Finally read the DaVinci Code

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

And, I give it a double thumbs up. What a fantastic book!

I have no idea how much of it is real, but it sure does make you think. I can understand why there is so much uproar in Catholic circles.

The book is riveting. A mystery of bibical proportions. The detailed descriptions of the various scenes and settings are superb. I felt like I was there.

This book is very reminiscent of "National Treasure". Very cerebral and lots of puzzles to tease the mind.

The descriptions of historical records and the fictional/non-fictional fact base presented is so meticulously detailed that the reader is left with the clear impression that a lot of this must be real. I truly wonder how much of it is.

What makes it every more plausible are the real artifacts that you can view yourself today. Like Da Vinci's, The Last Supper. Is that really Mary Magdalene to the right of Jesus Christ in the painting? If the tradition of sharing wine in a single Chalice is so common, why are there wine glasses on the place settings for every person? What is that disembodied arm doing on the table?

This book is like the forbidden fruit of modern Christianity. It forces you to ask questions and seek alternative explanations for the history of religion and the purpose and politics it has played over time.

Anyone know if there is a documentary or book written on this subject to clarify the fact base? I am now motivated to learn more. What a great book.

[bigfrank Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close bigfrank]

My son read the book and loved it. I have been trying to get the movie from my mail subscription but it says long wait.

[JoAnn Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoAnn]

We just watched the DVD over the weekend. It follows the book fairly well.

As I remember on of the national morning shows went to various places mentioned in the book and talked about some of the 'real' things...the Opus Dia (or ?) headquarters in NYC, a Masonic lodge (really nice, fancy one), the Knights Templar, etc. Fodor (of travel book fame) has a guide so you can visit the various churches, chapels etc.

So, for me anyway, some of it is fact, but some IMHO is fiction. I thought the book was excellent.

[bigfrank Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close bigfrank]

We just watched the DVD over the weekend. It follows the book fairly well.

How as the movie, Did you enjoy it?

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Many of the books claims are NOT proven facts....

I've done some preliminary research and it appears that many of the claims in the book are false. Nothing conclusive.

There is a book titled:

The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code: A Challenging Response to the Bestselling Novel

Here is what is listed on the inside flap:

Through Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, you discover a lot of shocking facts about history and Christianity . . . or do you?
The Code: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, whom he named leader of the church before his death.

The Truth: This claim has no support even from the Gnostic Gospels mentioned in Brown's book, let alone from historical data.

The Code: Since the year 1099, a supersecret society called "The Priory of Sion" has preserved knowledge of Jesus and Mary's descendants.

The Truth: Today's "Priory of Sion" was founded in the early 1960s by a French con man who falsified documents o support the story of Jesus' "bloodline."

The Code: As a "Priory" leader and pagan goddess-worshiper, leonardo Da Vinci coded secret knowledge about Jesus nad Mary into his paintings.

The Truth: Da Vinci had no known ties to any secret Societies. Any obscure images in his paintings likely reflect his personal creativity.

Probing, factual, and revealing. The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code gives you the straightforward information you need to dig through the fiction and unearth the facts.

[JoAnn Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoAnn]

How as the movie, Did you enjoy it?

I did enjoy the movie, and as I mentioned, I felt it follows the book fairly well. It is long...145 minutes +-. But I don't think I liked it enough to buy it. Over all, I prefer the book to the screen...more suspense.

[hope54 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close hope54]

This book is like the forbidden fruit of modern Christianity. It forces you to ask questions and seek alternative explanations for the history of religion and the purpose and politics it has played over time.

On many different fronts the alternative explanations for religion are being explored. The ancient manuscripts that were discovered in mid 1900 buried in caves and in the sands of the middle east desert are putting a new spin on the traditional teachings of Christianity. It is as if the 'other half' of the story is emerging to round out that faith system.

HOPE

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

On many different fronts the alternative explanations for religion are being explored. The ancient manuscripts that were discovered in mid 1900 buried in caves and in the sands of the middle east desert are putting a new spin on the traditional teachings of Christianity. It is as if the 'other half' of the story is emerging to round out that faith system.

HOPE

I think there is a passage in the DaVinci code that paraphrases my thinking. It states that Religion uses a lot of metaphors to describe concepts and philosophies. They shouldn't be taken too literally because if you do, then the metaphors break down. It's very easy to poke holes into the factual records where people are walking on water, parting seas and turning water into wine. But, that's really not the key point of the writings.

What is important are the underlying concepts, morals and ways of life that they teach. The positive parts of religion is that it provides a framework for people to live their lives. The bad part is when it uses scare tactics to unduly control people and have them do bad things in the name of the religion.

[EAM Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close EAM]

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Several years ago an allegedly non-fiction book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail was published. It purported to "prove" several of the premises that were later used in The Da Vinci Code. However, most historians discounted the ideas presented in the book. Dan Brown, though, used the ideas from this book and even rearranged the letters in the name of one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail to create a name for one of the characters in The Da Vinci Code. Wikipedia has more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hol...the_Holy_Grail

And if you want to know what Opus Dei is really about, read something by St. Josemaria Escriva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josemar...a_Escriv%C3%A1

[Laurie Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Laurie]

Like Da Vinci's, The Last Supper. Is that really Mary Magdalene to the right of Jesus Christ in the painting? If the tradition of sharing wine in a single Chalice is so common, why are there wine glasses on the place settings for every person?

I read this book and was personally underwhelmed for a variety of reasons, long discussion (not the least of which is IMO women are not vessels, and I find this representation of women to be sexist and distaseful - just about as sexist as the mis-conception of the sum total of her as prostitute, which is also historically not based in any fact. From my reading, her importance was much more as a teacher of men, apostle to the apostles, than as a womb for a man's genetic code/bloodline to pass thru)... although I have appreciated the additional focus the book has given on Mary Magdalene, plus it has made various renditions of the Last Supper in art much more interesting to look at and think about. And I always like it when old fixed ideas about religion - which are believed to be fact - are re-examined.

I don't remember specific discussions in this book of sharing wine in a single chalice vs. wine glasses for everyone, but the tradition and significance of the Last Supper was that it was a Passover seder, a holiday familiar to most Jewish people, although some Christians don't get the connection. Traditionally everyone has their own glass of wine there, and drinks from it (4 glasses full) at particular points in the ceremony. There is always an extra glass of wine poured for Elijah, the coming messiah, and the door is left open for him. (When I was young I remember being told the wine level was going down because Elijah was there drinking from it - I guess this was either evaporation or someone was secretly sipping on it.) As I understand it, this is the cup Jesus drank from and declared as his blood, therefore declaring himself to be Elijah, i.e. the messiah.

I'm not sure whether this is related to what you were asking about the wine glasses, but thought I'd mention the Jewish traditions with the wine at Passover.

[shopgirl Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close shopgirl]

Being a believing person and knowing so many who are not, including my sister. I alway say, "you better hope you are right."

Yes, religion provides us some foundation upon which laws were based originally, but most laws are just common sense. Maybe they are only common sense because of religion. Sodom and Gomorrah was a place that had no religion, no knowledge of right or wrong and it was destroyed. The remains are under The Dead Sea.

I would so hate to live in a world that didn't believe in anything better than people. I would like to think that we are not the best there is. I want to believe in a higher power, a higher authority and in the goodness of a God who would send his son for us. People do not commit crime in part because they know there is something better. It is not just about jail time, it is about life after death.

Everything that man faces in life, Jesus had something to say about it. Jesus even covered paying taxes, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.........." The coins had Caesar on them. Very wise. I love Jesus's parables. He was either the most wise man who ever lived, even wiser than Confucius, or he was truly God with us.

I love that poem, "One Solitary Life." It sometimes comes on a Christmas card. My grandma sent it for years. Jesus affected the calendar. How many can do that today, except for the person who decides the date our clocks go back an hour and forward an hour with Daylight Savings Time.

I admire those religions that go door to door, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, because Jesus told us to spread the word and create nations of believers. I am not one to do that, so shame on me.

As far as the book, it is strange that the first word is FACT, then the words following are not necessarily facts. James Kennedy on Coral Ridge Hour, my favorite preacher on TV, really thought the book was misleading and did four or five long sermons, outlining the lies in the book. Not much of it is true. Mary is not next to Jesus, it is John. John was boyish and looked younger than his age. This is such a lie, no way did DaVinci mean for his painting to be interpreted the way this author did. But we have to consider it is fiction. Where did the author come up with such crazy theories? It was his imagination, nothing more, to write a book. Very clever because the Christians came out against it and everyone bought the book, just to see what the hullabalou was all about. Good for him, bad for those who believe everything they read. Taking away the possibility of the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead and dying for our sins is not nice to do to those who are gullible. I think the author is going to have some explaining to do. But if you can read the book, keeping it mind that it is entirely fiction, there is nothing wrong with it.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

I read this book and was personally underwhelmed for a variety of reasons, long discussion (not the least of which is IMO women are not vessels, and I find this representation of women to be sexist and distaseful - just about as sexist as the mis-conception of the sum total of her as prostitute, which is also historically not based in any fact. From my reading, her importance was much more as a teacher of men, apostle to the apostles, than as a womb for a man's genetic code/bloodline to pass thru)... although I have appreciated the additional focus the book has given on Mary Magdalene, plus it has made various renditions of the Last Supper in art much more interesting to look at and think about. And I always like it when old fixed ideas about religion - which are believed to be fact - are re-examined.

I don't remember specific discussions in this book of sharing wine in a single chalice vs. wine glasses for everyone, but the tradition and significance of the Last Supper was that it was a Passover seder, a holiday familiar to most Jewish people, although some Christians don't get the connection. Traditionally everyone has their own glass of wine there, and drinks from it (4 glasses full) at particular points in the ceremony. There is always an extra glass of wine poured for Elijah, the coming messiah, and the door is left open for him. (When I was young I remember being told the wine level was going down because Elijah was there drinking from it - I guess this was either evaporation or someone was secretly sipping on it.) As I understand it, this is the cup Jesus drank from and declared as his blood, therefore declaring himself to be Elijah, i.e. the messiah.

I'm not sure whether this is related to what you were asking about the wine glasses, but thought I'd mention the Jewish traditions with the wine at Passover.

You have an interesting interpretation. I actually felt that Dan Brown portrayed the pagans very favorably and rather than them being sexist, they held women to be revered as the life givers, not the womb for passing on the genetic code of men. He did use the term "vessel."

I knew that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Of course it was, Jesus was a jew. And, it explains why Passover is so close to Easter.

I think you need to go to Christianity to know the significance of the wine Chalice. At least in Catholocism, the mass is all about giving the body and blood of Christ. The priest gives communion in the form of wafers and the wine, although it is not shared, is poured and blessed in the Chalice. It is supposed to be shared out of the same cup. I never challenged this notion growing up. I just took it at face value that that is the way it was supposed to be.

[shopgirl Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close shopgirl]

This post was in answer to another post, but that post is now gone, so this one makes no sense.

[hope54 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close hope54]

It states that Religion uses a lot of metaphors to describe concepts and philosophies. They shouldn't be taken too literally because if you do, then the metaphors break down. It's very easy to poke holes into the factual records where people are walking on water, parting seas and turning water into wine. But, that's really not the key point of the writings.

What is important are the underlying concepts, morals and ways of life that they teach. The positive parts of religion is that it provides a framework for people to live their lives. The bad part is when it uses scare tactics to unduly control people and have them do bad things in the name of the religion.

Well said, Boca. There is a lot of bad religion being spoken and lived. And there is the dark side to any religion exhibited in fundamentalism that creates incredible amounts of harm. But that can't stop each person from pursuing their own spirituality - not religion.

Hope

[Laurie Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Laurie]

You have an interesting interpretation. I actually felt that Dan Brown portrayed the pagans very favorably and rather than them being sexist, they held women to be revered as the life givers, not the womb for passing on the genetic code of men. He did use the term "vessel."

From my reading, I don't gather that pagan cultures historically were sexist, when women were genuinely revered as life givers (not just historically in fact, this is a present-tense belief system as well). But I felt Dan Brown's (mis-)representation of this, relegating the "divine feminine" to this description of a woman as a "vessel" - was/is sexist. This word, and concept, was pretty central to the whole theory/plot of the book. There's a big difference between being a life-giver - active, powerful - and being a container (for a life to pass through - passive, an object). Like I said, long discussion.