I don't understand the big do-to over the DaVinci Code. I thought it was really stupid. What do you guys think
397155
I favor the burning of such books.  I hate how these liberals call it "mind opening".  Open mind is ok, but don't open it to the point where your brains fall out!
593143
wait,  you think them getting info from a picture and some "papers" are ridiculous?\n\nDoesn't someone walking on water sound ridiculous?  water to wine?  dying and rising on  3rd day?  raining toads?  an ark big enough to hold two of every animal on earth?  a "devil" in the form of a serpent?  Does none of this sound ridiculous to you?\n\nNow I'm not saying the bible is wrong or that the da vinci code is right, but you have to keep your mind open.  Because if people didn't keep an open mind, the bible wouldn't be as widely believed in as it is now.
988691
I can only speak from my personal experience in this life. I have read the bible and I have done some reseach. I have been in church and heard sermons. The conclusion I came to, is that the bible is for the most part a well intentioned spiritual text. It is written by men inspired by that which inspires all human kind. I do not believe it was written by God anymore than the Da Vinci Code is written by God.  Perhaps God wrote both? Perhaps Dan Brown in 1000 years will be considered a prophet of God. Who knows? The world is very crazy place. A person writes a book with certain intentions and before they know it , the world has twisted the message. So, quoting the bible to me as an authority on spiritual matters is a waste of time.  Just my two cents.
544059
He's a mediocre writer, but invested a lot of time in research for the Da Vinci code. But even in the code his writing is terrible. It's more like a screenplay for an action movie than a piece of literature. So I would stay away from his previous releases like Illuminati (angels & demons).
543966
Whatever you do, don't got to "See No Evil!"  It was really stupid!  Oh, and "The Da Vinci Code" wasn't that great either!
662580
I thought the DVC was a good entertaining read, but thats about the sum of it. I cant undrstnd people who get so obssessed with it, its not a work of fact, it a work of fiction mixed with a little folklore and grail legend, and was never meant to be anything else. \n\nAnd DK, to say the Bible is a work of fiction is merely an OPINION, misguided though it may be, and NOT a statement of fact.
1180378
You might add more descriptive text.... I just found it on B&N there's only a cover shot. What's it about? Is it fiction or non? etc.\n\nWhatever it's about, find books that are "like that" and find people who have written book reviews on them. Try to find the small books and niche reviewers, not like DaVinci Code\n\nThen contact them, see if they'd be interested. If yes, send 'em a book.
568228
All the hype around the Da Vinci Code makes me laugh.  The book is listed as SPECULATIVE FICTION.  That means that there is some historical facts but the basis is fiction.  I haven't read it, nor will I see the movie.  I have my own theories on Jesus and him being married.  I have more of a chance of being accurate than the book.  You see Jesus was jewish and became a rabbi.  Rabbinical law back then stated that a rabbi HAD TO BE MARRIED.  So the wedding at Caanan was his to Mary Magdelen.  He probably did have kids and that was the Medici line of rulers that claimed "divine right of rule".
62898
The child of Mary and Jesus protected by the knights templer.   No, I have never read the Divinci code.  I finally bought a copy, but I can't bring myself to read it.
373847
I found the language of the show to be quite interesting. Fore instance, during the first half of the show, they kept asking the question: "Is it real?" This isn't really what they meant, what they meant was "Is it old?" To me, they were implying that "real" = "true".\n\nThey also did not mention several Gnostic beliefs that would have discredited the movement in many people's eyes. You remember the scene at the last supper when they talked about Jesus laughing because the disciples were worshipping the wrong God, that the God who created the universe was actually an inferior God that was not worthy to be worshipped. What they didn't say was that Gnostics believed that this was the God of the Old Testament, so they ignored the Old Testament.\n\nAnother thing that stuck out to me was the phrase "When Jesus appeared on the Earth." Because they believed that the material world was evil, they had what is known as a Docetic view of Jesus. That is, that Jesus only appeared to be human, because God would have never become human and contaminated himself with the material world.\n\nI strongly agree with the speaker at the end who said that the Gospel of Judas provides valuable historical information about the history of Christianity and the movements within it. It shows us that there was never one single Christianity being practiced.  People have beein arguing about who Jesus was since a few minutes after he died.  With that being said, I do not personally believe it provides a historically accurate picture of the characters of Jesus and Judas.\n\nFinally, they seemed to think the fact that there were many Christianities unique. I have to disagree with that. There are many different versions of the Christian faith today, with different holy texts, etc. The book of Mormon is a prime example.\n\nIf you read the other Gnostic texts, you will find they have a lot in common with the Gospel of Judas.  For instance, both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas elevate one of the Disciples above the others.  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene does the same thing for Mary.  None of the four canonical gospels does this for their author.\n\nAnother thing that absolutely amazes me is that we have 4 gospels that tell very similar stories.  There are some minor differences in the order of events or the events included, but they are consistant for the most part.  One new gospel is found that offers a different story and many people jump on that and say, "Wow!  This is the real story."  It just doesn't make any sense.
1081746
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the book is good enough. Not outstanding, just slightly above average. I love mystery books, and I usually read book this size in one day. The Da Vinci code took me a week. I admit that at some points I wanted to know what will happen next, but at others it was just boring. Boring in my opinion because for me the book was too predictable. I like thrillers with more suspense than that. I don't really like Dan Brown's writing style. He uses too many words to say a few things; he builds up suspense that will lead to nothing. \nAnyway I enjoyed it, it was a great read, although not as great as a James Patterson novel. I am a christian, and I didn't feel threaten by the book, instead I liked it. And even though it is a work of fiction it does make some sense if you think about it. \nGreat plot.
666731
It is a book that was just made into a movie-it is fiction- but hidden in D'vinci's paintings is a code that when they de-sifer it claims to be proof that Christ was a mere mortal and the whole consept of him being the son was God was a haux.\nSome want to expose the Hoax to the world and others want to protect the secret so that religion stays in tact.\nI need to see the movie to get the whole story but that's the basics.
718310
Da Vinci *code* is more accurately an deluded absurdist lie, a sacrilegious acid trip, based upon ZERO evidence, and so acknowledged by its own author, as he DID list it as what it IS: FICTION!\n\nThere are many in this world who make every attempt to discount God, or put themselves in His place, to attempt to belittle those of faith.  But God IS GOD, the mere mortals HE CREATED have ZERO power to make Him more or LESS than what he IS.  That which is ETERNAL FACT is NEVER FICTION:  one can declare that ONE IS ZERO, for example, but the mere saying of it will NEVER make it SO.\n\nIn general it is beneficial to guard what you read or watch, because once you have put the information IN your head, to mix with everything already there, it is IMPOSSIBLE to simply *delete* the inaccurate/absurd information from truthful information of merit.\n\nBest wishes.
664814
No, don't do that. That was a great movie. Good acting, good directing. You're probably posting this in response to the question, "Should the DaVinci Code be Banned?" I don't like that question either.
526064
I am shocked and amazed.\n\nI truly had no idea that so many Christians do not know God.  To view this piece of fiction as an opportunity to 'save' or 'win' souls is hypocrosy.\n\nTo not understand what is so blasphemous about the movie, regardless if you are a Catholic or not, just shows laziness.  And, that your relationship with Christ needs to grow deeper.\n\nThe book says that Jesus is not God.  That Jesus was a person not the Son of God.  This is blasphemy to ANYONE who believes that Jesus was their Savior. For, a man cannot save us --- only God.  And, if Jesus was a mere man we, as Christians are idolotors.  Now do you understand why the Catholic church condemning it?  All Christians should be saying the same thing.\n\nYes, I think by condemning it the church is just making it more attractive.  But, they are also standing for what they believe in --- regardless of what the media says.  So, I'm glad someone understands why Jesus has to be divine. And, why this is so important to my faith.  And, is standing up for it on an international level.\n\nBTW, HOW on this Earth could anything be more important to you or your church as Christians than saying your Savior, Jesus Christ, was a man.  He was not divine.  He cannot save your sins.  That Christianity is a farse and stamps it down to idolotry...\n\nFind a new pastor!
658829
I understand your confusion, and to a ceratin extent, I agree with you.\n\nI read the book, and I plan to see the movie (as soon as the hype dies down).  I think that the reason this book is taken so seriously is for two reasons:\n\n1.  Dan Brown begins the book by stating that all of the groups, artwork, etc. are completely true.  People assume that if these things are true and accurate, then the whole book must be as well.\n\n2.  The whole premise, that Jesus was married and that the "holy grail" isn't a cup but is in fact the holy bloodline of Jesus, isn't a new theory and is one that some people have argued for many years.  Plus, it is plausible!  I'm not saying that it is likely, but it is possible.\n\nWhat I don't understand is why this film has to change poeple's faith.  Even if it was discovered with 100% certainty that Jesus was married, that doesn't change my faith in Christianity at all!  (It makes me wonder about the people who made the decision to cover it all up, but it doesn't change my faith in God.)  In fact, learning that Jesus was married might actually make me identify with Him more than I currently do.\n\nI wish that people would think about that more seriously... what has REALLY changed?
230320
Many people seem to have a problem remembering that this book is fiction.  Some Christians take offence because it is important to them that Jesus was a virgin all his life.  I think these people somehow see sex -- even in marriage -- as "dirty" -- otherwise, why would it sully Jesus' purity to have a wife and children?  They seem to think the possibility detracts from His perfection.  \n\nFor me, it makes no difference.  Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, whether He was married or not.  And the possibility of His bloodline continuing seems to me to be important only to those who think His blood contained some special DNA that would be passed down.  Unless that DNA somehow makes people better people, more likely to love others and change the world -- what difference does it make?  And from what I see of the world, any DNA that makes people better has been as diluted as the Truth He brought (sorry, Christians).  It would be nice if His Teachings existed and were followed in their entirety, but if they were, the world would not be in the state it is in now.\n\nI don't read too much into "The Last Supper" -- it's a painting, not a photograph!  It was done centuries after the fact and the people shown *represent* the people who were there but do not look like them -- since no one knows what they looked like.  If the figure to Jesus' left looks feminine, it is only because da Vinci painted it that way -- and reflects da Vinci's beliefs and/or skill -- not reality.  \n\nI enjoyed the book, but really don't understand the furor.  There are so many books that are more interesting and controversial -- but many of them aren't fiction.  :-)