Cracking the Da Vinci Code: A Discourse

[Ashley]

I'm sure you guys have all heard about Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Maybe you've been curious to read it...maybe you have and felt extremely confused afterwards. Maybe a friend is reading it right now and telling you how great it is.

Whatever your situation is, I'm convinced that this upcoming movie is going to radically shape the world for the next few months. But Christians can fight back and use this as an opportunity to share the light of Christ with a lost and dying world. So with that in mind, I've done a LOT of research on the book and put together a list of all the lies the book purports as truth. PLUS, an extra section on how you can defend the Bible as God's truth.

I don't care if you're Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, whatever...if you are a member of the body of Christ, this book is attacking everything you hold sacred. Are you going to let Satan blind people and drag them away with these silly lies? No? Then read on. Feel free to print it off, make copies, whatever it takes to get the truth out there.

Cracking the Da Vinci Code

“Much of what Brown trumpets as truth is based on a fabrication concocted by an anti-Semite with a criminal recordâ€

[Ashley]

Part II

Code: the church demonized sex as a way to rid themselves of the sacred feminine
Truth: The church cherishes sex as one of God’s best gifts and was highly influential in the raising of women’s status. BTW, the scene depicted as “hieros gamosâ€

[Ashley]

Part III

Code: Constantine tried to convert the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity
Truth: paganism was neither matriarchal nor patriarchal. Some paganism did not even involve a goddess—the truth is there were many forms of paganism, unlike Brown’s hypothetical goddess cult.

Code: The church ‘demonized’ women by teaching the concept of original sin through Eve
Truth: Christianity never states the fall was solely Eve’s responsibility; in fact, Adam is named by Paul as the chief cause of the Fall in 1 Corinthians 15. Orthodox Christianity teaches it was a both-and situation, not purely Eve

Code: Church leaders declared women unclean and ‘the enemy’
Truth: The church did more to honor women than any other institution—Genesis teaches that women are worthy of honor and are a perfect helpmate to man. Women were given direct access to Christ and were the first to see Him resurrected.

Defense of the Truth

1. The Bible today is a faithful representation of the original autographs
a. Manuscript evidence- stronger than Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar and Tacitus. We have over 20,000 copies; Plato has 7 including the first two with a 1300-year gap! Even more amazing, the manuscripts are in perfect harmony without any major differences. Also, Luke, John, and Peter all explicitly affirm they used eye-witness sources and encouraged their readers to seek them out; and furthermore they are affirmed by numerous secular authors such as Josephus and Pliny the Younger.
b. Archaeological evidence- massive archaeological evidence (see our OT in Focus class notes!) Notable examples include the affirmation of Belshazzar and Pontius Pilate
c. Messianic Prophecies- many would have been impossible to conspire, such as his lineage, birth, cruxifiction, lack of any broken bones, and burial among the rich. The odds of a single person fulfilling just 8 of the messianic prophecies is the same as if the entire world were covered with white title that is one and a half inches square with just one with a gold star painted on the bottom. Imagine a person wandering all 7 continents, bending down just once, and picking up the special tile—it’s the same odds! (Case for Christ, Lee Strobel).
2. The Bible claims Jesus is God
a. John 1:1
b. Colossians 1:16-19
c. Hebrews 1:8; 10-12
3. Jesus claimed to be God
a. Matthew 16:16-17
b. John 5:18
c. John 8:58
d. John 10:30-33
e. Mark 14:61-62
f. Claimed divine attributes: omniscience (Mt. 26:34), omnipotence (Jn 11:43 and 2:19) and omnipresence (Mt. 28:20)
4. “Nothing in Christianity is Originalâ€

[dragonshimmer]

Ashley, this is great. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and share it with us, because you're right. This is going to greatly impact how the world, and even some of us, view Christianity.

[Locke]

This is great!
Though another movie The Omen, will be no less nicer to Christianity (it comes out on 6-6-06). Like Ryan stated, it would be awsome to have a massive apologetics convention that day.

Beats a crappy movie.

[Puritan]

Interesting and (from my understanding) well researched. Many thanks! I personally am sick and tired of many of these ideas. Having read history about many of these subjects I get really annoyed when tired old theories are trotted out as a "new" idea saved from the "evil" Christians. It seems like people can't seem to understand that this idea has no basis in fact, just like some people can't believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are an anti-semetic hoax.

The Knights Templar are an expecially strong point of irritation for me as history indicates they were a pretty typical group of crusaders who were actually considered honorable and orthodox overall. Simply because the corrupt king of France at the time became greedy and accused them of heresy then tortured hundreds of them until they confessed to anything he wanted them to, they have been put into myth as being anything from the founders of freemasonry to guardians of the secret bloodline of Christ. None of it has a basis in history, and none of it really makes sense. Why must we dredge up this old garbage again?

[Arnobius]

Forgot one book for references members of CAA can use: The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel

http://www.ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/

[Bobtheduck]

Nice... I'm really getting sick of all these "Let's disprove Christianity" things recently... I guess it's always been that way, both externally (like Da Vinci code) and internally ("Jesus is a metaphor" people)

On a different note, Omen is "no less nicer to Christianity?" I thought Omen was about the Anti-Christ, hence why it comes out 6-6-06... I saw some of the original, not exactly out of revelation, but I dont' think it's anti-christian... I haven't seen an entire omen movie, though...

[mysticalsphynx]

I think one of the major things that people are overlooking is the fact that The Da'Vinci code is a work of fiction. While some aspects of fiction may be based on fact, most is completely made up in the mind of the writer. So I am not surprised that most of the book is not based on facts. It isn't supposed to be. If it was, it wouldn't be fiction and there wouldn't be all these lists of what is religiously wrong.

Before I read the book I was told that it was full of weird religion and political stuff, but I choose to read it anyway. What I made sure to do was read it for the love of reading, not to delve into the whole weird religion realm. I found that I really enjoyed the book and wasn't affected at all by the religious or political aspect. I just wish that more people would be able to read the book like that. It would make it so situations like this didn't come up as often.

I for one am quite excited to see the movie. I think it is going to be very enjoyable as long as you don't try to base it on facts when it isn't supposed to be.

[rocklobster]

I think one of the major things that people are overlooking is the fact that The Da'Vinci code is a work of fiction. While some aspects of fiction may be based on fact, most is completely made up in the mind of the writer. So I am not surprised that most of the book is not based on facts. It isn't supposed to be. If it was, it wouldn't be fiction and there wouldn't be all these lists of what is religiously wrong.

Before I read the book I was told that it was full of weird religion and political stuff, but I choose to read it anyway. What I made sure to do was read it for the love of reading, not to delve into the whole weird religion realm. I found that I really enjoyed the book and wasn't affected at all by the religious or political aspect. I just wish that more people would be able to read the book like that. It would make it so situations like this didn't come up as often.

I for one am quite excited to see the movie. I think it is going to be very enjoyable as long as you don't try to base it on facts when it isn't supposed to be.

The problem with that is that, as someone from Opus Dei (a Catholic charity organization he greatly misrepresents in the book) says, "He wants to have it both ways." He tells you before the book begins that it's the truth, and then in subsequent interviews, he's tried to pass it off as fiction. This book is meant to be an attack on Christianity, plain and simple. When I finished the book (which I read so I could better challenge it), I felt as though I should go to a confessional. I've never felt like that about a book before, not even a Harry Potter one. What's worse is that some people actually believe what the book says is true. This could and has greatly shaken their faith. God wants us to protect weak-faithed people. Because without faith, we have nothing. This should be considered before you approve of the book. Thanks for this, Ashley. I wanted to start a thread like this myself, but I felt it might offend people and get locked.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

This was some good research you have done Ashley. Good apologetics. I personally love apologetics, I read up a lot on Ravi Zacharias and Paul Copan ^^ Give them a shot sometime!

I think people will have to dig deeper and research more with what you mentioned. As someone could have a possible counter-argument to the truths you have listed. Because simply reiterating facts you heard is not how you debate. Especially someone who is well rounded in their belief. But since these beliefs specifically is based around fiction, I would see it harder for someone to present a counter-argument.

[Steeltemplar]

Excellent work, Ashley One can certainly tell that you did your homework here.

[Ashley]

I think people will have to dig deeper and research more with what you mentioned. As someone could have a possible counter-argument to the truths you have listed. Because simply reiterating facts you heard is not how you debate.

True, but facts give your argument the weight of truth. I think if your average movie-goer, who may or may not have read the book, hears just the sheer VOLUME of what Brown got wrong, he may feel deeply enough disturbed by it to be receptive to the real truth.

I think one of the major things that people are overlooking is the fact that The Da'Vinci code is a work of fiction. While some aspects of fiction may be based on fact, most is completely made up in the mind of the writer. So I am not surprised that most of the book is not based on facts. It isn't supposed to be. If it was, it wouldn't be fiction and there wouldn't be all these lists of what is religiously wrong

There are two things here I disagree with. First, Brown says on the very first page "all the documents, records, secret rites, organizations and works of art mentioned here are TRUE" which as we have I hope overwhelmingly proved they are not. Secondly, the modern reader is so sadly ignorant of history and so easily swayed psychologically I'm sure many of them will treat it AS truth until someone proves them differently--and clearly Brown wanted it to be taken this way, otherwise he wouldn't go to such great lengths to establish his "authorities". Did you notice how many times he tried to mention 'all scholars', 'many scholars', etc.?

Lastly, I guarantee you if a book like this came out by a Christian author defrauding Islam and claiming all sorts of things about Mohammad, it would never fly even if it was labeled "fiction." The flavor of the world now seems to be: "be tolerant of every religion, except Christianity. Feel free to do whatever you want to Christians and their faith."

[ChristianKitsune]

I agree, Ashley! Thanks for the well researched information against this horrible book!!!

[Zarn Ishtare]

I found your research strong and your sources credible. My old Apologetics Prof. would have given you an A+. Outstanding work, Ashley.

I will admit, when I first read this, I was hit hard by the supposed truth. However, after doing some research (Strictly mythogical research to begin with) I realized the audacity and the outright foolishness of Brown's claims. It's a convincing lie, if you don't know any better. I think it is our duty as Christians to make sure that people do have the truth. No matter how unpopular it makes us.


As for Brown...*sigh*...The man wants it both ways. I'm a history buff, and someone who studies religious history (As well as the Occult, Goddess, God and Devil Worship, Ancient Religions, and other myriad unpleasantries) And so much of his stuff is ripped out of context. I think Pagans should be just as offended by this work: It desecrates the Pentacle, the idea of the Goddess by trapping her in mortal clothing (Note: Most of the Pagans I know are literal godess worshipers, not worshipers of the idea .....) and making her into a person ....

There is a movement in writing and in a specific religious subculture to make these gods and godesses Jungian Ideals or some nonsense. I first noted this trend with the Mists of Avalon , and sadly, it's growing. Listen up people: A great deal of wiccans and pagans believe in literal gods and godesses. I have on particular friend that believes that Fenris will eat the sun soon and we will serve Freyr in the new world which will be made after Ragnorok. It's a big, scary world out there friends. Try not to get lost in the rhetoric and the outright lies. We serve an everlasting God, and we should always resist the devil, however he appears to us.


A further note: Paganism is a big umbrella folks. There's a bunch of li'l religions running to and fro under there. And they, like other religions, have denominations that don't agree with each other. Draconic's, Followers of the Godess (Two notes on this one: 1. Don't know the specific names, so paraphase seems called for and 2. followers mentioned believe only in one godess, though there are many arguements about who or what......) and others in those ranks are having a field day on this unresearched piece of tripe.

So, my young trilabites, get out there and evolve, err, research, and show these anti-christian/anti-semetics what for!



Zarn.

[Rogie]

Lastly, I guarantee you if a book like this came out by a Christian author defrauding Islam and claiming all sorts of things about Mohammad, it would never fly even if it was labeled "fiction." The flavor of the world now seems to be: "be tolerant of every religion, except Christianity. Feel free to do whatever you want to Christians and their faith."

Amen. It's like we're supposed to be the "silent majority."

Great job, Ash. I've been avoiding the whole Code thing anyway until I found a Christian with some factual knowledge of it and the history surrounding the story. Thanks a bushel.

[Nate]

On a different note, Omen is "no less nicer to Christianity?" I thought Omen was about the Anti-Christ, hence why it comes out 6-6-06... I saw some of the original, not exactly out of revelation, but I dont' think it's anti-christian... I haven't seen an entire omen movie, though...

It's actually a sequel to the Omen, titled "The Beast." It is an anti-Christian movie that is not about the Antichrist, rather it is a tale about how a reporter discovers that Jesus never existed and the Church has been hiding this information all along to control the people. Upon finding out this information, the Church seeks to silence this reporter by killing him (her?). So yes, The Beast is no less nicer to Christianity.

[Tenshi no Ai]

Good job on the research^^ Somethign I can show my friends if they ever tell me about this "great new best-seller" they're reading :/

Question though: What about the Angels and Demons prequel and it's bad content? I know I don't hear alot of talk about it (well mostly because the first book is being promoted by the movie).

[Mr. SmartyPants]

True, but facts give your argument the weight of truth. I think if your average movie-goer, who may or may not have read the book, hears just the sheer VOLUME of what Brown got wrong, he may feel deeply enough disturbed by it to be receptive to the real truth.

Yup ^^ it's not like we're debating about, macroevolution or, I don't know, eastern religious thinking or something. One who uses fiction for support would most likely not have much factual support by their side. (Because frankly, there is no factual support)

Lastly, I guarantee you if a book like this came out by a Christian author defrauding Islam and claiming all sorts of things about Mohammad, it would never fly even if it was labeled "fiction." The flavor of the world now seems to be: "be tolerant of every religion, except Christianity. Feel free to do whatever you want to Christians and their faith."

Quite true. It's sad how people always see Christianity as an "exclusive" religion. Only those who accept Christ go to heaven and every one else doesn't. While supposedly Hinduism preaches about accepting all religions. And that's totally not true. Every major religion, at its core, is exclusive. Buddhism being a deviation from Hindiusm. Adi Shankura debating with people constantly, and telling others that "they were wrong". Islam being also linguistically exclusive. Bah'aism, supposedly "all inclusive" faith. Would exclude any exclusivists. Which means they should exclude all major religions. There is just so much contradiction between every worldview. Theistic or Atheistic. Only one can be right, having 2 coexist is simply impossible. How can Christianity and atheism both be right? It can't. Same reason why Christianity and Hindiusm cannot both be right. Or <religion x> and <religion y>.

[Trackball]

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Mr. SmartyPants and Ashley were related to Drs. Norman Geisler or D. James Kennedy (the two greatest Christian apologists living today, IMO).

Anyway, don't let anyone say what you're saying is cliche. Originality is not the issue here--truth is.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Mr. SmartyPants and Ashley were related to Drs. Norman Geisler or D. James Kennedy (the two greatest Christian apologists living today, IMO).

Anyway, don't let anyone say what you're saying is cliche. Originality is not the issue here--truth is.

I like Norman Geisler and Dr. D James Kennedy. Especially Norman. He's pretty much the "head honcho" of all Christian Apologists

[Ashley]

Wow, that's quite the compliment Trackball; thank you! And thank you, too, to everyone who expressed their grateful sentiments as well. It's nice to see several hours of hard work being so warmly recieved; I just hope you all use it wisely! Get out there and start spreading the truth!

At this moment, I don't know anything about Angels & Demons except what Brown alluded to in his first book. But I plan on tackling that, next...so stayed tuned!

p.s. Trackball, I noticed you're from Crosby. I'm a Houstonian, so we're almost cousins. =)

[mysticalsphynx]

There are two things here I disagree with. First, Brown says on the very first page "all the documents, records, secret rites, organizations and works of art mentioned here are TRUE" which as we have I hope overwhelmingly proved they are not.

I completely agree with you on that fact that the things he writes in the book are not true. Yo For one thing, they are just to blatently disbelievable to be true. And there is also the overwhelming amount of fact that disproves it. u did a great job of showing that. So if this is the case, then we should take the things that he writes in the book as fake, even the statements that say things are "true". If fiction writers such as Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler, as well as others, were to say something like that statement in the beginning of all their books, would we believe it? I don't think so. So what is it about The Da'Vince code that is different?

[Quote=Ashley]Secondly, the modern reader is so sadly ignorant of history and so easily swayed psychologically I'm sure many of them will treat it AS truth until someone proves them differently--and clearly Brown wanted it to be taken this way, otherwise he wouldn't go to such great lengths to establish his "authorities". Did you notice how many times he tried to mention 'all scholars', 'many scholars', etc.? [/QUOTE]

I think that while some modern readers may be easily swayed psychologically, most are smart enough to realize that what is in that book is completely bogus. There will always be some people who look on fiction as fact, that is inevitable. It is just how society is. I must say that most of the time I had no clue what he was talking about, but I knew enough to know that it wasn't real history. Also, as I said before, people need to remember that fiction really is "fake". As for the mentioning of "all scholars" and "many scholars", I didn't pay attention to those at all. Frankly, I didn't care to pay attention. I already knew that what was said in the pages was made up, and no amount of "all scholars", "many scholars", etc. was going to change that outlook. I am not the "modern reader" that you talk about here, and I know that there are many others out there who share the same opinion.

As far as entertainment value, the book is a great read. For anything else, it should be tossed aside.

[girlninja]

I loved the research you did Ashley! I agree that this is a modern attack on Christianity with old ideas. The fact is that the idea's that Dan Brown portrays have been around for hundreds of years. It isn't a "new revelation" as so many people portray.

I like the review, thankyou so much for researching and posting it for us.

[A Cup of No]

Great job. I read the book recently and have read two of the debunking books. The "scholarship" in the book is shipshod. Perhaps the only good thing this book and movie are accomplishing is bringing Jesus back into public discussion in a way unparalleled since "The Passion of the Christ." So thank you, Ashley, and I hope the Lord allows you to use this knowledge to attack what Brown means for evil, but God means for good.

[MomoAdachi]

Y'know, I'm not quite what to do about DVC. I mean, I don't like people to be anti-Christian, but I also love history and thought the trailers looked interesting.

[rocklobster]

It's not even an accurate portrayal of history, Momo. For example, it claims that Opus Dei was formed in the Middle Ages. Brown is way too early. It wasn't formed until the 1940's. Also, Da Vinci was a devout Christian. He wouldn't have dreamed of putting "clues" in his paintings that would damage Christianity.
Here's one thing I want to know. Why does Dan Brown reject several thousands-years old authority but accept shady authority like the gnostic gospels? And expect us to take him at his word? Sorry, but I'd rather accept what the church teaches. May God have mercy on your soul, Dan Brown. Because I sure wouldn't.

[Sephiroth]

heh thats a good chunk of research you've been doin there. this sunday our pastor is doing a sermon on the inconsistencies of the davinchi code, and how to be aable to use all the hype as an outreach oppertunity, to share the gospel with ppl.

[Arnobius]

It's not even an accurate portrayal of history, Momo. For example, it claims that Opus Dei was formed in the Middle Ages. Brown is way too early. It wasn't formed until the 1940's. Also, Da Vinci was a devout Christian. He wouldn't have dreamed of putting "clues" in his paintings that would damage Christianity.
Here's one thing I want to know. Why does Dan Brown reject several thousands-years old authority but accept shady authority like the gnostic gospels? And expect us to take him at his word? Sorry, but I'd rather accept what the church teaches. May God have mercy on your soul, Dan Brown. Because I sure wouldn't.

Your question is a good one. I tend to think that when people feel hostility towards a source of authority, they tend to look for justifications to reject that authority, so people who don't like Christian morality "imposed" on them, it feels good to believe that the source of the disliked authority is "proven" false. Hence the preference for gnostic writings over the Bible and actual history

[Technomancer]

Frankly, I didn't care to pay attention. I already knew that what was said in the pages was made up, and no amount of "all scholars", "many scholars", etc. was going to change that outlook. I am not the "modern reader" that you talk about here, and I know that there are many others out there who share the same opinion.

The thing is that in reality, there is virtually no schollarly support fo Dan Brown's position here. If anything, actual historians have been tearing their hair out at the rapid public acceptance of this nonsense. BTW If you really want a solid debunking of Dan Brown's sources, you should see Tony Robinson's documentary show on the subject.

I tend to think that when people feel hostility towards a source of authority, they tend to look for justifications to reject that authority, so people who don't like Christian morality "imposed" on them, it feels good to believe that the source of the disliked authority is "proven" false. Hence the preference for gnostic writings over the Bible and actual history

True, but we must also be aware that the converse is also true. Those supporting a particular view (and I include Christians in this) are likewise just as susceptible to either fallaciously accepting material that supports their position, or rejecting material that disagrees with it. Shoddy scholarship, intellectual laziness, and wishful thinking aren't exactly rare amongst Christians either.