The DaVinci Code discussion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sexymama · 07-28-2004, 08:55 AM

Wow -- in my opinion, what a great book!

Points to discuss/ponder:

1. Brown's view on the "sacred feminine." I personally found his view to be very healthy and refreshing. I don't buy into "men and woman are completely equal." We are very different and I celebrate that fact. I feel that Brown did a nice job of pointing out how woman should be honored along with men. Woman and men can complete one another. Our differences should be celebrated and honored.

2. Sex as a sacred act. Although I'm not sure I could participate in a sexual ritual such as the one described in the book, the beauty and the eroticism amazed me.

3. Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene. I am anxious now to access copies of DaVinci's works. I want to take a closer look at the "Last Supper" to see if I can see what is described in the book. Brown did a very nice job of convincing me that Mary and Jesus could have absolutely been husband and wife. I've always struggled with traditional Christianity as I believe it is "man made." The idea that Jesus married and had children, that he did not come from a virgin birth, that he was completely human and still "Godly" makes perfect sense to me.

4. Author's craft. I must say that I was completely surprised that Teabing was the conspirator. I enjoyed this twist and give high codos to Brown for doing such a nice job with the "red hearings." I can usually guess the outcome of a mystery or suspense movie/book and was pleasantly pleased to be wrong.

5. Whatever else stood out for you or struck you.

maleficent · 07-28-2004, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sexymama
Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene. I am anxious now to access copies of DaVinci's works. I want to take a closer look at the "Last Supper" to see if I can see what is described in the book. Brown did a very nice job of convincing me that Mary and Jesus could have absolutely been husband and wife. I've always struggled with traditional Christianity as I believe it is "man made." The idea that Jesus married and had children, that he did not come from a virgin birth, that he was completely human and still "Godly" makes perfect sense to me.
.

I read that in the book, and the first thing I did was google the image -- and unless it's a hell of an optical illusion, it does look like a female next to him....

sexymama · 07-28-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maleficent
I read that in the book, and the first thing I did was google the image -- and unless it's a hell of an optical illusion, it does look like a female next to him....

Yes it does! And note the V too -- very interesting and thank you!

Seaver · 07-28-2004, 10:18 PM

[EDIT] Sorry didnt know I was in the ladies lounge, thought I was still in General Discussion [Edit]

//SiN - edit: Thx for correcting yourself...now just don't let it happen again thx

claustin8605 · 07-30-2004, 10:10 AM

Da Vincis Code was a great book. I loved every word of it. I read the book feverishly for two days, after I started I couldn't stop. I also googled some of the ideas on there about the priory of sion and the opus dei church. There is a followup book on Da Vinicis Code called The Truth behind Da Vincis Code, I high recommend reading it. It explains alot about the book and helps support what is true and false.

sexymama · 07-30-2004, 12:12 PM

^I'm just curious -- is "The Truth about The DeVinci Code" from a Christian perspective?

annie1 · 08-02-2004, 06:59 PM

Its been nearly a year since I read the book but I read it in 2 days. It had me hooked. I recommend Angels and Deamons by Dan Brown as well, it's the prequel to the DaVinci Code. It too involves Robert Langdon and a one-day whirl wind mystery... it also introduces Vittoria...

anti fishstick · 08-05-2004, 06:30 PM

Well I'm only on chapter 23 or so.. But I'm starting to get really into it.. It's interesting how there is historical relevance and facts throughout the book. But I think there's a bias towards Da Vinci, obviously, since the book is entitled "Da Vinci Code" He may have been the member of a secret society but he shouldn't get all the credit for it. This focus on Da Vinci alone makes me think that what I'm reading and learning about Priory of Sion, etc. is incomplete. He may have popularized it but he didn't *start* it.

anti fishstick · 08-06-2004, 11:55 AM

also, i noticed something peculiar while reading the front and back flaps of the hardcover version... has anyone else noticed this? i don't want to say exactly incase i spoil it

maleficent · 08-06-2004, 12:07 PM

Go to the website for the davinci code - it's part of a contest

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/

anti fishstick · 08-06-2004, 12:31 PM

Wow, thanks.. that is totally cool

I love riddles myself

maleficent · 08-06-2004, 12:32 PM

The end of it had me really stumped... Drove me nutty...

sexymama · 08-06-2004, 04:19 PM

The sight is lots of fun -- and challenging. Thanks for the info!

maleficent · 08-06-2004, 08:30 PM

When I first went to that site, you had to solve the puzzle to be entered in a contest for a trip to Paris - -that was when the book was first released -

In looking over it - they've changed some of the questions - -gack - -and some I don't have a clue on ....

sexymama · 08-06-2004, 10:42 PM

I finished the second puzzle, so took a quick look at the first. I am too tired to do it tonight -- but will look at it tomorrow. They are fun; thanks again!

anti fishstick · 08-07-2004, 09:10 AM

I thought the riddles were really easy. It took me less than 15 minutes.

anti fishstick · 08-25-2004, 10:19 PM

ok. I think this thread has gone pretty unnoticed for awhile with not much discussion.. And I'm interested because I'm almost done with the book.

To address sexymama's points:

1. The Sacred Feminine. Cunt did not have its negative connotations it has today until the 20th century. Part of this was because of the shift from pre-Christian to Christian times when the Sacred Feminine was disregarded by the church. To me, it is a step backwards because it took a long time for women to get any recognition since then. In the Renaissance Era, you weren't a famous painter unless you were a man.. And if you were a women, it was a big deal to be a women more than your paintings itself, etc. It wasn't until the mid-1800's when the women's rights movement took place.. and that was only towards the right to vote! Surely, women's inequality still suffered significantly. I often wonder what life would be like today if the church never shunned the Sacred Feminine. I wonder what the church was afraid of?

2. Sacred sex. This reminds me of some eastern philosophies/tantric sex, etc. In pre-Christian times, people would come to women to have sex and achieve orgasm all the time. They were the modern day whores and I believe the church called Mary Magdalene a "whore" because of her associations with sexuality. An interesting book about women's sexuality and history is Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. I don't think these "modern day whores" were actually considered whores at the time. Again, they didn't have those negative connotations. They were highly revered because of the sacredness of sex.

Now, we are taught sex or pornography is a sin. Women aren't nearly as respected as they used to be and they are constantly being objectified everyday in the workplace, in movies, advertisements or other media and in pornography. What would it be like today if the church did not shun the Sacred Feminine? If they didn't preach that sex is a naughty act and that we were born as sinners? I think our society would be a lot healthier in its views of sexuality and maybe some semblance of the Sacred Feminine would still be there... rather than this alienation and decadence we have today.

While we may view the hieros gamos as an erotic event, I'm pretty sure the ritual wasn't thought of in that way because it was a spiritual act. I had a hard time *not* viewing this as sexual or erotic because of our conceived notions of this in society.

3. Jesus and Mary. Jesus was a normal guy, who experienced normal things like love, sex and erections. There are even some paintings depicting Jesus with an erection underneath his cloth coverings. The bible as far as I know it is purely metaphorical and allegorical. It's scary that a vast amount of people do not even know the difference between *metaphor* and *reality*. The bible was revised many times from many different people specifically to cater towards certain ideals that the church could preach.

None of the major concepts in this book surprised me or were new to me. I had already known about the "Sacred Feminine" prior to reading this book but didn't know it was called Sacred Feminine until reading it. In my opinion, the Sacred Feminine is where we should be in society and it is unfortunate that we have all these things that disregards it. It is a healthier view of sexuality in general. Whether you like it or not, history has a big, direct affect on present times and it doesn't matter how far back you go. The more we leave issues unaddressed, the more it will propel to greater problems.

aphroditeskiss1 · 08-29-2004, 12:07 AM

As a note, Dan Brown went totally off on the Mary Magdalene/Jesus relationship. I did quite extensive research into it, both by authors who disagreed, and those who hoped that was the truth. It wasn't they weren't married, nor was there a child. Just thought I'd let everyone know.

anti fishstick · 08-30-2004, 05:48 PM

I'm confused.. so you're saying that Dan Brown's claim that Mary and Jesus were married is incorrect?

aphroditeskiss1 · 08-30-2004, 08:52 PM

Yes, it is incorrect. As awesome it would be if that were the case, no accurate or reliable research has been found to support it. The consensus is that Jesus and Mary's relationship was a platonic one.

sexymama · 09-04-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aphroditeskiss1

Yes, it is incorrect. As awesome it would be if that were the case, no accurate or reliable research has been found to support it. The consensus is that Jesus and Mary's relationship was a platonic one.

I don't believe there is any hardcore research to dispute this either. Man wrote the Bible, the church determined what history was recorded. I think this may be a great mystery; however, no matter what we believe their relationship was, the fact is Jesus honored woman.

In answer to why did the church move away from "the sacred feminine?" I believe that it had to do with power. The major players in the church were men. They wanted to remain in power. As such, they had to take power away from others. They took it from woman by declaring them lowly. It wasn't until several hunderd years after the death of Christ that they took a vote and decided he was/is God. The church also voted on what books would be included in the Bible. The more esoteric books were kept out because they gave much more power to humans, rather than to the church.

For more information you may want to read "The Jesus Mystery" (or mysteries). It is a very informative, well-researched book.

Anti fishstick, thanks for your comments on women's sexuality.

I will be purchasing the "Cunt" book next. First I'm reading "Angels and Demons" by Brown. Very good so far.

trickyy · 09-07-2004, 12:48 PM

i'm about 2/3 of the way through

kind of an interesting idea of course. i guess i was expecting something a little more shocking. however, it bothers me that brown plays fast and loose with facts to tie his theory together. unfortunately there is more supporting evidence for the documents in the current bible. browns main theory is based on disjointed and less reliable evidence. while it's exciting (and apparently profitable) to think that facts were suppressed, the evidence to support this idea is weak. at any rate, it makes for a good story. just as jfk and bowling for columbine appeared to be convincing films at first, marginal research revealed that the ideas presented were often lacking proof.

a couple more things stuck out...

phi is not 1.618. its like saying that 1/3 = 0.333. these numbers are infinitely long, and it's mathematically important to include that caveat.

this book is full of cliches. i don't read many bestsellers, but is this what they are all like? stopped in his tracks, turned on his heel, going to be a long night?? that's poor writing, spake the intro to writing prof. maybe i couldn't do better, but ive definitely seen better.

im told that focualt's pendulum by umberto eco is better, but i have not yet read it.

anti fishstick · 09-07-2004, 10:06 PM

yes, i've also heard focault's pendulum is better and plan on reading that next :-D i'm in between right now.. still trying to read 100 years of solitude which i had started before davinci code...

and sexymama, you've got it exactly right. It's because of power that the church shunned the sacred feminine as well as other books in the bible. there has been some mention of reincarnation in earlier versions of the bible but Constantine ordered it to be removed because of the power it could have for man.

ColonelSpecial · 09-08-2004, 10:20 PM

I personally liked the book. I did have to keep reminding myself and a friend of mine who was reading along with me that it was a fictional book. The author was allowed to play fast and loose with facts because it was fiction. I took a look at all the paintings mentioned in the book and couldn't seem to find all the things that the author did. I still rate the book up there among my favorites.

trickyy · 09-09-2004, 11:08 AM

i liked the story too. i was critical of the content because the of the author's introductory claim on the "fact" page.

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel
are accurate."

so i gave him the benefit of the doubt for part of the book...and felt misled later.

anyway, i liked sifting through some of the topics he covered. i kind of like to find out what IS actually fact. john does look like a nancy in the last supper painting...could even be a woman, but it's hard to say. and at first peter's hand seems to be slicing at the throat, but actually he appears to be leaning in to speak. then there is the knife, which has obviously spooked one of the disciples. all in all, it's rather ambiguous.

here's what the NYT art critic says...
http://www.newagepointofinfinity.com/new_page_10.htm
this website sounds kind of nutty but the NYT doesn't have it archived on their site

im still going to look into his claims on the early catholic church. i know they scrapped some of the gnostic gospels because they were of dubious authenticity, but im not yet sure if there were alterior motives for these actions.

07-28-2004, 08:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	The DaVinci Code discussion Wow -- in my opinion, what a great book! Points to discuss/ponder: 1. Brown's view on the "sacred feminine." I personally found his view to be very healthy and refreshing. I don't buy into "men and woman are completely equal." We are very different and I celebrate that fact. I feel that Brown did a nice job of pointing out how woman should be honored along with men. Woman and men can complete one another. Our differences should be celebrated and honored. 2. Sex as a sacred act. Although I'm not sure I could participate in a sexual ritual such as the one described in the book, the beauty and the eroticism amazed me. 3. Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene. I am anxious now to access copies of DaVinci's works. I want to take a closer look at the "Last Supper" to see if I can see what is described in the book. Brown did a very nice job of convincing me that Mary and Jesus could have absolutely been husband and wife. I've always struggled with traditional Christianity as I believe it is "man made." The idea that Jesus married and had children, that he did not come from a virgin birth, that he was completely human and still "Godly" makes perfect sense to me. 4. Author's craft. I must say that I was completely surprised that Teabing was the conspirator. I enjoyed this twist and give high codos to Brown for doing such a nice job with the "red hearings." I can usually guess the outcome of a mystery or suspense movie/book and was pleasantly pleased to be wrong. 5. Whatever else stood out for you or struck you. __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

07-28-2004, 10:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	[EDIT] Sorry didnt know I was in the ladies lounge, thought I was still in General Discussion [Edit] //SiN - edit: Thx for correcting yourself...now just don't let it happen again thx Last edited by SiN; 07-29-2004 at 11:21 AM..

07-30-2004, 12:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	^I'm just curious -- is "The Truth about The DeVinci Code" from a Christian perspective? __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

08-02-2004, 06:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
annie1 Insane	Its been nearly a year since I read the book but I read it in 2 days. It had me hooked. I recommend Angels and Deamons by Dan Brown as well, it's the prequel to the DaVinci Code. It too involves Robert Langdon and a one-day whirl wind mystery... it also introduces Vittoria... Last edited by annie1; 08-03-2004 at 08:43 PM..

08-05-2004, 06:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	Well I'm only on chapter 23 or so.. But I'm starting to get really into it.. It's interesting how there is historical relevance and facts throughout the book. But I think there's a bias towards Da Vinci, obviously, since the book is entitled "Da Vinci Code" He may have been the member of a secret society but he shouldn't get all the credit for it. This focus on Da Vinci alone makes me think that what I'm reading and learning about Priory of Sion, etc. is incomplete. He may have popularized it but he didn't start it. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

07-30-2004, 10:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
claustin8605 Banned	Da Vincis Code was a great book. I loved every word of it. I read the book feverishly for two days, after I started I couldn't stop. I also googled some of the ideas on there about the priory of sion and the opus dei church. There is a followup book on Da Vinicis Code called The Truth behind Da Vincis Code, I high recommend reading it. It explains alot about the book and helps support what is true and false.

08-06-2004, 11:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	also, i noticed something peculiar while reading the front and back flaps of the hardcover version... has anyone else noticed this? i don't want to say exactly incase i spoil it __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

08-06-2004, 12:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Go to the website for the davinci code - it's part of a contest http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/ __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-06-2004, 12:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	Wow, thanks.. that is totally cool I love riddles myself __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

08-06-2004, 12:32 PM	#12 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	The end of it had me really stumped... Drove me nutty... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-06-2004, 04:19 PM	#13 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	The sight is lots of fun -- and challenging. Thanks for the info! __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

08-06-2004, 08:30 PM	#14 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	When I first went to that site, you had to solve the puzzle to be entered in a contest for a trip to Paris - -that was when the book was first released - In looking over it - they've changed some of the questions - -gack - -and some I don't have a clue on .... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-06-2004, 10:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	I finished the second puzzle, so took a quick look at the first. I am too tired to do it tonight -- but will look at it tomorrow. They are fun; thanks again! __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

08-07-2004, 09:10 AM	#16 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	I thought the riddles were really easy. It took me less than 15 minutes. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

08-25-2004, 10:19 PM	#17 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	ok. I think this thread has gone pretty unnoticed for awhile with not much discussion.. And I'm interested because I'm almost done with the book. To address sexymama's points: 1. The Sacred Feminine. Cunt did not have its negative connotations it has today until the 20th century. Part of this was because of the shift from pre-Christian to Christian times when the Sacred Feminine was disregarded by the church. To me, it is a step backwards because it took a long time for women to get any recognition since then. In the Renaissance Era, you weren't a famous painter unless you were a man.. And if you were a women, it was a big deal to be a women more than your paintings itself, etc. It wasn't until the mid-1800's when the women's rights movement took place.. and that was only towards the right to vote! Surely, women's inequality still suffered significantly. I often wonder what life would be like today if the church never shunned the Sacred Feminine. I wonder what the church was afraid of? 2. Sacred sex. This reminds me of some eastern philosophies/tantric sex, etc. In pre-Christian times, people would come to women to have sex and achieve orgasm all the time. They were the modern day whores and I believe the church called Mary Magdalene a "whore" because of her associations with sexuality. An interesting book about women's sexuality and history is Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. I don't think these "modern day whores" were actually considered whores at the time. Again, they didn't have those negative connotations. They were highly revered because of the sacredness of sex. Now, we are taught sex or pornography is a sin. Women aren't nearly as respected as they used to be and they are constantly being objectified everyday in the workplace, in movies, advertisements or other media and in pornography. What would it be like today if the church did not shun the Sacred Feminine? If they didn't preach that sex is a naughty act and that we were born as sinners? I think our society would be a lot healthier in its views of sexuality and maybe some semblance of the Sacred Feminine would still be there... rather than this alienation and decadence we have today. While we may view the hieros gamos as an erotic event, I'm pretty sure the ritual wasn't thought of in that way because it was a spiritual act. I had a hard time not viewing this as sexual or erotic because of our conceived notions of this in society. 3. Jesus and Mary. Jesus was a normal guy, who experienced normal things like love, sex and erections. There are even some paintings depicting Jesus with an erection underneath his cloth coverings. The bible as far as I know it is purely metaphorical and allegorical. It's scary that a vast amount of people do not even know the difference between metaphor and reality. The bible was revised many times from many different people specifically to cater towards certain ideals that the church could preach. None of the major concepts in this book surprised me or were new to me. I had already known about the "Sacred Feminine" prior to reading this book but didn't know it was called Sacred Feminine until reading it. In my opinion, the Sacred Feminine is where we should be in society and it is unfortunate that we have all these things that disregards it. It is a healthier view of sexuality in general. Whether you like it or not, history has a big, direct affect on present times and it doesn't matter how far back you go. The more we leave issues unaddressed, the more it will propel to greater problems. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

08-29-2004, 12:07 AM	#18 (permalink)
aphroditeskiss1 Insane Location: Albuquerque, NM	As a note, Dan Brown went totally off on the Mary Magdalene/Jesus relationship. I did quite extensive research into it, both by authors who disagreed, and those who hoped that was the truth. It wasn't they weren't married, nor was there a child. Just thought I'd let everyone know. __________________ "You always said destiny would blow me away. But nothing's gonna blow me away"- Something Coporate " I do not pop pills! I take them and I eat them..." - Foamy's friend

08-30-2004, 05:48 PM	#19 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	I'm confused.. so you're saying that Dan Brown's claim that Mary and Jesus were married is incorrect? __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

08-30-2004, 08:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
aphroditeskiss1 Insane Location: Albuquerque, NM	Yes, it is incorrect. As awesome it would be if that were the case, no accurate or reliable research has been found to support it. The consensus is that Jesus and Mary's relationship was a platonic one. __________________ "You always said destiny would blow me away. But nothing's gonna blow me away"- Something Coporate " I do not pop pills! I take them and I eat them..." - Foamy's friend

09-07-2004, 12:48 PM	#22 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'm about 2/3 of the way through kind of an interesting idea of course. i guess i was expecting something a little more shocking. however, it bothers me that brown plays fast and loose with facts to tie his theory together. unfortunately there is more supporting evidence for the documents in the current bible. browns main theory is based on disjointed and less reliable evidence. while it's exciting (and apparently profitable) to think that facts were suppressed, the evidence to support this idea is weak. at any rate, it makes for a good story. just as jfk and bowling for columbine appeared to be convincing films at first, marginal research revealed that the ideas presented were often lacking proof. a couple more things stuck out... phi is not 1.618. its like saying that 1/3 = 0.333. these numbers are infinitely long, and it's mathematically important to include that caveat. this book is full of cliches. i don't read many bestsellers, but is this what they are all like? stopped in his tracks, turned on his heel, going to be a long night?? that's poor writing, spake the intro to writing prof. maybe i couldn't do better, but ive definitely seen better. im told that focualt's pendulum by umberto eco is better, but i have not yet read it.

09-07-2004, 10:06 PM	#23 (permalink)
anti fishstick Post-modernism meets Individualism AKA the Clash Location: oregon	yes, i've also heard focault's pendulum is better and plan on reading that next :-D i'm in between right now.. still trying to read 100 years of solitude which i had started before davinci code... and sexymama, you've got it exactly right. It's because of power that the church shunned the sacred feminine as well as other books in the bible. there has been some mention of reincarnation in earlier versions of the bible but Constantine ordered it to be removed because of the power it could have for man. __________________ And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. ~Anais Nin

09-08-2004, 10:20 PM	#24 (permalink)
ColonelSpecial Insane	I personally liked the book. I did have to keep reminding myself and a friend of mine who was reading along with me that it was a fictional book. The author was allowed to play fast and loose with facts because it was fiction. I took a look at all the paintings mentioned in the book and couldn't seem to find all the things that the author did. I still rate the book up there among my favorites.

09-09-2004, 11:08 AM	#25 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i liked the story too. i was critical of the content because the of the author's introductory claim on the "fact" page. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." so i gave him the benefit of the doubt for part of the book...and felt misled later. anyway, i liked sifting through some of the topics he covered. i kind of like to find out what IS actually fact. john does look like a nancy in the last supper painting...could even be a woman, but it's hard to say. and at first peter's hand seems to be slicing at the throat, but actually he appears to be leaning in to speak. then there is the knife, which has obviously spooked one of the disciples. all in all, it's rather ambiguous. here's what the NYT art critic says... http://www.newagepointofinfinity.com/new_page_10.htm this website sounds kind of nutty but the NYT doesn't have it archived on their site im still going to look into his claims on the early catholic church. i know they scrapped some of the gnostic gospels because they were of dubious authenticity, but im not yet sure if there were alterior motives for these actions.