant with their child? Yet, when He spoke to her, she called Him "teacher", not "husband", and neither spoke of activity in the womb. A little common sense is needed here.

If you don't want to believe, then say so. But don't base it on ignorant revisionist history like the Da Vinci Code. Looks like the world is all ready for the coming deception...

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20060520/lcrmlu060520.gif

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
For this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

http://www.go.family.org/davinci/

Answer 5

I think you're right. Actually, the book could easily confuse anyone who has not researched or studied history in general, let alone the tenants of the Christian faith. Like any skilled fiction writer, he takes true historical events, places, and people and weaves them together out of context to create a clever story that in the end is a lie. Historians and theologians of many faiths have proven how Brown misrepresented Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Knights Templar, Medieval books of fiction (claiming they are lost original writings of Jesus' followers), etc.... Dan Brown is a very talented writer and storyteller who knows that most people will accept at face value what they read in a book rather than research the truth for themselves. As long as people choose not to think for themselves, he and other writers like him will continue to make a lot of money and confuse a lot of people.

Answer 6

It is fiction. If you browse the web you can find all the sites he directly cribbed from. This is not a book of deep research, it is a book with a theory taken from another, "holy blood holy grail" and a coupld of hours on the internet.
It was a fun little fast moving story with writeing worse than composition 101 and sterotypical everything. I enjoyed reading it much as I enjoyed reading the hardy boys when I was 6. Then I threw it out.

Answer 7

Da Vinch that Stole Easter?

there is an excellent discussion on sermon audio about the DaVinci code by Phil Fernandez which I definintely woud recomend
see www.sermonaudio.com and search on Phil Fernadez or DaVinci COde will find you lots of interesting things to freely listen to

bottom line... the supposed Da Vinci Code, the supposed Gospel of Judas, the supposed Tomb of Jesus,,, they are all shootin blanks and the real Jesus died on the cross and walked out of His tomb. Mary Mag? the real one was a trophy of the grace and mercy of God and how he can help MAry Mag and He can help you also

Answer 8

Well i am a catholic and that book is very questioning christiananity but i can tell you that that book is false. FYI if i am correct the holy grail sits in Rome right now....its not mary.....and all that priory of scion may have been true but im sure dan just stretched it to a point where it fit HIS views to
1) TRY to make a point and
2) Write a good book :)

Answer 9

What part of Fiction do you not get? A Christian who reads and studies the Bible will not be confused.<><

Answer 10

It's just a curious fictional book. it does open your mind to other possible interpretations of the bible, but that's not the worst thing in the world, is it? not for intelligent people.

Answer 11

There's more fact in the DaVinci Code than there is in the bible. Unless you believe a woman was actually made with a rib bone.