who says DA VINCI CODE  doesnt give any historical facts,after all...?
607594
I do. It's fiction although it claims to have historical relevance because Leonardo's portrayal of Mary Magdalene and the apostle John in the famous last supper, look the same.
230307
Many of the hypotheses and conjectures proposed in the Da Vinci Code are not able to be proven.  However, it is a very interesting read and it has ignited a great deal of interest in history, travel and religion. Isn't that worth something?\n\nHere are some interesting comments regarding the religious aspects of the book:\n\nDa Vinci Code Movie on the Way!\nhttp://www.ubiquityinternational.com/drtom/2006/01/da-vinci-code-movie-is-on-its-way.htm\n\nDa Vinci Code Redux\nhttp://www.ubiquityinternational.com/drtom/2006/03/da-vinci-code-redux.htm
373455
it only claims that it is based on facts that doesn't even exist.  like for one, in the book's fact page, the priory of sion was being mentioned as an organization in the early 1099. in 1975, the Les Dossiers Secrets was discovered in Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale identifying Leonardo Da Vinci as member of the org. this is the major basis of the novel.  but the truth of this is that the Priory of Sion did not exist until 1957.  How can Leonardo Da Vinci be a member or a grandmaster for that matter he has already rotten?  Everything that Dan Brown has written about the Priory of Sion was based not on historical facts but rather on claims found in the Priory of Sion documents – all bogus works of historical fiction stemming from Plantard's fertile imagination (and what gave them a deeper ‘esoteric’ flavour was Philippe de Chérisey's input, who tried to decorate the fantasies in a surrealist fashion).\n\nit has misrepresented the church as a murderous institution and that Christian faith is utterly false.  \n\nIt isn't a defense to say that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Fiction can't change the basic facts about major historical figures without being subject to criticism. People would be outraged if Doubleday printed a novel portraying Adolph Hitler in a positive light. Christians have a right to be outraged when the basic historical facts about Christ are falsified. The criticism will be even more intense when a publisher releases a book parodying the most sacred beliefs of others in this fashion.\n\nFurther, as we have seen in this special report, the book takes great pains to create the appearance of factuality, including placing the infamous "fact" page at the beginning of the novel. Brown has stressed the ostensible accuracy of the book on his web site and in interviews. This is not a case where an author and a publisher have produced an ordinary novel. They have gone to great lengths to mislead people into thinking that the novel has a historical basis. They deserve especially sharp criticism for this, and when criticism is made they cannot hypocritically hide behind the "It's just fiction" allegation after having made such extensive efforts to convince the reader that it is not "just fiction."
641878
Like the Bible, the Da Vinci Code is both truth and fiction.  Da Vinci did indeed know the truth about the life of Jesus, being omitted from the Bible.  Jesus was not a virgin, not a celebate man, and had the same desires as a normal man, and indeed married a young woman in her early teens, a situation so common as to be the norm in the dulture and times.  He had children, almost half a dozen, primarily girls.  He was a conscientious and caring husband.  Was his wife, Mary Magdalene ever present during his life and at the foot of his cross during his death, along with his mother? yes.  Did Jesus die on the cross? Yes. Wife and children did escape the area fearing reprisals. His blood line, mere DNA not at all related to his spiritual nature, is irrelevant.  They disbursed, married and had children, and were simply genetic code, just human, not bearing his depth of spirit.
818087
I believe that there is a lot of compelling evidence for the theory behind the Da Vinci (everyone should notice that that's what you asked about, not the novel itself)\n\nThe Priory of Sion part is highly questionable, but the evidence for the bloodline of Christ is very plausible and at least as "provable" is the orthodox Christian account.
620552
Bible is Fact.\nDa Vinci Code is Fiction.\nBible presents itself as Fact.\nDa Vinci Code presents itself as Fiction.\nBible author says the book is Fact.\nDa Vinci Code author says the book is Fiction.\n\n'nough said.
613361
Actually the shadow of truth is not about the holy grail, the church doesn't care about this part... but the truth from the novel is that Jesus is a mortal prophit and his divinity was invented by men long ago. This is what people should research for, and not quote the bible cause the bible has already been modified.
274688
The Da Vinci Code is a novel written by American author Dan Brown and published in 2003 by Doubleday Fiction (ISBN 0385504209). It is a worldwide bestseller with 36 million copies in print (as of August 2005) and has been translated into 44 languages. Combining the detective, thriller and conspiracy theory genres, the book is part two of a trilogy that started with Brown's 2000 novel Angels and Demons, which introduced the character Robert Langdon. In November 2004, Random House published a "Special Illustrated Edition", with 160 illustrations interspersed with the text.\n\nThe plot of the novel involves a conspiracy by the Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus. This implies that the Vatican consciously knows it is living a lie, but does so to keep itself in power. The novel has helped generate popular interest in speculation concerning the Holy Grail legend and the role of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity. Fans have lauded the book as creative, action-packed and thought-provoking. Critics have attacked it as inaccurate and poorly written, and decry the many negative implications about the Catholic Church.\n\nThe book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by academic scholars in the fields the book discusses (see Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code and the further reading list below). As widely noted in the media, there has been substantial confusion among readers about whether the book is factual. Numerous works have been published which explain in detail why any claim to accuracy is difficult to sustain.
710720
Dude, you've been smoking too many Dan Brown books. \n\n\nI've heard all kinds of crazy theories about Jesus but that doesn't mean they're true. Where's the documentation? Where's the historical proof? Where's the corroboration from witnesses? That's the problem with too many people: They hear something totally out in left field and believe it without any sort of evidence or even despite evidence to the contrary.
638113
The Da Vinci Code isn't completely true. What bothers me is that the Vatican is complaining. They thought Catholics would see right through a book based solely on speculation and stories that are probably false, oh wait.....
563850
Well I´ve read the book and enjoyed it throughly! But sad to say there is a lot of thingd in the book that is false, \nbut it does makes you wonder. \n\nWhat I can´t understand is that a few years ago there were some old scripures found, but wouldn´d be accepted by the church. These scriptures underwent all the neccassary test to prove its validity(and it was found to be written the time Jesus was alive and 100 after he died).But it was a little bit contridicting to what is in the bible.\n\nAnyway what the da vinci code does is start to put doubt in the minds of people, and why did  the church reacted so strange to this book which is a novel! \n\nAnd okay the thought that Jesus actually has a living heir is strange, but Dan Brown was not the first to write about this there are many other listed books. And ´if´ that were true then the church would clear not want that knowledge to be known because it would loss a lot of credibility.\nSome modern writers,including Dan Brown, have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. These writers cite Gnostic writings to support their argument. Sources like the ´Gospel of Philip´ do depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple. \nHowever, there is no known ancient document that claims she was his wife and Gnosticism was generally non-supportive of sexuality. The closeness described in these writings depicts Mary Magdalene, representing the Gnostics, as understanding Jesus and his teaching while the other disciples, representing the Church, did not.\nMary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation, this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.\n\nAn argument for support of the married status of Jesus is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment) — "Be fruitful and multiply". According to this reasoning, it would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to travel about teaching as a rabbi.\nA counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.\nPaul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among Christians. Jesus himself approved of voluntary celibacy for religious reasons and explicitly rejected a duty to marry: "There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." (Matthew 19,12)\n\nThe idea that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus was popularized by books like the pseudo-historical Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) and The Da Vinci Code (2003), a novel heavily influenced by the former book. These assertions have found no acceptance from scholarly circles.\n\nAnd secret societcy are meant to be kept secret so I don´t expect the historians to find a lot of concrete information about the Priory of Sion. \n\nAnd maybe Leonardo did discover something and instead of just saying or exposing it out right he decided to be clever and hide it within his works of art. After all he was known as a genuis.\n\nSo I(am born and raised catholic, but was taught to have an open mind about things.) personally an very intrigued by this idea of Dan Browns, but I am neither for it nor against it. I
29328
Yeah, it's the DaVinci Code. Dan Brown, the author, uses just enough truth mixed in with his fiction to make what he says believable. Most people don't know enough about the Bible to know that what he's saying is false, and so they accept it because he's a good writer.
1014272
Nostradamus had predictions that has come true so far and as far as the bible goes, No one knows. The bible was man written. How do you know that those men just had to sit down and figure out where we came from and that so they did. And today those words are read by many. But it is still a theory. Not a truth. Some chose to believe it, and some don't.
498330
In Islam, we believe Jesus (Isa- PBUH) was a human prophet sent by God.  However, I'm not sure if I believe in the Da Vinci Code.  This wasn't mentioned in the Quran, so I'm not sure I believe it.  And please do not concern yourself with richbro's comments.  They are arrogant, demeaning comments only ignorant people will type.
402425
No...and I believe the following will enlighten you to some of the falsities of The Da Vinci Code.  It was a very good book, and I enjoyed it, but remember, it's fiction.  It's not a historical account, a classroom text, or any other nonfiction work.  It does not have to be (and is not) true.\n\n\nThe Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei\nA response to The Da Vinci Code from the Prelature of Opus Dei in the United States. \n\nApril 17, 2006 \nMany people are intrigued by the claims about Christian history and theology presented in The Da Vinci Code. We would like to remind them that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, and it is not a reliable source of information on these matters. \n\nThe Da Vinci Code has raised public interest in the origins of the Bible and of central Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. These topics are important and valuable to study, and we hope that interested readers will be motivated to study some of the abundant scholarship on them that is available in the non-fiction section of the library. \n\nThose who do further research and exercise critical judgment will discover that assertions made in The Da Vinci Code about Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and Church history lack support among reputable scholars. By way of example, The Da Vinci Code popularizes the idea that the fourth century Roman emperor Constantine invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ for political reasons. The historical evidence, however, clearly shows that the New Testament and the very earliest Christian writings manifest Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. Other examples of discredited claims presented in The Da Vinci Code can be found in this FAQ from Catholic Answers or at the US Bishops' website, www.jesusdecoded.com. For those who are willing to take the time to get to the bottom of the issues raised in The Da Vinci Code, we recommend reading The Da Vinci Deception, De-Coding Da Vinci, or The Da Vinci Hoax. \n\nWe also want to point out that The Da Vinci Code’s depiction of Opus Dei is inaccurate, both in the overall impression and in many details, and it would be irresponsible to form any opinion of Opus Dei based on The Da Vinci Code. Those interested in learning more about the real Opus Dei may wish to read What is Opus Dei?, by Dominique LeTourneau, or Uncommon Faith, by John Coverdale. For those interested in further information about the various false impressions The Da Vinci Code gives of Opus Dei, please continue reading. \n\nPlease let us know if you need someone to speak about Opus Dei for a panel or other event about The Da Vinci Code -- we may have a speaker available in your area.  Also, free resource downloads for study groups and parishes are available from the group, Da Vinci Outreach.\n\n\n1. Opus Dei and monks \n\n\nThroughout The Da Vinci Code, Opus Dei members are presented as monks (or, rather, caricatures of monks). Like all Catholics, Opus Dei members have great appreciation for monks, but in fact there are no monks in Opus Dei. Opus Dei is a Catholic institution for lay people and diocesan priests, not a monastic order. \n\nOpus Dei’s approach to living the faith does not involve withdrawing from the world like those called to the monastic life. Rather, Opus Dei helps people grow closer to God in and through their ordinary secular activities. \n\n“Numerary” members of Opus Dei – a minority – choose a vocation of celibacy in order to be available to organize the activities of Opus Dei. They do not, however, take vows, wear robes, sleep on straw mats, spend all their time in prayer and corporal mortification, or in any other way live like The Da Vinci Code’s depiction of its monk character. In contrast to those called to the monastic life, numeraries have regular secular professional work. \n\nIn fact, The Da Vinci Code gets Opus Dei’s nature 180 degrees backwards. Monastic orders are for people who have a vocation to seek holi
1186658
Da Vinci Code Broken?\n\nDa Vinci Code controversy - It is everywhere! Dan Brown's book claims Jesus in not divine or God, and the gospels as we know them, have been changed, and after Jesus stay here on earth, men raised his status to the level of God. Could any of this be true?\n\nAncient secrets of the Church, hidden for centuries have actually been revealed and published in books prior to the fictional writings of Brown in the Da Vinci Code. Baigent and Leigh have produced other books from researchers point of view over the last two decades, including "Dead Sea Scrolls Deception", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and "Messianic Legacy." These books were the talk of the religious communities when they came out in the early 90's and certianly they have fueled an ongoing interest into just exactly who was this man Jesus, what was his message and what happened to him?\n\nIslam claims to "break the code" so to speak, over 1,400 years ago. The answer, according to Muslm scholars has been in the Quran for over fourteen hundred years \n\nSome may be surprised to learn, Muslims believe in the miracle birth and other miracles associated with Jesus. They actually consider him as the "Messiah" and they even say, "peace be upon him" when mentioning his name. However, they are quick to negate any connection between God and Jesus as a partnership or God-head, and they rule out the notion of God having any son (or daughter for that matter).\n\nHere is how Muslim scholars present their understanding and "break the code": \n\nHow Muslim scholars "broke the code": \n\nCreation itself tells us there is a creator and from the beginning of time – Allah, (the One God in Arabic) alone is to be worshiped. This is clear teaching throughout the Old testament (Torah), the scriptures that Jesus himself read and taught from. God is one not one of three; for example: ‘He is God; there is no other besides Him’. (Deuteronomy 4:35). The same is mentioned in the book of Mark in the New Testament, chapter 12, verse 29, when Jesus, peace be upon him, had been asked about the Greatest Commandment he replied, "To know, O Israel, the Lord your God is One Lord; and you have to love Him with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength."\n\nAccording to the oldest and most authentic copies of manuscipts and scrolls available throughout the centuries, Jesus, peace be upon him, never claimed to be God, or the creator, or the One to pray to, nor did he tell his followers to revere him as God. These notions appear on the lips of others who came along decades and even centuries later. \n\nWhile Jesus was on earth he did not claim to be the creator or ask us to revere him as God. His miraculous birth is a sign of his prophethood: “Verily, the likeness of Jesus before Allah, is the likeness of Adam. He (Allah) created him from dust and said “Be!” and he was” (Quran 3:59). Like all the great and noble prophets of Allah such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaac and David, Jesus came with one message: Worship, love, obey and submit to the one true God, Allah, the creator of everything and do not worship anything besides Allah.\n\nThroughout history, people have taken to worship things or people alongside Allah, or just worshiping something else like power, status or money. Even the names of religions seem have more to do with the creation and less or nothing to do with the Creator. For example: Buddhism – Buddha (the name of a man), Confucianism – Confucius (the name of a man), Hinduism – Hind (the name of an area), Judaism – Judah (the name of a tribe) and Christianity – Christ (the name of a great prophet).\n\nIslam is different. Islam is a word coming from the verb "aslama" and it carries the meaning of "surrender", "submission", "obedience", "sincerity" and "peace" between you and Almighty Alla
688891
The CONTROVERSY is that fiction about Jesus, the Bible and the church is being presented as fact. \n\nChristianity is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that he arose three days later with all power. And as a result, we have the hope of eternal salvation and the ability to have a direct relationship with God the Father, through Christ the Son. \n\nIf the Da Vinci is accurate, then that means that we have no assurance of salvation; no redemption from the curse of sin and death. \n\nThe CONCERN is that those who are not believers or are new to the faith may take this information as fact. And as any Christian knows, no one is able to get to the Father, except through the Son. Believing what The Da Vinci Code states, leaves a person without the ability to have salvation, since there is no Savior with which we can be redeemed.\n\nBelow is a list of some of the misleading subjects (that I referenced from www.cbn.com) in The Da Vinci Code:\n\n\n****Differences Between Book & The Bible****\n\nHere are only a few of the errors represented as fact in Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code. \n\n1. The Da Vinci Code says... \nJesus is a great man or prophet in the earliest historical sources but was later proclaimed divine at the Council of Nicaea.\n\nThe Bible Says... \nJesus is called “God” (theos) 7 times in the New Testament. He is called “Lord” (kyrios) in the divine sense numerous times. No serious historian argues that these texts postdate the Council of Nicaea.\n \n2. The Da Vinci Code says... \nThe Dead Sea Scrolls along with the Nag Hammadi documents are the earliest Christian records. \n\nHistory Says... \nThe Dead Sea Scrolls are purely Jewish documents; there is nothing Christian about them. There is also no evidence any of the Nag Hammadi documents existed before the late second century A.D., with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas.\n \n3. The Da Vinci Code says... \n“One particularly troubling theme kept recurring in the [Gnostic] gospels. Mary Magdalene. . . More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ" (p. 244). \n\nHistory Says... \nThe Gnostic Gospels, a collection of anonymous writings that blended pseudo-Christian ideas with esoteric spirituality, say nothing about Mary and Jesus being married. *\n \n4. The Da Vinci Code says... \n“The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine” (p. 231).\n\nHistory Says... \nThe Bible was not collated by Constantine, who died in 337 A.D. The Old Testament existed prior to even Jesus’s day. And the New Testament, although it started coming together by the end of the first century (about 90-100 A.D.), was not formalized until about 393-397 A.D. (after Constantine’s death). *\n \n5. The Da Vinci Code says... \n“The royal bloodline of Jesus Christ has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians” (p. 253).\n\nThe Facts Say... \nFollowing this comment about “historians,” Dan Brown lists four books written by various authors: Margaret Starbird, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. But none of them are historians. Starbird has an M.A. in comparative literature and German. Baigent holds an undergraduate degree in psychology and is pursuing an M.A. in mysticism. Leigh is a novelist and short story writer. Lincoln gained notoriety as a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett, along with Prince, is involved in occultism, the paranormal, and UFO studies. *\n \n6. The Da Vinci Code says... \nLeonardo Da Vinci made the following comments about the New Testament: 1) “Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude”; and 2) “Blinding ignorance does misled us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes” (p. 231).\n\nHistory Says... \nThese remarks have nothing to do with Leonardo’s views on scripture. His first comment, in context, is about alchemists who claimed that they