word-on-the-web Forum - A Bravenet.com Forum

Razten

May 4, 06 - 8:43 PM

Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

i just thought that we needed a place to discuss the ideas mentioned in 'the da vinci code' or those offered in 'Angels and Demons'.
what do those of you who have read either one of these books (or both) think fo them?
i know most will say its all a load of bull and that Jesus never had a wife let alone kids, etc etc, but i would still like to hear your views.
oh and no one mention that its wrong because it goes against the bible >< that arguement has no basis, as it never claims to be the actual truth.

Dave__s

May 5th, 2006 - 1:45 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

You know the book they're based on? The Holy Grail thing... It was written by three guys. All of them spent they're whole lives trying to prove they were right. Then, one of them, on his death bed, revealed that he was an artist and his entire participation in this quest was a charade - a surrealist art piece.

Does anyone else think that's really funny?

I don't know why everyone takes Dan Brown so seriously. His writing style is to use one fact to prove 10 theories. For example, if I were to say - "Henry the 8th killed many of his wifes because he was gay. That was why he hated the church - because he was gay." It'd be similiar to Dan Brown's technique.

But that's just my opinion. It's not bad fiction though- good plot and all that. I think the film oughta be pretty good though. I'm a big fan of Ron Howard.

Fi

May 5th, 2006 - 9:01 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

hmm, I'd say the plot was good, but the writing was crap.

That's just my opinion of his writing.

The content...well I object to the way it is written here too, because what he's done is taken some facts, and some fiction, and blended them in such a way as to suggest that all of it is fact. He has not *said* it is fact, but there is that assumption. Apart from that, all's well, and it's a good story etc. but it is fiction, and has been classed as a Fiction book, and that's precisely what it is.

coz

May 5th, 2006 - 10:32 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

i think there is some truth in that da vinci. though i dont like the way they put it accross on the tv. as if all christians were stuborn an ignorent, an wouldent listen. i gues we have all atleast listened 2 it. er... i do think jesus may of had a wife, but not children. but 2 b honest, im on da fence. lol

Razten

May 6th, 2006 - 7:16 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

hmmm, i would say there is some truth as to whats said in the da vinci code, and to be fair it makes alot of sense as well.
i think the reason its so popular is because it provides a different view on christianity, that many people wouldnt get any where else. even if it is just a fictional story.

as for Dan's Browns style, i liked the way he wrote, but i thought that the da vinci code was written badly in some places.

where is the evidence to back up what you said dave??
ive never heard of that before.

THEOPTOMIST

May 8th, 2006 - 9:31 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

I've heard about the Da Vinci Code (and I think while being a good read its facts are wrong), but what is Angels and Demons about? Same sort of thing?

THEOPTOMIST

Dave__s

May 8th, 2006 - 11:27 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Angels and Demon's, I hear, is identical to the Da Vinci Code. But I haven't read it, so I'm going on a friends opinion.

As for the "surrealist joke" comment, I was told it by a dear friend of mine studying fine art at Bristol University. He seems pretty well read, so I took it as truth. But, as I'm sure you've researched, I can't seem to find anything on it. Maybe it's not true.

If you want flaws in the Da Vinci code, just type "errors in the Da Vinci code" into google. You get about 5 million results.

Would you let a person trained in psychology fly a plane? Or let a pilot perform untrained surgery? It is important to use sources of reliability and therefore important to to note that Dan Brown studied English at university, not history. He has no qualifications and his sources are selective. He hasn't written a historical text, he's written a fictional novel. Is it not filed under "fiction" in bookstores?

I want it to be emphasised here that I don't have a problem with this being anti Christian. To be honest, I think the church needs things like this - a little persecution, something challenging, will do Christianity good. My biggest problem with the Da Vinci code is Dan Brown himself. From what I've read, he's not making many friends in the industry. Apparantly, he's not open to debate his perspective and is quite arrogant.

Personally, as much as I think the church benefits from this, I wish it wasn't so involved. It seems all I ever read is "The Christian Response". Every article can't help but drag "religion" in somewhere, even when it's not necessary. It is far more interesting to study the historical, archaelogical and sociological response. All of which are far more educated in their deconstruction of the topic.

I suppose it's quite humourous that the church is "talking over" these proffessional scholars! Surely, if Christianity simply stopped talking and allowed the public to listen to the experts, then the problem would go away! Sometimes I think religion is so immature...

Razten

May 9th, 2006 - 7:50 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Angels and Demon's isnt the same as 'the da vinci code'.
the da vinci code goes on about Jesus' marriage and the prioy of the sciorn (sp)

however Angels and Demon's is about the early scientists struggle against the catholic church. they formed a group called the illminati (illumination) where they literally used the catholic church against them.
all of the facts about the illminati are true, except the anbigrams used, and the actual path of illumination.

dan brown may be aggrogent but so are many other people, none more so then the christian leaders. i never said that the da vinci code was true, however the historical evidence given by the holy blood holy grail suggests that there is some truth to it.

and the world is focused way too much on religion.
thats why so many people become athiest, as they cant be bothered to keep the arguments going.

Fi

May 11th, 2006 - 9:09 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

lol, nice last sentence, a completely unbacked up opinion. I would like to state at this point that I often come close to giving up on atheists because often they are so stubborn and never give up their argument even if they have been proved wrong time and again. well, that's my personal opinion made from speaking to several, and finding that most of them are like that.

So do you have any statistics to back up your ideas?? or are they just your own opinions? :P

Dave__s

May 11th, 2006 - 11:50 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Maybe the problem is that we're too busy trying to convince the opposing side to convert....

Both sides feeling they have to prove the other wrong in order to prove themselves right. Since when was the world so black and white?

jesusfollower

May 12th, 2006 - 3:46 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

well to be honest the wolrd is pretty black and white in all honesty your either right or wrong

Dave__s

May 12th, 2006 - 5:31 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu. He encouraged non-violent protesting and fought injustice in both South Africa and India.

He was a wise man and an honest man who, to me, he seems to have gotten things right. But, I have no doubt that many Christian's would consider him to have gotten things wrong.

Kind of a grey area, wouldn't you say?

Fi

May 12th, 2006 - 7:42 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Ghandi would have been a Christian had Christians not given themselves such a bad name, he only wasn't because he felt that by affiliating himselves with Christians he would be stereotyped with them.

That's not quite the point you were making, but it's linked - I get stressed when people refuse to believe things that are staring them in the face, and get all het up, so I need to change that aspect of my character lots before I get carried away with it. We should attempt to avoid outright arguments with others. It's never good for anyone and it tends to make both sides more stubborn.

Dave__s

May 12th, 2006 - 8:32 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Fi, you and I think along the same lines.

I sat infront of my computer and wrote that "Gandhi as a Christian" thing about 100 times, and kept deleting it for some reason or another. The second I posted, I thought "I wish I'd left it in".

No that you've written it, I feel much better!

Did you know that (according to his autobiography) his "non-violent-protest" ideas mostly came from the sermon on the mount?

Razten

May 14th, 2006 - 10:32 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Fi- i often find it opposite to that. many people will claim 'god' exists and that it did all this and that refusing to see what facts there are in front of them. why does one need statistics when one can clearly say both are as stubbon as each other, though im at a loss as to how atheists are proven wrong time and time again.

Dave_s- i find that to be the case exactly. to be honest theres nothing you can to anyone to make them change their mind by 100%.

the reasoning for people being stubbon is that theres so many out their claiming their right and that everyone else is wrong. one could say that the Buddah was wrong, despite the facts that he was teaching things about non-violence and respect for everything long before Jesus was even prophesised.

people are just determined to be right no matter what.

Dave__s

May 17th, 2006 - 11:57 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

I believe it was Plato who said that the wise man admits that he knows nothing.

Razten

May 18th, 2006 - 7:39 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

He was indeed a very wise man.

Fi

May 22nd, 2006 - 8:46 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

back on topic...has anyone seen the film yet?

and Razten, could you clarify for me what points you think that the Da Vinci code gives us that shows you that it is based on fact? Sorry you might have put this further up, but I really can't be bothered to read everything all over again.

I went to a very interesting talk the other night on how the book relates to the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other similar works that Dan Brown used in his writing...

Razten

May 23rd, 2006 - 7:41 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

The basic bits of the theory were taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Which is based upon actual evidence. The knights Templar, the Holy Grail itself, everything like this was based upon evidence found by the original books three authors.

But they were not the first to purpose this theory, thousands have suggested that Jesus fathered a child, or that he was married. All of this suggests that there is some truth to it.

Fi

May 24th, 2006 - 1:59 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

THOUSANDS?!?!? Rubbish! Stop exaggerating. You really should give more specific information when you are making sweeping statements like that. That is the fundamental flaw in all arguments. Being vague immediately indicates a weak argument. As you will see, I have used some examples in my argument that in fact Jesus and Mary were nothing more than good friends.

Anyway. Very few historians would stake claims on that kind of thing, so I don't know why you would say thousands. Especially with this knowledge:

Basically, there is no evidence in the Bible or any Gnostic gospels, or the dead sea scrolls etc etc that Jesus fathered a child. And hardly any evidence that he was even married or had a relationship with Mary Magdalene. In fact, the only evidence at all is in 2 gnostic gospels, Philip's and Mary's - both of which were written by others a couple of centuries after Jesus' life. And this "evidence" is almost insubstantial.

Philip's gospel suggests that "he loved her more than us" - the disciples jealous that (probably) Jesus "loved" (probably) Mary more than them. And I need to research that use of the word "love" - I think it was written in Aramaic, and I am unfamiliar with that language. However, I know that Greek has many different words for "love" (agape and eros being the 2 most common in the Bible), and the suggestion that "he loved her *more* than he loved us" is indicative that they are speaking of agape - a love or affection for one's friends - because of the use of the word "more".
Enough said - that "evidence" to me seems utterly worthless.

Moving on to Mary's gospel - there is a passage that says much the same thing, plus a bit more, but with words missing.

The dodgy bit here that Brown has probably picked up on is that there is this sentence: "he would often kiss her on the..." The last word is missing - it could just as well be mouth, hand or cheek.

As you will know if you are familiar with the Easter story, Judas made Jesus known to his captors by greeting him with a kiss on the cheek. So really, it is not that unusual if Jesus wanted to kiss someone, presumably Mary, a good friend of his, on the cheek. And on the hand would simply be politeness I guess.
The ONLY thing that could be gained from this bit is if it was assumed that Jesus kissed Mary often on the mouth. However, we cannot know what it said, and never will know unless another copy is found, but that being the only "evidence" does not really prove to me that they were romantic lovers, and just goes to show to what lengths these people are willing to go to undermine the Christian religion.

What else. oh yeah, there is some confusion on one sentence in I think it is Mary's gospel, where Jesus and Mary are described using the word "koinonos" (sp?) which is a Greek word. It is unusual because it was written in Arameic, although they did sometimes insert Greek words if it portrayed the meaning better. Anyway, the word means "companion" and there is a completely different word for "wife" or "lover" and therefore no confusion could be gained from that that Jesus and Mary were anything more than just good friends or companions.

So you were saying Razten?

Oh, clarify that "theory" for me if you will?

Rachey Rach

May 24th, 2006 - 5:46 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Umm, i read that the Holy Grail stuff was COMPLETELY made up - didnt they all confess to having made it up just before they died?
Just a thought.

coz

May 24th, 2006 - 8:25 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

well done there fi, gud points. i duno about u guys, but i kiss my mates, evan da guys, some girls i very close 2, i evan give a pek on da lips, whats da problem? Jesus may just have been gud friends. Philip's gospel suggests that "he loved her more than us" well, i love my friends, sum more dan others, im sure u guys have friends, sum u love more than oters, does not mean u wana sleep wid um or get married.

any way, just coz sum guy, painted a picture, does NOT make it fact, simply his opinion.

well i think any way. xxx

jesusfollower

May 24th, 2006 - 9:24 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

yeah he even says its a therory not fact
it shouldnt be taken to be fact really
but i think this point had ben made

Razten

May 24th, 2006 - 10:09 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Exagerating???
Erm no I'm not, the ideas been around for centuries, during that time thousands of people have told it to others, and thousands of people have accepted it. We just dont know about them, as they werent of great importance to what is called 'Human History'.

The text you refer to Fi of cotruse doesnt contain any information as you said. However what about the books and scrolls and accounts that were burnt shortly after the Bible was made. Dont you relise why Jesus was shown as womanless? He if was shown with a woman people could argue that he was a sinner and therfore not a messiah.

Fair point about the kissing thing, however it was illegal for a Jewish man being thirteen or more to not be married. Jesus was supposedly Jewish, so he must have been married, or he would be going agianst the laws written down in the Torah. A messiah wouldnt have broken laws as sacred as those would they?

Who cares about evidence anyway? Whats been suggested is about as believeable as anything found in the Bible. You claim it isnt because you cant bear to face the possibility of their being another possibility.

Theres your theory smart ass. Happy?

Erm Rach all the people involved in writing the Holy Blood Holy Grail are still alive. Two sued Dan Brown and the other one appeared on the television.

Jesus Follower has sumed it up. It isnt fact and I'm not saying it is. It is however a possbility, which must have some roots somewhere. The Bible is just another way of looking at the same story.

Hell one theory believes Jesus was a Budhhah.

Rachey Rach

May 24th, 2006 - 11:18 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Lol.oops.maybe that was something else...sorry.

I think Da Vinci Code does have some real relevence to todays society. we need to be thinking about why its causing so many people to read it, so quickly, and to have the facts sorted out in our heads, so that if asked, we can give an informed view.
what i think is best though, is that it raises questions about Christianity. its provided us with the perfect opportunity to talk about our faith, if trying to answer questions in the book.

Other than that, its fiction.it was never designated fact, it was badly written for a 'creative writing professor' in america to earn money, and by creating issues and controversy, its achieved its goal of making more people want to go out and buy it to see what all the fuss is about. nice one dan brown!

jesusfollower

May 25th, 2006 - 9:41 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

i get what your saying but amazingly soo there is an amazing amount of evidence for the bible all the writing in the old testemant correlate with the history around and the historic stuff in the bible well some of that has been dug up and stuff
also dude
im not trying to attack you by the way im just trying to show that the bible aint a load of rubbish

anyway please read this article i found this time
you will like it was written by a previous atheist http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

God bless

Razten

May 25th, 2006 - 2:27 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

The reason the book's so popular is because it suggests that all those idiots you se on TV who preach that Jesus is lord or whatever, might actually be wrong, and people wnat to be able to turn around and go, ha got ya thats wrong see!

I never said the Bible is rubbish, I said its just one view of it.

Rachey Rach

May 25th, 2006 - 4:18 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Definitely! it's popular, because it reflects so many people's attitudes to religion nowadays. we all have our own 'world views', which we generate as we develop, ie upbringing, parents, where we live, schooling, life experiences etc, and they give us our basic world view, or belief system. everyone believes something, but quite WHAT we believe is all that is different. this means that as so many people have a post modern world view, they believe truth is relative, and everyone should have their own opinion that cannot be told is outrightly 'wrong', because everyone is entitled to their own view. this means that as society has moved away from religion, they feel they need to support this move, and anything that provides them with a view to base their own world view on is bound to therefore be popular.

Lol i realise that didnt make a whole lot of sense, sorry. basically what i mean is that its popular because a lot of people have some similar ideas, and dont want to believe that religion has any truth, and therefore anything that says religion is wrong is going to be believed, or followed, much like the Da Vinci Code.

Dave__s

May 26th, 2006 - 12:02 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

I'm going to get a lot of backlash from this post... I can sense it.... Sorry in advance.

_________________

I believe Dan Brown spent a year researching the Da Vinci code?

Most of which, I imagine, was spent reading that Holy Grail book over and over again... (sorry, a joke I couldn't resist!)

Did you know that the oldest book in the Bible is around 4000 years old? And that the ancient Hebrew/Israelte/Jewish culture encouraged scholarship and the preservation of accurate information?

For 4000 years, some of the finest minds of every generation have studied these texts. From Priests to philosophers to historians to archaelogists to sociologists to psychologists to politians to theologians, and more still.

The first book ever printed was the King James Bible. Most of the world's great revolutionaries have considerred it a defining text in their lives.

4000 years of intensive study, under the microscope of a million readers nationwide. Every text has undergone intensive study and torn inside out and read from every angle.

Yet, thankfully, an American English teacher/Thriller-writer has successfully managed to solve the mystery- having researched for an ENTIRE year, using his merely his local library. Not only that, but it's available in the "3 for 2" section in WHSmiths for the costly price of £7.99!

Sweet Academic Logic, how I love thee!

The reason the Da Vinci Code is popular, is because its rebelious. Its new, its different and people like to be "original". There is, however, in historical terms, very little "fact" in it, merely a large amount of assumptions and uneducated guesses.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that all Christianity is right and everything else is wrong. I'm not saying the Bible is infallible and I'm not saying that any other idea is by definition wrong. I'm simply saying that, as an argument against Christianity, the Da Vinci Code doesn't hold up too well.

To show that I'm not completely bias -

If you seriously want to read a book attempting to disprove religion, try reading some Bertrand Russell. He's a bit of a jerk, but at least he's a respectable source.

(*Shields eyes from incoming stones*)

Fi

May 27th, 2006 - 2:11 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

:D well said Dave. Could carry on and elaborate some more but I gota go work...

Just wanted to acknowledge that I agree :)

Fi

May 29th, 2006 - 11:12 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

"Fair point about the kissing thing, however it was illegal for a Jewish man being thirteen or more to not be married. Jesus was supposedly Jewish, so he must have been married, or he would be going agianst the laws written down in the Torah. A messiah wouldnt have broken laws as sacred as those would they?"

Where on earth did you get the information that it was illegal for a Jewish man to be unmarried after he was 13? That's ridiculous! Mary was about 16 when she married Joseph, who was an older man than her...how can you say that he was breaking the law - especially at his actions and thoughts of how to break off his engagement to Mary when he heard she was pregnant?! He was a God-fearing man who was upright in the eyes of the law, and yet he wasn't married by the age of 13!!!

And what laws say that you had to be married in the Torah?

Dave__s

May 29th, 2006 - 3:08 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Besides, the charges for his execution were because of him breaking the law - the whole "temple" situation. I don't think "religious expectations" were Jesus' strong point....

Razten

May 29th, 2006 - 9:12 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Maybe I've turned into a Geek Rach, but your post made perfect sense to me.
I really dont question what your saying Dave, it is hysterical that someone can solve it that quickly, however I do say that there must be SOME truth to whats been said. Even if it is that Constantine edited the Bible a bit so that Jesus seemed a bit more divine then he might have actually been.
(Just for the reference nothing has ALL the answers, so Christianity definatly doesnt. I dont either, thats just part of the mystery of life.)

Ok I'll admit, I checked it out and the soruce of that information about the laws of marriage were'nt concrete. However as a Jewish man Jesus would have had an arraned marriage, at some point before his death, probably. (What age did he actually die?).

I need the answer before I can construct an arguement.
Heh heh.

jesusfollower

May 30th, 2006 - 11:58 AM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

i dont actually constantine edited the bible tho im not completely sure

Razten

May 30th, 2006 - 9:57 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

There isnt a document that has ever been written that hasnt been edited. Even if it just a few punctuation pointers. The Bible is very heavily edited, as there are alot of books that didnt make it. Surely an unedited Bible would have every single account of Jesus in it as possible?

Rachey Rach

May 31st, 2006 - 4:27 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Jesus started his ministry aged 30 i think, and was crucified age 33.
Lol! are you calling me a geek?!

I have no problem with that, i am a completely self-admitted geek

, just warn me if i start being rather too posh and not understandable...

Anyway.back to the topic...

Razten

May 31st, 2006 - 9:16 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

I wasnt calling you a geek my dear, I was refiring to myself as one. Self unsults and all that jazz.
Oh and dont concern yourself with your language, I can understand you, and if I dont I'll nicely demand you to make yourself clearer.
'K pumpkin?
^_^

Rachey Rach

May 31st, 2006 - 10:41 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

Hehe ok then, long as we cleared that one up!
No one's ever called me a pumpkin before, how exciting!

I shall endeavour to call someone nice a pumpkin in conversation i think, its a good word!

Razten

Jun 1st, 2006 - 7:01 PM

Re: Dan Brown- the da vinci code & Angels and Demons

It is fun isnt it pumpkin ^_^
Though you'll neevr be as good as I am at it.

	word-on-the-web Forum Welcome to the word-on-the-web forum. Please feel free to leave comments about the daily email Bible studies, film reviews, music reviews, other comments about the word-on-the-web website or prayer requests.
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website