The Da Vinci Code, one of the most contraversial books on the market today. Though it is an interesting action mystery novel, it has created quite a stir. Within the narrative we are brought face to face with questions about the background and validity of christianity.
In further reading in a magazine by U.S. News and World Report (collectors edition on Secrets of the Da Vinci Code) which I expected to debunk the book. In actually it validated much of the basic controversial issues and brought up more. Like, who is Osiris and when was the work on this godbeing written? Is it true that he predated Jesus?
According to a article by a professor in ancient history from Columbia University, he states that Osiris was a pagen god born on Dec 25th of a virgin mother, died and then resurected to ascend into heaven. Was the story of Jesus taken from the story of Osiris?
-
The Da Vinci Code31% Voted for by DennisP1, chibi-kaiyaska, suseann, ohsweetie2788, ennoia.
Personally I found the book fascinating. Not only was it a page turner in its fast paced story development and believable charectors, it also made one think about the documented historical victimization of woman by the current and early catholic church.
I wonder what you may think of all this. Does it make you question history? Has history been written by the winners?
Den
-
interesting...12% Voted for by ohsweetie2788, catseyes2468.
this book is amazing, i couldn’t put it down once i started to read it. it made perfect sense to me and i can understand why the church would want mary covered up and all…i looked at the last supper closer and there is a woman next to him and they form a m and they all have glasses, i think we need to pay attention to a lot more in our world…
Ash
-
PBS12% Voted for by Mythtress, Lost Luggage.
had a great special debunkking Da Vinci code. If the book were a ship, it would have structure, but it would be full of holes.
-
Know your history.12% Voted for by Simonic, DennisP1.
First of all -- the Da Vinvi Code is a good work of FICTION. And, only in that realm. It screws up by stating one just about the first page the supposed "Facts."
One: Priory of Scion -- fake, there is no historical evidence that it existed before 1956 (founded by Pierre Plantard). In the same year the "Dossiers Secrets" was published claiming that the Prior had been around since 1099 and was founded in Jerusalem. In this same document, it listed its grand masters -- such as Da Vinci, Hugo, Newton, etc.
In 1993 Pierre Plantard admitted under oath in a French court that he had fabricated the entire story behind the Priory of Scion. So -- historical "fact" -- not even close.
Two: Da Vinci in no means painted Mary into the picture. The picture isn't about the last supper -- but the betrayal, when Jesus tells them that one will betray him, and they're all asking "surely it isn't me, Lord" etc. Keep in mind that in those times, a painter was given a commision to paint a picture, and was given guidelines to do so, with a fair amount of freedom. In this case it was the Duke of Mulan that wanted a nice picture so the monks had something nice to look at while they ate.
John -- who the Bible states was Jesus' favorite -- and also the youngest (he had no beard yet) was placed at the right hand side. The "V" between him and Jesus -- reading into things way to far. And -- Da Vinci answered the question of who it was long ago -- we have drawings that he made before he painted the final product, where all the disciples are labeled -- and the no beard, long hair one is labeled -- yup -- John. Not Mary.
Three: Jesus was not married. Jesus did not have children. There is NO -- none -- nada -- historical evidence for this. Even in the Gnostic gospels it says "companion" which in no way ALWAYS means marriage, but most often meant friendship. And Brown took the liberty upon himself to say that Jesus kissed her on the "mouth" -- the actual book states "kissed her often on the *blank*" -- it isn't there.
Another is that none of the later books of the Bible state that Jesus was married. Paul even preached that one should remain unmarried if they can. Not something a follower of Christ would preach if their master did it. They would then preach, and proclaim, that Jesus was married. So -- fanciful wishing on Dan's part.
Four: Constatine -- did not make Christianity the main religion. All he merely did was give the 'edict of toleration' which basically gave Christians the ability to worship without persecution/death/etc. It wasn't made the main religion until years later -- and not under Constatine's rule.
Five: The council of Nicaea was indeed called by Constatine -- but not for the fact the book claims. Constatine was tired of Christians fighting each other on their claims. The Diety of Christ was already known before the council took place. There are even seculare records of Christians praising Jesus as God. And out of all those in attendant -- only 2 voted in favor against the view of Christ as God. While the others all voted in favor (about 316) -- in no way was it a cliff hanger.
The books of the Bible -- or the cannon -- was taken from what were already being taught by the followers in that day. Most were already accepted as doctrine. The council mearly made it known for all.
We still have the text of the First Council of Nicaea. And everything that took place.
Six: Da Vinci on his death bed. Had a Christian death. And spoke nothing about females or the sacred fem. goddess.
Seven: The Rosslyn Chapel does not have the star of david on its floor. Go take a look.
Really -- this book is full of sick and horrid historical errors. It is a horribly diabolical book, in the sense that it has a great story mixed in with lies of historical events that your average person will accept...because, obviously so much research had went into the writing of the book.
Hah.
-
Nice but unessecaryVoted for by Cherub.
The DaVinci Code was a fascinating book and did give many more reasons to not buy into the Christianity myth, but if anyone's ever questioned their faith in Christianity the best way to debunk it is simply by reading the Bible all the way through. It's incredible how many horrid incongruencies will be found in the Bible that no Christian has ever confronted, or at least confronted and not become an atheist.
-
the da vinic code wasn't the only contraversial book by dan brown, meet angels and demonsVoted for by kellyohyeah.
I believe the story of Osiris was taken. They already took the pagan symbols and put it in their churchs in Rome. There is no doubt in my mind that they wouldn't do something like that. I really think that all religions are based off one another and no one really started it.
The book it's self is excellent. Not many people know this but in the start of the Da Vinic Code it states that the main character Logan was wildly known for something he did before a year before. There is a another book before the Da Vinic Code that few people every got the chance to read. Angels and Demons I was surpised didn't get the same balance in the contraversial stir as the Da Vinci Code. The first book has to do with the creating of earth and man kind threw both science and god. In this book the pope is posined and the carnvails (? the guys in red after the pope) are killed in very gruesome ways. I was very shocked that the media and the church didn't say anything. They did but no one heard about it
-
OsirisVoted for by Alarion.
http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html is a nice little comparative link for you.
Osiris was a “pagan” diety in the Egyptian pantheon.
Along with those parallels, The Bible and Christianity as a whole has a whole muck of traditions, practices, texts, holidays, figureheads blatantly stolen from older, “pagan” religions. It is thought this was done to woo more followers, namely those of the “pagan” religions.
“Plaguerism” in the bible goes all the way back to Genesis.
-
SummationVoted for by Khoka.
This entire little string makes me recall back to when I saw Star Wars at the age of nine and was convinced that everything in the movie had taken place...ridiculous I know.
-
A product of weird imagination!Voted for by Athan Okeiyi.
Da Vinci was born hundreds of years A.D. His work on the last supper was only a product of whimsical imagination. Iscariot committed suicide shortly before the death of Christ. Those who really wrote something on Christ did so decades after his death. So Isariot(Judas) from recorded history, had no work ascribed to him. So it's all a product of weird imagination! However, the author of the da vinci code is superbly gifted in writing fictions.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
March 27, 2005
Edit | Reply
of course...
the winners always write history glorifying themselves and demonizing those who they defeated... ~Ash~October 31, 2005
Edit | Reply
March 8, 2006
Edit | Reply
not true
if history was written by the winners then how did the bible come about? christians were a minority of the time and definately not "winners"Please register or login to comment! It's totally free