[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Da Vinci Code (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/28/2004 5:40:28 PM EDT
|
I know this has been talked about but without search I have to ask here. I just finished the book. OK, I know its a novel and therefore fiction. But, what in the book that is PURPORTED to be true, is true? Anything? Nothing? I've heard of Opus Dei but not much else. BTW I found it mildly entertaining but I'm glad I didnt pay for it. |
|
The fact that there have been many conspiracies operating over the years is true. What they are protecting or searching for is the question. And that question mainly revolves around whether or not Jesus got married and had children and that bloodline exists to this day. That's what I got out of it for what it's worth. |
My buddies wife bought it and read it while me and him made fun of her. She gave it to me to read and I hurt my foot so I had some time off work and I read it. Believe me, I dont think much of it is true but I was curious if ANY of it was true since so many people are buying it HLAS. I dont usually read fiction. |
A novel that's fiction? Imagine that! On a serious note, Code is the subject of a plagiarism lawsuit by the author of a pair of books called The DaVinci Legacy (1982) and Daughter of God (1985) which have almost the exact same plot. An art expert is murdered, writes a clue in his own blood which leads to a painting, one of DaVinci's books figures prominently, there's a safe-depost box in Zurich, and so on. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this suit. Oh, and Code has been optioned for a movie. Coming soon to your local multiplex. |
|
I was enjoying this novel, with its interesting plots twists, but suffering through its glorification of all things feminine. Then I read something that was so silly I was instantly sorry I bought it. <WARNING POSSIBLE SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!/> A female cop succeeds in making a FRENCH security guard at the Louvre (big FRENCH art galler) put down his gun and let a criminal escape by using a Da Vinci painting as a hostage. Yes, she uses the painting as a screen like a hostage-taker would use a hostage. Just fucking silly. Haven't read it since. |
|
Thats one reason I dont read much fiction. It always seems like I have read it before somewhere. I prefer science, biography and history, usually something martial. |
Every single one, huh? You sure you weren't reading the same book over and over?
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Comic books don't count as "paperbacks." |
Good, that was exactly our intent when we started this several hundred years ago. All will be revealed in good time. You are not ready yet. |
Dude, I had the sweetest job. I worked in the DASC and we worked alot lot directing aircraft for a few day at the height of the whatever op it was, and the rest of the time we took turns sitting there in the field shelter (AC/Heat and great lights and better radios) to wait for one or two flights an hour to call. I read so many books in the field that it was making me poor even by the used bagful. |
|
Just finished reading this, while there is much fantasy and conjecture... there is also some truth as well. The Priory Du Scion does exist. The Templars were brought down in the manner, and for the reasons stated. The conjecture begins with what the great treasure of the Templars was. Was it truly the "Holy Grail" and if so, was it as described in the book, the lineage of Christ, or is it something else? Did the Catholic church turn on the Templars solely for their wealth, or was there knowledge held which they wished to suppress? Can't say for sure, but it is odd that they rose from an order of nine to the most prominent military and religious order in the world in the span of decades after having spent time excavating King Solomon's Temple. All of that is a matter of historical record. Like I said, WHAT they found is the unanswered question and the cause of centuries of speculation. Rossilyn exists much as described and was a Templar edifice. We know this. We also know if was completed in the 1440s, 50 years before Columbus "discovered" America. Included in the engravings on the Temple are depictions of maize (corn) which was unknown in Europe at that time. Suggesting after the inquisition they fled not only to Scotland and Switzerland, but here as well. They founded the royal line in Switzerland, and the Templar Cross became the flag of Switzerland. The Templars experience in banking was used to create the Swiss banking system we know today, The royal family of Switzerland are descendants of surviving Templars. The Swiss Guard in the Vatican is comprised of a Swiss Officer of noble birth (blood descendant of the Templars) and a cadre of unmarried Swiss soldiers who are chaste in the tradition of the Templars. We also know that in every Templar stronghold there is a chapel or temple where is found an indentation in the floor whose dimensions mimic those laid forth in the bible for the Arc of the Covenant. Leading to speculation that the treasure of the Templars was the lost ten commandmants whose possession was supposed to guarantee victory for whatever army carried it into battle. This seems rather fanciful, but the indentation, its prominance in every chapel and the fact that the Arc once was supposed to have rested in King Solomon's Temple adds some interest for those who wonder what became of it. The Catholic Church's poor relations with the Free Masons is due in large part to rogue lodges in France and Itlay that plotted against the Church and used the secrecy afforded by the lodge to hide their actions. Coincidently, the Priory Du Scion was most active in France and Italy, the nations which each claimed the seat of the Church over time. Bottom line, there is much truth in what Brown wrote, it is the way he presents it and fills in the blanks that leaves people rolling their eyes. But as mentioned, its fiction, so take it with a grain of salt. |
|
Let me say this: It's a good read, well constructed and written. What is and what isn't "real" I don't know. But in Da Vinci's "Last Supper" the figure to the immediate left of Jesus (at his right hand) is DEFINITELY a woman, not a man, and anybody that thinks otherwise is blind. And there is no Grail, holy or otherwise, shown on the table. Which I thought kind of interesting. |
Jeez, it looks like the guy on his left hand has a huge set of tits.  Its a painting, not a photo. How would Davinci know? |
Ever hear off the The Satanic Verses? Believe it or not I read that book in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. 
|
Yes, the old Scooby-Doo ending. Overall, this was a pretty disappointing book, especially for something that created such a fuss. BTW, the Priory of Scion did exist -- it was a hoax concocted in the mid 1900's by a Vichy sympathiser who apparently wanted to pretend to be some kind of royalty. I've gotta think Dan Brown knew this and described it as an ancient organization as a joke or a clue. |
Leave it to a lawyer to screw things up...  The grand daughter is the holy grail, in the story she and her brother are blood descandants of Christ. their survival ensures that the line continues. Their existance would prove that Christ was mortal and had children, thereby threatening the foundation of the Church. The Priory Du Scion was protecting two things. First the blood descandants from extermination, thereby eliminating the line and second, the documentation that would be used to trace a geneology from modern damn men and women back to Christ. Like I said, all rather fanciful and some would say blasphemous. A lot of historical elements that were woven with a great deal of conjecture and anti-Christian bias to make a rather far-fetched story. Brown's hatred of the Holy See is apparent. His description of Opus Dei is borderline fanatical. While I have my issue with Opus Dei, I seriously doubt that they train and employ assassins to carry out their work. His turning on Opus Dei is probably a reflection of the growing power of the order under the current Pope who has elevated many Opus Dei Bishops to Cardinal knowing his days are coming to a close and wanting the majority of Cardinals to be ultra-conservative to keep the church from moving to the left on issues such as gay and married clergy, homosexual unions, birth control, et cetera. It was entertaining in a pulp fiction kind of way and was fairly engrossing for those more familiar with the history of the Templars, Priory Du Scion and Masons. |
Do a little more research... you might be surprised what you find. |
|
It is total B.S. Of course there were women at the last supper. If there were not supper would most likely never have gotten made. It would have been called the last meeting if there were no women present. Just because there were women there does not mean Jesus was married. Jesus was not married, he had no offspring. Jesus was (is) married to the Church. Sarge where are you? |
How could the bible code be true? We don't have the original text. Words and sentences have been added and subtracted to the Bible thousands of times since the original text was written. Nobody knows for sure what was in the original text. |
I hope you mean the story of the real Francois-Bérenger Saunière. He was a village priest who pretended to get money from finding treasure maps and treasure, but got busted for trafficking in masses. Plantard turned the treasure map story into finding priory-related documents. The name "Saunière" appears as the curator in DaVinci Code. Nice joke. |
Wedge you're on to something... dig a little deeper and you'll arrive at what the conspiracy theorists have been saying for generations. What might the Templars have found? Why have large portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls been hidden from view deep in the Vatican Archives? Like I said, I'm not arguing the case, just laying forth the arguments that have been made. |
|
Davichi Code is fiction. The book itself says that. The Bible Code however is a differant story. I have seen a few shows about this and am not sure what to make of it at this point. I doubt Jesus was married since early on at the age of 12 Jesus already knew His calling as evidenced by Him teaching in the temple. And I doubt God would put a family in the position of being fatherless knowing that Jesus would die at ayoung age of 33. Sgtar15 |
|
This overipe tripe still reeks. If you want to read an interesting 'novel' concerning all of these matters, simply go fetch Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, and delve into that! Excellent quotes from that work: "If two things don't fit, but you believe both of them, thinking that somewhere, hidden, there must be a third thing that connects them, that's credulity." "I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing." "When men stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything." "When we traded the results of our fantasies, it seemed to us--and rightly--that we had proceeded by unwarranted associations, by shortcuts so extraordinary that, if anyone had accused us of really believing them, we would have been ashamed." "All of us were slowly losing that intellectual light that allows you always to tell the similar from the identical, the metaphorical from the real." Eric The(WellRead,ButStillDevoutFundamentalChristian)Hun 
|
The dead sea scrolls were written by a Jewish group that did not belive Jesus to be the Son of God. Whatever was written in them would only provide a glimps into how that particular group lived in those times. |
Maybe I am not making myself clear. We do not know the exact words of the original text of any of the books in the Bible. Not because of some conspiracy but because things were changed (added, subtracted) over time through translations and copies. Some on purpose (to put things in the copier thought were missing, or the copier changing things they thought to be mistakes) some on accident. How can there be a code for the Bible when the Bible that we have today is not the original Bible that was written? |
The Early Christian Church debated that precise issue in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea, the resolution of which was our Nicean Creed. |
I was only refering to the text of the dead sea scrolls. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the Jews who wrote the dead sea scrolls. |
|
Keep digging Wedge, the Templars did not find the Dead Sea Scrolls... Do you believe the ONLY writings on Jesus's life were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Could there have been other Gosphels? As you said, there have been countless revisions over the centuries. What if those revisions were to make the text more palatable to the powers that controlled the early Church? What IF the Templars found definitive proof that Jesus was married and had children? I'm not asking you to accept that, I myself have no reason to believe that. However, what IF... Would such knowledge not put them at odds with the Church? Imagine, definitive proof that the teachings of the Church were incomplete. That there could be people walking the Earth that were direct blood descandants of the Son of God. Would not a human of divine ancestry not shake the very foundation of the Catholic Church that is headed by a Pope who speaks with infalability by virtue of his relationship to God? Could you imagine the crisis of faith this would cause if a person who was the Great Grandson to the X power of Christ spoke one thing and the Pope another. As I said, all very fanciful. But you have to ask yourself, why the sudden rise in power of the Templars and the sudden fall from grace. It was in part due to the Pope's and King Phillipe's need for their wealth, but also many believe for their "great treasure" which escaped Paris the day the Templars were turned upon... yet the Exchequer to the Church did a meticulous accounting and all wealth was accounted for... indicating that their great treasure was not monetary and concerned DeMolay so much that he ordered ships to sail to Scotland with it and hide it so it might not fall into the Church's hands. Yes, most decidely fiction, but the kernals of fact seeded throughout do raise questions. I for one would not have a problem with the concept of Jesus having had a child. Rabbis of the day commonly married, and I don't accept the fact that he wouldn't have had a child because God would know the child would be fatherless. There comes a time when most children lose a parent, sometimes it is at an early age, sometimes much older. Why would God allow ANY child to be born if he knew in advance that the child's parents would die prematurely? Remember, God sent his Son as a mortal... capable of being tempted by sin, able to feel pain and die as you and I will. Why should we believe that in allowing his Son to be fully human he would not allow him the full spectrum of human relations? Whether Mary Madalene was his wife and whether she was of the House of Benjamin or not is speculation that I don't care to even dabble in. For myself, I have no problem with the concept of the Son of God having known a woman within the bonds of marriage and having fathered children. |
|
Any Christian bookstore worth their salt will have at least three (that is, three at last count when I last went to a Christian bookstore, in May) books on debunking the Davinci code with biblical fact. Brown took a whole lot of interesting items and wove them into a story. Thus it is just a story. My mother in law is trained as a Biblical scholar. She laughed at the book. Caveat: I have not read the book. I'm sure it's an interesting work of fiction. To be taken the same way as Stephenson's Cryptonomicon...
|
I am aware that there are several other gospels that were left out of the Bible. Why the early Church kept the ones they did and left out the others is unknown. I am unaware of any Gospel that says that Jesus was married, and had offspring. While God did send his Son (a mortal, who was later found out to in fact also be God) down to earth, Jesus was perfect and not tempted by Sin. Jesus would have had no interest in marriage or fatherhood, because he knew what he was sent here to do and that was his focus. |
|
Whether or not any of the "Code" things are true, I thought it sucked. The whole thing is pretty easy to figure out. I was disapointed in the ending. The bad guy exposed himself too early to the other charicters. Of course, you kinda know who it is anyway, but I just thought Dan Brown had written so many pages and was just looking for a way to end it. If he had been smart, he would not haved "solved the mystery" and written a few more books. I just didn't like his writting. YMMV, but I want my time back. BTW< if you buy the book at Barnes and Noble, you can return it if you don't like it as long as it is in new condition within 30 days and you keep your receipt. |
I'm no biblical scholar, so please in all sincerity correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't Jesus spend forty days and forty nights in the dessert where He was tempted by Satan but did rebuke him? The following link makes an argument that Jesus could indeed be tempted, for why else would Satan try if it were not possible? http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20011214.htm I do not believe that Jesus could be mortal and free from the temptation of mortals. If He did not feel the pull of temptation to sin, how could He minister to those who could. There is a need for the Teacher to understand the student. Once can not speak from the heart on avoiding temptation if one can not feel it themself. |
Satan offered sinful things to Jesus. Jesus refused every offer and was never tempted to agree to anything satan offered. Jesus understands our temptation of Sin because He is God. God understands all. The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit are all the same thing. edit - Perhaps when satan made the offer he was making a mistake. Jesus (God) is not capable of mistakes, satan is. |
|
And thus enters the grace of faith my friend. You do not KNOW Jesus was never tempted, all you know is that he refused to give into any temptation if he felt it. Faith allows you to answer the unknown. Because we know Jesus is the Son of God, and by all accounts we know he never sinned, we embrace our faith to "know" that he was never at all tempted. If we ae honest we admit we can not know this because we can not ask Jesus. I pray a lot, I feel God and Jesus and Mary hear my prayers. I often have a sense of clarity after praying, whether that is because they have "told" me the answer or I arrived at the right thing to do by examining the teachings I can not say. I certainly have never heard a voice speak to me. Faith tells me that God, Jesus and Mary provide guidance, but I can not PROVE that. I'm not sure that I agree you can teach about spiritual issues that affect mortals if you yourself have never experienced them. It is one of the reasons I have long been conflicted with the concept of Catholic priests offering marriage counseling. Unless they were Anglican priests that converted and were married before doing so... or entered the clergy after the death of their wife, how can they understand the compexities of marriage? You can read all the books you want, but until you have lived it... dealth with the intimacy of man and woman, felt the strains grow over time, fought over issues of how to raise the family, pay the bills, plan for the future... I just don't think you are in a good place to counsel. I think in this respect Lay members of the church provide a far greater service as they speak from a position of experience. Yes, I agree, God is all knowing and all powerful as is His Son. However, in my heart I think there is a difference between knowledge and emotion. God can know what a man will do, he can know his heart and whether it is pure or not, but can he know and understand what a man feels as a man? We are created in God's image, but we are not gods. God was perfect, and we are flawed. How can Jesus be Divine and mortal, perfect and yet know what it is to be flawed? I believe Jesus must have known the temptations of mortals, he was however strong enough to resist it. If He could not feel the temptation, than His rejection of it offers no inspiration to those who do feel it. It is only through His mortality, His rejection of temptation that He could feel as one of us that we draw our strength. |
Glad to. 
I searched and found this discussion from a while back about this issue. Here were my comments: "However, this issue is another one that has been discussed and had many, many doctoral dissertations written about it. It is called the doctrine of The Impeccability of Christ. It basically states that Jesus was, is, and always will be God. He never ceased to be God while on the earth. His testing in the wilderness was to prove something. Satan didn't understand what it was at the time. But, looking back, we now can understand it. The test wasn't to prove that Jesus was able not to sin. It was to prove that He was unable to sin. How could He sin? He was, is, and always will be God. I assure you, God the Father did not lean forward on His Throne with worry that Jesus might fail. God knew that Jesus could not fail. He was not worried. All men, as descendants of Adam, have a "sin nature". It causes us to want to, and indeed to sin. Jesus had no sin nature. He had no desire to sin. He was, is, and always be Perfect in all His ways. Some might argue, "If He couldn't sin, then the test was not really a test!" But, suppose I was told that I would have my DNA tested to see if I am a man. I am not worried about failing that test; I cannot fail. But that doesn't mean that the test is not a valid test. It is a valid test, even if I cannot fail. Jesus was indeed tested with a valid test. But He could not possibly fail the test. Why? He is God. And praise His Holy Name!"
God can, because He is God. Jesus was not able to sin because He was God. But, as God, He knows everything. And that means He knows how we suffer from the temptaation to sin. He can understand our struggle, but He does not share our desire to sin. |
| I'm sorry Old Painless, while I share your conviction that Jesus did not sin, I reject that He COULD not sin. If He could not sin, He was not truly mortal. All mortals are given free will by God. While God may know what we will do, He does not control it. If Jesus was incapable of sin, he lacked freewill. It is essential that Jesus be tempted and reject temptation as an inspiration. If Jesus could end His suffering and be given dominion over everything by sucumbing it serves as an inspiration. If He was incapable of being tempted than it offers nothing to those who can be tempted. Remember Jesus's very life was His teaching, He is an example to follow. If His example can not be followed than His teachings can not be applied. |
No problem old buddy. We can agree to disagree. 
Then are you saying that God lacks "free will"? Because Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) are Three in One. Jesus had free will. But He did not have a "sin nature" or the desire to sin.
Contrary to your supposition, Jesus' primary purpose was not to "inspire". He came to die in our place. He lived without ever sinning. Can you? I can't. But according to your logic, we ought to be "inspired" not to sin.
Once again, Jesus was God. He never sinned. But you are suggesting that, since we cannot "follow His example" by being sinless, His life was not worthwhile. He was not "a good example". He was, and is, God. |
Jesus and God are the same person. God is without Sin and so is Jesus. Jesus is God's human form. Jesus was fully mortal with physical human qualities and fully divine with God's perfect will. |
|
Jesus was a dichotomy, you can not focus on the divine aspect at the expense of the mortal. You argue that Jesus could not sin because God could not sin and they are one in the same. Fair enough. By that theory, if we extend the logic, it is possible for mortal man to kill God as they were able to kill Jesus. Right? One in the same, interchangeable... if it could happen to one it could happen to all. I suppose you could argue that God and Jesus allowed Jesus to be killed, and therefore by extension God could allow man to kill Him as well. I am however finding this to be a stretch. If Jesus's life was not an example to be followed than why did He instruct His followers to do as He did. Remember, Jesus had a powerful ministry before His death. It was not until after His crucifixtion that His followers learned He came to die for them. His death is an important part of the gospels, but not the entirity. It is the story of a man, albeit the Son of God, who lived amongst the people, tended to his flock, understood their sufferings as He lived as one of them. He understood betrayal, love, sacrifice, joy, anguish and in my heart I believe temptation as well. I do think there is one mortal experience he never knew and that was sin. For while he might be tempted, and while He might actually be capable of sinning if he like us had freewill, I believe His heart and soul were so pure that he could overcome any temptation. For what its worth, this debate had me so intrigued that I just bothered my priest to discuss this with him. He thinks I'm nuts for debating this on a gun board while I'm supposed to be working... but he indulged me. He is of a similar mindset, that the Christ is both mortal and immortal and in order to be a man he must have been fully a man... meaning capable of experiencing all that man can. However, where you and I disagree on this, we all seem to be in agreement that Jesus never sinned. |