DO you agree with the therory behind the Da Vinci code?
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.
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."
492874
i know.  my best friend knows somebody who says that the da vinci code his his new bible.  it is really stupid.  The Holy Bible will always be the only thing for me to follow.
1014837
Damn good question>>>>Its like one can preach but can hardly practice the same thing.da Vinci Code had an interesting plot and it helpedhim rake the moolaah.When people write fiction, they know that its fiction but they still write it anyway for the purpose of audience entertainment and also for giving vent to their own creativity.\n\nHowever,Its very possible that Dan Brown believed in what he wrote and then changed his statement and stand post controversy when the Vatican actually became involved.
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
149233
Da Vinci code can not be proven true.  People are playing it off to be a huge conspiracy.  I think it's a load of horse pucky. If it were true it would have been completely covered up YEARS AGO.  The church has a huge amount of power, even still today.
591175
The Da Vinci Code, the movie, is based on a FICTIONAL book, so the whole big stink is being made over someone's imagination.  Yes, little facts are mixed in here and there, but freaking out and saying the movie is an attack on faith is ridiculous.  At the very least, the movie should be encouraged because it motivates people to THINK, to examine their beliefs...regardless of how good or bad the acting may be.  Additionally, as for people being upset that some believe Christ married, it should be pointed out that NO WHERE in the Bible is marriage considered a sin.  Rather, the union between man and woman through marriage (made official in that time by sexual intercourse) is considered a GIFT from God. :-)\n\nAs for Pirates...WOO HOO!  I can't wait to see it!
720756
I agree. The Da Vinci Code is a good source.
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.....
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.
531741
Dear Lord, you have to realize that the book is FICTION. F-I-C-T-I-O-N!!! Do you honestly believe that Dan Brown is the keeper of the truth? NO! The Bible is God's word, not The Da Vinci Code. C'mon.
390398
You know the theories in the Da Vinci Code are bogus, right? They come from another fiction book. Here's a great article in the NY Times: http://www.iit.edu/~misa/L2i/1/Miller_Da-Vinci-Con.html
1149623
I believe in it. The book especially is too compelling not to. I don't understand it, though, but I do think there's too much evidence to support some sort of occurance going on...not sure if it's aliens or what, but I'm convinced that there are many things abound that we just don't know about. \n\nIf you haven't read the book, do so. The movie is hollywoodized and nothing like the book.
658625
Another Dan Brown and Da Vinci Code question. While it is true of the existence of the Gnostic writings, most of these were incomplete as Dan Brown indicates, and the liberties that he took in writing his book. Also of the existence of an organization know as "The Priory of Sion", an actual organization that was founded in 1956, therefore impossible for Davinci himself to belong to the organization as Brown tells in his fable. True there was a man known as Jesus, and that he was crucified. Jewish scholars have written this down as evidenced in the writings of Josephus.\n\nThis is directly from Dan Browns website\n\n"HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?\nThe Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history." \n\nand the writings of Josephus Antiquities 18:3:3...\n\n"3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."\n\nRead and believe the following, if you are interested in the truth.
499047
I just saw the film.\n\nThe part about how Christianity took pagan beliefs and mixed them in is correct. The fact that Constantine changed the religion (at least to a degree) is correct.  In fact when he ruled that in order to hold government office you had to be a Christian he managed to turn a bunch of pagans into Christians (in name only) over night.  Their underlying pagan beliefs remained the same, they just changed their title.\n\nThe part about the museum having bathroom windows that can be opened is absolutely false. Nor does the museum have bar soap that you can stick a GPS tracer into, they have liquid soap in the bathrooms.\n\nThe Priory has been pretty much determined to be a fraud. (Discovery Channel ran a series of shows which demonstrated this.) Of course, the paranoid will say that the "fraud" is just a cover story and it is exactly what the Priory wants you to think so that they stay secret.  \n\nThe idea that the "royal bloodline" filters down to one and only one woman in Europe seems pretty unbelievable. The Merovingians had many kids, there would have to be several thousand Merovingians by this point in history.\n\nThe idea that Jesus and Magdelene were married, well, not much proof one way or the other. Even if they were, it is that thing about rising from the dead that still sets things apart.\n\nOne idea that I don't think most people have considered is the possibility that the entire DaVinci Code movie and book might just be designed as a meme (brain virus as it were). Designed to "inject" the concept of this bloodline into the populace. Then, when the time is ripe, "they" will unveil a person who is supposedly the descendant in question whom "they" want to setup as a One World Leader.\n\nFrankly I think there is more "fact" in "The Norman Rockwell Code".
90231
Hi there,\n\nThe Da Vinci Code is a book by Dan Brown.\nIt is quite fascinating to know that Da Vinci hid clues in his pictures. The book also discusses the story of Jesus and Mary Magdaline. And some fascinating inventions by Da Vinci. It also tells us about a brotherhood who protect these children of Jesus and Mary Magdaline, and also safe-guard the holy-grail. The book is quite interesting and I suggest you read it.\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
1154368
A lot. My friends read The DaVinci Hoax. They said it's a must read. It clarified FACTUALLY  the WRONG claims of the The DaVinci Code.