DaVinci Code and Religion
 

I haven't seen any threads on this one. Today I was reading the most recent issue of Time magazine. They have a great article on all the missing christian texts, etc. It is a long, in depth article and hits on many areas regular christians will probably be cringing at.

So, I'm curious what thoughts are out there about all this stuff.

The Church has been very selective about what it includes and doesn't include in the canon as a matter of power. The Dead Sea Scrolls were omitted because it didn't support the idea of mediating your relationship with God through the church. It is a common practice throughout the years. The account of Jesus reemerging from the cave and the fireworks that followed was added the the Bible hundreds of years after the fact. So much for being against heresay, I imagine that the author of that part wasn't a firsthand witness.

Yadda, yadda, yadda... without rambling too much further and giving other example, I'd just like to say that this shouldn't be a surprise. In matters of power, the establishment will protect its cause.

Another reason not to judge the religion by the church.

I think you have to judge the christian religion, or the variations of it, by the church. Read the Time article and you'll find even more confusion that the regular Catholic - Lutheran divide. It must have been a real mess back then. And every Christian sect that followed because someone didn't agree with an interpretation of something!

My wife had to take two religion courses in college. One teacher, a former baptist minister kicked out for performing gay wedding, espoused intelligent religion based on thinking and making sense of things. Of course, that goes against the faith thing, which covers all the bases too neatly!

Nobody likes to be wrong. If you suddenly found out you were wrong, but had a way to make everyone think you were right, what would you do? What has institutional religion done?

You make a great point. Everyone wants to defend their position.

My wife and I rarely get in arguments anymore; however, the few we do have are like that. We both basically have the same position but just express it different. When the other doesn't immediately see it exactly thqat way we are then on a mission, even though it is for the same thing said differently!

My parents, especially my father, are devout fundamental Baptists. It would kill them if they had to change.

Simply put: Institutional Religion has done two things consistently....

1) Stick their heads in the sand and say "nyah, nyah, nyah..." until the problem goes away, or...

2) Pay out HUGE sums of cash when the problem doesn't disappear after using Step 1 (right, Cardinal Law?)

Somewhere, back at the very beginning of things in the Catholic Church, a mistake was made. More importance was attached to the messengers than to the message itself.

Yeah, I think they made the messemnger the message. Plus, you start digging around and what we see as the mainstay of Christianity todat didn't evolve until several hundred years AD.

whoa....

I don't think that's right. The dead sea scrolls were mostly cannonical hebrew scriptures, included in modern bibles. Other documents were specific to the essene movement, and to my knowledge did not support a particually individual bent to religious life. They did not support the temple, but to speak of the church is compeltely incorrect since the essenes were Jewish, not Christian.

Anyhow, the rest is off topic, but IMO the codes are all highly speculative and anti-intellectual. Its pretty well bullshit.

FOrgive my ignorance, but what is the DaVinci Code?

The DaVinci Code is a fiction book at the top of the top sellers list. It calls into question the common position organized religion has regarding history.

OK thanks.

Re: DaVinci Code and Religion
 

Acquire and read: "The Lost Books of the Bible" and "The Forgotten Books of Eden." Most booksellers have them in a combined volumn. I have not put my trust in organized Christianity since this read. I am a Christian, just non-aligned. I haven't lost my faith in Christ, just those that package and sell him.

Thanks. I'm heading out this afternoon so I'll go look for them.

I like to think of the Bible(s) as en encyclopedia set. Most religious sects that go by the information contained in this set have lost a few through the years, and so really cant get the whole picture. But if you borrow a few books here and there , you might get to view the whole set. The problem arises when sectA decides they wont read the book with S in it because of a word that starts with this letter. How do you interpret the set without S or W or whatever....guess you gotta make up a bunch of words to cover the missing information.

Good point.

On of the problems as I see it is that many religions - especially christian, fill in the blanks to suit their own idea of what the beliefs should be. That is to suit their lifestyle. Thus, so many differeing versions of christianity.

And the other thing is the oppression of women. In the beginning it was mother earth. Then, after the burning of millions of so-called witches - mainly just women with intelligence - the mother part was no more and women were supposed to OBEY.

I'm a guy and I just don't get it. My wife and I are partners, as much as that can be aggravating at times. And I know my parent's southern baptist version calls for the obey thing.

One of the great failures(in my opinion) of old school bible based religion, is the degrading attitude taken towards women. How foolish do you have to be to set yourself up to loose a large group of your flock. Of course this list is certainly not exclusive to women.

I'd say that if it weren't for the bible women of today would be in a completely different and worse situation. I see your point though hardline orthodox sects of the Judeo-Christian lineage keep them subserviant. It's the Koran where the real problem lies if your talking about religion and treatment of women (also a whole lot of culture thrown in there too).

I'm afraid I have to disagree there, Mojo. The bible itself is one of the most damning documents against women that exists in religion. The entire goal of the text and the aim of the church is to undermine the power of the "sacred feminine" or divine counterparts to the masculine deities of the older religions that were more established at the time.

Spirituality was closely related to sex; orgasm was like catching a glimpse of god; men were considered spiritually incomplete until they coupled with a female. Women were revered as the bringers of life. Then the new testament came along and switched things around. Eve was instead created from Adam's rib, then she consorted with the devil and got them kicked out of paradise. Woman became responsible for original sin, and during the persecution of "heretics" (the root of heretic being a word meaning "choice"), midwifes were banished, because the pains of childbirth were seen as punishment for what Eve supposedly did.

Women became the devil's partner in sin. The Pentacle (originally the sign of venus and the sacred feminine) was turned into the sign of devil worship. Mary Magdalene became a whore. Priestesses became an unthinkable sacrilege. Not only has the catholic church assured that it would be the only connection between the people and their spirituality, but they made sure that that connection would be wholly masculine in nature.

...no, I don't think the bible paints a particularly fond picture of women, nor has it furthered their place in society. The sense that I get is that men throughout the ages have been fearful of the enormous power of women and the sacred feminine, and so have spent the last couple thousand years trying to deceive their congregations and keep women oppressed. As a result, this has permeated into our society outside of church walls.

In closing, I will quote a common slogan from the cold war, blaming women for communists and sexual deviants: "behind every subversive lurks a woman's misplaced sexuality "

Oh and yes I've read the Da Vinci Code, and it's excellent. It gives me a lot of fuel for the arguments I've been making since I was in high school.

Is it worth reading?

(Emph. added)

Depends on your taste in fiction...

the novel is a fiction, but the symbology, etymology, and analysis of various works of art are all accurate.

i disagree...while i will admit i have not read it, i base my objections upon those of members of the scholarly community-men and women who have spent their careers studying the texts and performing exegetical work. the collective conclusion, is that the code is a bunch of hooey. its not based in scholarly research, and entertains conjecture freely. again...the value of the work depends on one's taste in fiction.

Chavos,
First off, there is a lot of good research in that book. The Plotline is hooey, for sure, but the "facts" he pulls out all have their lineages. Read <i>Holy Blood, Holy Grail</i> and check out his bibliography. If you find his credibility lacking, then please let me know why. I expect you would have better to say than "none of these conspiracy theories are worth the time it takes to disprove them" and am therefore very interested in what you have to say. Coupled with Jesus' status as a Rabbi, mandating marriage, and the extra canonical gospels which mention more of a connection b/w Jesus and Mary Magdelene and the idea makes one go Hmmm.

I sat through a Catholic mass on Friday (funeral), and the idea of the grail as code for the sacred feminine put a whole new spin on the eucharistic liturgy for me. I must say I was quite amused at the potential of "take this, all of you, and drink of it..." but, then again, I have a very dirty mind.

SPOILER ALERT: READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WISH TO READ THE BOOK
 

I'm not sure what specific code you are speaking of...
like you said, you haven't read the novel, and it is not about an actual da vinci code. it's a "suspenseful thriller" that's based around theories about the nature of the christian church.

I hate to make an example but if you don't wish to read the book then I want to share this with you (IF YOU DO WISH TO READ THE BOOK PLEASE READ NO FURTHER)

















What you see below is an image of da vinci's Last Supper.
There are thirteen men in this painting, of Jesus and his disciples, right? I have replaced the photos with a links so people can scroll through this post without seeing the pictures.

The Last Supper

sitting next to Jesus is supposedly John the Baptist, right? take a closer look:

Detail of John the Baptist?

Doesn't look much like a "John", but let's move in even closer.

Closer Detail of John(?)'s face

I don't see the face of a man, I see a woman with red hair, who is wearing the exact opposite of Jesus (blue robe w/red cloak as opposed to Jesus' red robe and blue cloak), and inclined at the opposite angle. the balancing feminine force of Jesus' masculinity. yin and yang. Namely, Mary Magdalene.

Then why is she a whore in the biblical stories today? because the church is built on the notion that christ was a divine being, above the sins and desires of humanity, and a lifelong bachelor, never to know the touch of a woman.

Of course, the Last Supper is just a painting made 1500 years later, perhaps something a bit closer to the events... Here is an excerpt from the gospel of philip found in the Nag Hammandi, suspiciously absent from the bible we know today:
another quote comes from the gospel of Mary of Magdala. A similar translation of this is found in the Da Vinci Code, and it is corroborated on this site:
Mary was Jesus' spouse (the ancient aramaic word companion literally meant spouse), and apparently he intended for her to carry on the church when it became clear that he would be martyred. This obviously arose Peter's temper, and challenges the male dominance of the church.

Again, not only has the power of the feminine threatened the power of the men in positions of authority, but the notion of the marriage of Jesus threatens the foundation on which the christian church is built.

Just because the plot is a work of fiction doesn't mean that everything in the book is ficticious, or that the author hasn't also researched the basis for his novel.

possibility!=plausibility. i find it possible that Jesus was married at some point...personally i suspect he was a widower at the time of his ministry. but a gap in the texts filled in such a manner is a midrash, not scholarship. it has its place...but not in a scholarly quest for the person of Jesus. Thus, my issues with the book.

The author points out in the beginning of the book what items are based on fact.

And bermuDa, both of your previous comments were awesome and right to the point.

Religious scholars can't be trusted to find the unbiased truth behind what they study if it has anything to do with their beliefs.

i'm not talking about scholars who owe their careers to the church...i'm talking about academics... its a sad day when the scholarship has lost its credibility to the point where crap like this book gets attention popularly...but i guess i can't really blame the folks who read it-academic instutions had opportunities to make the real scholarship popular and accessible. too bad, i guess...

I really enjoyed reading the DaVinci Code, and couldn't put it down. I've even seen some of the things in Europe that he talked about.

However, there are good reasons that the books in the Bible are in the Bible, and the other "gospels" are not, and divine intervention is not among them. The texts used for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written very close to the time the events and condition recorded in those books took place. If you can wade through all the fluff and evangelism stuff in it, Lee Strobel's "The case for Christ" contains a very good explanation about how the four gospels that are in the Bible were considered the gospel long before there was a Christian "church" or many of the letter now included in the New Testament were written, and that there are big differences in the timeframe and contents of the four Gospels and the other books that were not included. Ehile the early Church may have intentionally confused/misled followers about Mary Magdeline's role, That does not mean that she was married to Jesus or bore his child. Paul wrote about the Gospels in his letters, and he didn't mention the Book of Thomas, or any of the others. Paul also wrote about the married apostles, and he did not include any mention of Jesus being married. When he was talking about the man the believers believed in, about marriage, wouldn't it have been expected for him to say something about his wife? Maybe there's a reason he didn't. I've also read the books that talk about the Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar that the DaVinci Code used for inspiration, and I don't buy their arguments.

I read the book a few months back and was amazed at the scathing, sensational suggestions. I asked myself, "Could this all be true?' So I googled this phrase:

"da vinci code" inaccuracies

I got over 17,000 hits.

After browsing through those links, I think the answer is very likely, "No." But judge for yourself. However, I will leave you with a choice quote: "Unfortunately, the historical inaccuracies (and there were many) made this book the only book that I've ever read that left me feeling dumber than when I first started reading it."

My wife took a religion course in college and had a pretty cool prof who was an ex baptist minister. He googled everyone with the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the bible. I'm sure 17,000 would be a drop in the bucket if you started counting.

And Chavos, there is still a lot of bending to and defending of prior belief going on by many. I don't begrudge anyone their religion - that's a personal thing. I just don't like it pushed on me - which you certainly aren't doing, by the way!

The DaVinci Code (book by Dan Brown) and Angels and Demons were both fascinating reading for me.

Yes, but the Bible has been around for a wee bit longer and has been analyzed to a degree that would make the current investigations into the Da Vinci Code look like a Nancy Drew story :p

Actually, my wife took the course before the internet was popular. I just (miss)used "googled" for fun and since it's supposed to be a new word. Her prof's info was from his own research and began with simple things like Moses parting the Red Sea - when it was really a long-term weather event.

The point is, things have been interpreted and reinterpreted countless times. Ever play post office? You can't even whisper something to 10 people around a table and have it come out the same at the end. Everyone puts their own slant as it goes.

Reminds me of politics. Those in power slowly shift things to their way of thinking or to meet their needs. Like what is going on right now with Irag and WMD. Christianity and politics were so intertwined for so many years it isn't even funny. That's how the catholic church became so strong as a political entity.

By the way, I grew up in a Southern Baptist home and was very involved in the church for several years before beginning to question "faith" and everything else involving organized religion. So I feel I do have some credibility in this conversation.

I'm nearly finished with the book. Even though it is fiction, it is amazing how much of the basic ties to facts I have already read elsewhere.

If you guys really want all of the facts on this one. Click on this link. It is froma pastor named John Ortberg. He used to be the pastor of my church willow creek. He since then left to go to a church in cali. I stumbled across this. Listen to it very educational it will answer all of your questions. The message is called Jesus and the di vinci code http://www.mppc.org/esermons.html
I guess the link isnt going to show up but still copy and paste this link you will not regret it

I got to the part where he answers all the questions and realized that his premise was questionable at best.

He answers all this stuff so authoritatively, as though he was there to witness the events himself. Fact is all this occurred 2000+ years ago, and it occurred more than a thousand years before printing presses made the mass-produced printing process a reliable form of communication. The bible was written by men 2000 years ago and was then copied BY HAND for more than 1000 years. Ever play Telephone? The message is totally screwed up after 5 minutes and 20 people. It's nearly impossible that the bible's original messages weren't screwed up after 1,000 years and thousands of people.

What we have to remember is that the bible is not an original source. It's a document copied from a document copied from a document copied from some guy telling a story that he read in another document that was written down by men supposedly listening to God talk. As such, it is NOT a reliable historical source, and many if not most of its historical assertions cannot be proven and in fact can be explained by much more logical means. Some examples follow:

Immaculate Conception: Was Mary a virgin, or did she sleep with Joseph (or another man) before their wedding night, crimes which could have seen her put to death probably by stoning. In an age where people believed anything mystical (remember, that even as recently as the 1700's people believed illnesses were caused by God or the devil) how hard would it have been to convince people that she didn't have sex - that God himself impregnated her?

Turning water into wine. Back then, wine was not alcoholic. It was grape juice. Not real hard to turn water into grape juice if you use powdered grapes and are halfway decent at sleight of hand.


Healing the leper: Yeah, I'd pretend to have leprosy too if you offered me enough money.

Walking on water: Coral reef just under the surface. Keep in mind this was a time when skepticism was nearly nonexistant.

In other words (and i'm not saying this is definitely the case) the miracles of Jesus could have been performed by any competent stage magician.

The truth is that we simply don't know. We cannot state with factual certainty that Jesus was the son of God, and we cannot state with factual certainty that he was a con artist either. IMHO the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

So when I see a pastor/priest/etc state that it is a historical fact that something happened, and then uses ONLY the bible to justify that claim, I stop listening, because I know that it is merely opinion, and groundless at that.

First of all.. as john ortberg had said. They lived in a time before television or any of the distractions we have today. They lived in an era when stories was the only thing they had. When we play telephone today we play with all of the distractions that they didnt have then. So yes it was story handed down generation after generation. I trust that more then I trust most of the crap we have in todays media. You look at the newspaper. Everyone has an agenda. Chicago tribune for example. They make one statement in the begining of the article and then retract it at the end. Assuming that you arent actually going to take the time to read the entire article. Most people skim through the paper. Is this a reliable source? I would much rather have a book that was written 2000 yrs ago by people who memorized the stories. Like he said before try reading your kids fav book to them and skip a part. They will correct you in an instant. The same way with them. Do you know what it took to become a rabi back then? It took several classes that you went to as a 12 yr old boy. You took these classes and you learned the torah. The first 5 books in the bible. In order to advance onto the next stage you had to know the torah word for word. They would give you tests on this and ask you things about it. U would have to say where it was from and what it mean etc etc. So do I trust the stuff that was written down. Heck yes I do. Not to metion when Christ spoke they said he spoke with authority. The orginal translation for this was shmeha (I believe this is how you spell it. Its beel a while) The question here when was the last time people were amazed or astounded at the words and knowledge that came out of your mouth? What drew people to Jesus was the fact that when he spoke it was like he was speaking into each of their hearts?
Btw WHY OH WHY would you want to fake being a leper? I dont think you understand what you just said. If you were a leper that meant that nobody can touch you it means the ultimate rejection. People would go out of their way to avoid you. Kind of like the pharacies. If someone saw you they would go on the other side of the street to avoid looking at you. Why would you fake this? No this was not some man faking anything. You read further in the bible. It says how the people that lived in his neighborhood didnt even know who he was. The people he lived near didnt even pay enough attention to him before to know what he looked like. Also the religious leaders kept on asking him questions. This man was so convinced that Jesus was from God that he went against everything the religious leaders told him. So you tell me if this man was faking it

I'm not sure how you play it, but most people don't play it while watching TV and surfing the internet.

It's not the paper's fault that people don't read the whole article. The SOURCE is reliable. The idiot reading only the first 3 words is not.

Well number one, the topics addressed by this thread and the book deal with the new testament, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with rabbis. Number two you're basically saying that everything in the bible is grade-A reliable. Then why are there so many contradictions throughout the book?

Hitler spoke with authority too. Speaking with authority doesn't make it right, accurate, or truthful. What "they" said is irrelevant.


Jesus HEALED the leper. No one had a problem with going near him anymore after he was "healed."

Plus, let's say the stigma stayed around even after you were "cured." You take your newfound wealth provided by this guy who wanted to fake a miracle healing, move to a new town where no one knows you were (pretending to be) a leper, and start living high on the hog.

If we break down your post into its elements, you're saying "I know the bible is accurate because the stuff the bible says is confirmed in the bible."

That's not proof, that's belief, and that's the point I'm making. The trap that religious people fall into when trying to convince others that their religion is correct is that they can NEVER prove it. It's an issue of faith, and is not able to be validated.

Two must read books for your collection, both by Randel Helms (professor of history at Brigham Young, I believe):

Gospel Fictions
Who Wrote The Gospels?

You said the bible is full of contradictions? Where are they? I have heard people say this before but not really be able to give me any. Many people have set out to disprove the bible and as a result came to faith. I really havent seen contradictions. I would be intrested in hearing what you believe to be contradictions.

in Ecclesiastes it says "the earth abideth forever."

In Peter it says " the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."


*

Exodus tells us about the "eye for an eye" principle, yet Matthew tells us to turn the other cheek.

*

Deuteronomy and Leviticus both say it's wicked to practice incest, yet Genesis tells of Abraham marrying his sister, God liking the arrangement, and blessing them with a kid.

*

In Exodus, God says "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" yet in Ezekiel we learn that "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

There are more, but I'm tired of typing ;)

someone's right...and we'll all find out soon enough. if the second coming is true--watch out!

I don't get how women would be in a different shape today without the bible. Looks like it messed them up pretty good. They went from a pedastle to the floor.


I you haven't read the book you have very little to offer but your own sermon!

Also, the book starts with a statement to the effect that this is fiction but the facts are accurate.

The bible is nothing if not continuous contradictions. Do some research and stop asking "people."

Please you tell me once again its full of continous contradictions. Tell me if its one after another then why has it been the greates book seller of all time. I mean almost eveyhouse in atleast the united states have atleast one. If it were nealry as bad as you make it out to be. It wouldnt be this way