The davinci code
- Thread starter Caleb
- Start date
PapaToad
Active Member
Its a fictional book not to be confused with the Word of God.
Unfourtuneatly it is
Unfourtuneatly it is
Jericho_falls
New Member
Scam
I recently heard a book on tape about the Davinci Code, its Author, its "facts" and so on.
The author, Don Brown(ing) I believe, is neither a historian or theologian. His writings called "facts" are often other's speculations.
The book claims that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. Not only is this heretical, it has no basis. The claims are made using some 1st century documents, especially one called "the Gospel of Philip." In this book there are two verses that these claims take hold of: One talks about Mary being Jesus' companion. However this word means nothing more than friend, and is used throughout many greek documents as just that. The other talks about Jesus kissing Mary. However this kiss has no romantic attitude about it. It was the same kiss that all Jews would greet eachother with. There is no basis.
Also, Jesus revealed in the Bible was celibate (did not marry). He is, for one, the Son of God and His bride is none other than the Church. Far be it from Jesus to chose only one of His church to be his wife.
In my opinion the book is inaccurate and it's only purpose is to undermine the true view of Jesus (not to mention the historical one).
I recently heard a book on tape about the Davinci Code, its Author, its "facts" and so on.
The author, Don Brown(ing) I believe, is neither a historian or theologian. His writings called "facts" are often other's speculations.
The book claims that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. Not only is this heretical, it has no basis. The claims are made using some 1st century documents, especially one called "the Gospel of Philip." In this book there are two verses that these claims take hold of: One talks about Mary being Jesus' companion. However this word means nothing more than friend, and is used throughout many greek documents as just that. The other talks about Jesus kissing Mary. However this kiss has no romantic attitude about it. It was the same kiss that all Jews would greet eachother with. There is no basis.
Also, Jesus revealed in the Bible was celibate (did not marry). He is, for one, the Son of God and His bride is none other than the Church. Far be it from Jesus to chose only one of His church to be his wife.
In my opinion the book is inaccurate and it's only purpose is to undermine the true view of Jesus (not to mention the historical one).
Now hold your horses my fellows. Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. That said, there are still several nuggets of truth in his religious references. His descriptions of ancient religious societies and their customs, religious symbology, and the history of religious infrastructure I think you'll find are quite accurate. Mr. Brown is knowledgeable enough to create a vivid context for his readers. The fiction comes in where he presents controversial myths and such as fact in order to make his novels all the more interesting and entertaining. It is true that the whole Last Supper Mary Magdalene versus John fiasco is misleading: John was typically portrayed as being effeminate in old religious artwork--and he was not the only deciple portrayed that way--and there is such a thing as "artistic licensee." But claiming that the entire book as being heathenous and will by its nature degenerate your relationship with God is, I think, a bit much. If nothing else, Da Vinci Code is an entertaining read.
Last edited:
Gandhi
New Member
Well y is it so impossible to think Jesus would of been married. Jesus was a religious leader to many jews, and in those days and didn't all rabbis or what ever they called them self get married. So wouldn't it make sence that for jews to look at Jesus as a religious leader he might of married someone. And Mary makes alot of sence since she was always with Jesus.
![[toj.cc]phantom](/forums/data/avatars/m/1/1132.jpg?1442680067){kind=avatar}
[toj.cc]phantom
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
Just as Jericho claims he was and is maried to the Church.
Confusion is a confusing thing.
No Ghandi you are wrong. Jesus as a rabbi did not have to be married and futher more, Mary was not always around. There are about three maybe four Marys that are referenced in the gospels, so I could see how one could think Mary was always around. (I know the question is coming so here are the Marys: Mary-mother of Jesus, Mary of Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and so beleive that either the women at the well or the women caught in adultry was also a Mary).
As to Dan Brown's facts, as a student of church history, Mr. Brown does not get many of his facts straight (my favorite is that he says the Mona Lisa is DaVinca in drag). He states the vote of the Council of Nice was very close concerning the diety of Jesus, not true most put the vote at 90% or greater. There was a great deal of debate, but most of it centered around the type of flesh that Jesus had, purely human, purely god or some mixture. Those two items alone show you that Mr. Brown plays with his facts. Since he writes fiction that is entirely acceptable for him. He does state in the beginning of the book that the art works and some of the societies he writes about are true. He leaves a great deal out of what he considers true.
I do agree with Mr. Bill. It is an interesting read. It will not cause you to lose your salvation. The book is a work of fiction and everything in it is subject to the work of fiction genre.
By the way, Angels and Demons is three times the book DaVinici Code is.
No Ghandi you are wrong. Jesus as a rabbi did not have to be married and futher more, Mary was not always around. There are about three maybe four Marys that are referenced in the gospels, so I could see how one could think Mary was always around. (I know the question is coming so here are the Marys: Mary-mother of Jesus, Mary of Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and so beleive that either the women at the well or the women caught in adultry was also a Mary).
As to Dan Brown's facts, as a student of church history, Mr. Brown does not get many of his facts straight (my favorite is that he says the Mona Lisa is DaVinca in drag). He states the vote of the Council of Nice was very close concerning the diety of Jesus, not true most put the vote at 90% or greater. There was a great deal of debate, but most of it centered around the type of flesh that Jesus had, purely human, purely god or some mixture. Those two items alone show you that Mr. Brown plays with his facts. Since he writes fiction that is entirely acceptable for him. He does state in the beginning of the book that the art works and some of the societies he writes about are true. He leaves a great deal out of what he considers true.
I do agree with Mr. Bill. It is an interesting read. It will not cause you to lose your salvation. The book is a work of fiction and everything in it is subject to the work of fiction genre.
By the way, Angels and Demons is three times the book DaVinici Code is.
Jericho_falls
New Member
On the subject of Jesus marrying because He was a Rabbi:
That was addressed in the previously mentioned book on tape I heard. Mr. Brown uses that as a cheap argument. The Truth is that celibacy was looked upon as very pious. Most of the conservative sects of Judaism promoted it. For Jesus to go unmarried would not be frowned upon, but would rather magnify His piety and devotion.
Also, remember that Jesus was more than a religious leader, He was Immanuel. God doesn't just one day find a girl he loves more than all the others and get hitched. For one, a sinless God would not marry a sinful woman (she may be spiritually clean through forgiveness but the flesh would still be defiled). Also in Hebrews 4:15 it says Jesus can sympathise with all our temptations, including the ones that come of celibacy.
On John's effeminancy
I would just like to quote a few verses about John and written by John:
Mr 3:17 | James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, "Sons of Thunder";
Mr 9:38 Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us."
Mr 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask."
Lu 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?"
Re 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
This sounds like a very masculine guy to me. Just cause he is called "beloved" doesn't mean he is "sissy."
Entertainment of the Book
Although it may be entertaining, is it edifying? Brothers let us not take our entertainment from that which distorts our Lord, let us delight in Him! The true Him! I believe this book is a chain to the world and does not move us into a deeper relationship with Him or make us more conformed to Him. Why should the body of Christ support the entertainment of the world (and the demons who are laughing at them for believing it, fiction or not)?
That was addressed in the previously mentioned book on tape I heard. Mr. Brown uses that as a cheap argument. The Truth is that celibacy was looked upon as very pious. Most of the conservative sects of Judaism promoted it. For Jesus to go unmarried would not be frowned upon, but would rather magnify His piety and devotion.
Also, remember that Jesus was more than a religious leader, He was Immanuel. God doesn't just one day find a girl he loves more than all the others and get hitched. For one, a sinless God would not marry a sinful woman (she may be spiritually clean through forgiveness but the flesh would still be defiled). Also in Hebrews 4:15 it says Jesus can sympathise with all our temptations, including the ones that come of celibacy.
On John's effeminancy
I would just like to quote a few verses about John and written by John:
Mr 3:17 | James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, "Sons of Thunder";
Mr 9:38 Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us."
Mr 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask."
Lu 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?"
Re 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
This sounds like a very masculine guy to me. Just cause he is called "beloved" doesn't mean he is "sissy."
Entertainment of the Book
Although it may be entertaining, is it edifying? Brothers let us not take our entertainment from that which distorts our Lord, let us delight in Him! The true Him! I believe this book is a chain to the world and does not move us into a deeper relationship with Him or make us more conformed to Him. Why should the body of Christ support the entertainment of the world (and the demons who are laughing at them for believing it, fiction or not)?
![[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff](/forums/data/avatars/m/1/1206.jpg?1442680067){kind=avatar}
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff
New Member
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are beneficial. 1 Cor 6:12a
JF, you hit the nail on the head with that one. However, TDC does have people talking about Jesus, which is never a bad thing if they are earnestly seeking the truth about Him. My mom picked up her Bible for the first time in years after reading TDC and questioning the part about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene.
Jericho_falls said:
Again, I think you are taking the book to seriously. It is a work of fiction, for the purposes of entertainment. Dan Brown has done nothing worse than what JRR Tolkien wrought upon the human imagination. Both are writers of fiction, though they do so with different subject matters. Reading Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons is not intended to make people renounce their faith. Question it perhaps, but that is primarily for those that are ignorant of the truth in religious history. And that is not the fault of Mr. Brown, so do not fault him for it. Also, I did not mean to imply that John was a "sissy"--I was merely pointing out that he is traditionally portrayed as being rather effeminate in religious artwork, as in Da Vinci's "Last Supper."
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff
New Member
True. People can be effeminate and do very "manly" things-- take for example NFL quarterback Jeff Garcia.
Jericho_falls
New Member
Bill, I still think the book is unhealthy because fiction is powerful.
It is the basis of many false religions (hindu myth, aborigionie[?spelling?] dream time. So whether or not evidence and reason back it up, people believe it.
Also, many people become enfatuated with fiction to the point of believing it. I almost reached that point with Lord of The Rings. I was obsessed and it was tearing me away from my walk with God. I had to give it up for him (I packed away my books and maps, eventually going to sell them or burn them or something, and vowed never to watch the third movie).
Thirdly, propoganda is a real thing. Hitler said "if you say it long enough and loud enough the people will believe it." People really are claiming the things in The DC to be true.
However, none of the above should even matter if we consider simply "does it glorify God?" The answer is obviously no. Nothing that slanders His son, fiction or non-fiction, glorifies God. And according to John Piper "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." Lets glorify Him in where an how and by what we are entertained.
It is the basis of many false religions (hindu myth, aborigionie[?spelling?] dream time. So whether or not evidence and reason back it up, people believe it.
Also, many people become enfatuated with fiction to the point of believing it. I almost reached that point with Lord of The Rings. I was obsessed and it was tearing me away from my walk with God. I had to give it up for him (I packed away my books and maps, eventually going to sell them or burn them or something, and vowed never to watch the third movie).
Thirdly, propoganda is a real thing. Hitler said "if you say it long enough and loud enough the people will believe it." People really are claiming the things in The DC to be true.
However, none of the above should even matter if we consider simply "does it glorify God?" The answer is obviously no. Nothing that slanders His son, fiction or non-fiction, glorifies God. And according to John Piper "The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." Lets glorify Him in where an how and by what we are entertained.
If one's relationship with the Infinite is so tenuous that it can be severed by something as simple as a piece of fiction, then it must be questioned whether it serves any purpose at all.
Testing and conflict is what gives us strength and teaches us our limits. For example, should someone ever be truly tested by life, they might find their faith is too fragile to bear the load. Ask any engineer - a failure under stress is far worse than a failure in the workshop. If that person tested their faith and found it wanting when they most needed it - how could they abide it?
My advice to that person would be to fight as many small battles as they can, as preparation for the larger ones that wait over the horizon.
Testing and conflict is what gives us strength and teaches us our limits. For example, should someone ever be truly tested by life, they might find their faith is too fragile to bear the load. Ask any engineer - a failure under stress is far worse than a failure in the workshop. If that person tested their faith and found it wanting when they most needed it - how could they abide it?
My advice to that person would be to fight as many small battles as they can, as preparation for the larger ones that wait over the horizon.