Dealing with The DaVinci Code - A Strategy to Minimize Its Impact

E-mail ^ | April 2006 | Anonymous

[Sam Gamgee]

I didn't like the Kill Artist. Silva seems to be following this trend where we have intelligence agents who are questioning the morality of using secrecy to stop terrorists. The book seems to paint the Israeli intelligence in the most evil light.

[AnnoyedOne]

Well, I would not describe it as an "alternate ending" to any of the gospels. No more than the thousands of other books about the history of the Church, etc, that occured after the death of Christ could be said to alternative endings to the gospels. It is a work of fiction, based upon a lot of real historical events, people, and places. A LOT of creative license was taken as well.

I am uncertain as to why any who are not catholic would be upset over this movie, really. The movie is flat out wrong in many ways, but it does touch on some theories that have been around for a long time. The RCC considers the theories about Mary Magdalene to be heresy, but since when do protestants care what the catholic church rules is heresy? Protestantism is heresy.

But as far as Christian doctine and the Bible are concerned, I am unsure how the theory about Christs descendants, even if true, would change anything. How would it invalidate anything that the Bible teaches us? Though it has some pronounced inaccuracies (it IS fiction, remember), I do not recall reading anything in the story that was contradictory to the Bible or undermines Christian beliefs. If Christ DID marry, and the Bible did not tell us about it.. Big Deal. Apparently God did not think we needed to know that.. who are you to second guess him?

[Rockitz]

...a Rabbi must be married (by Jewish Talmudic laws)

Is there a specific reference for this? Thanks.

[AnnoyedOne]

BTW, when I said who are you to question, it was not meaning you personally.. I should have phrased it "who are WE".

[Rockitz]

As I've said in other posts, I have not read the book, but I had assumed that in the DVC:

1. Christ doesn't go to the cross and die.
2. The body of Christ is not ressurected on the 3rd day.
3. Christ does not ascent to be at the right hand of God the father.

All of which are standard Christian theology, hence my use of the term "alternative."

[Hodar]

is there a specific reference for this? Thanks.

Here you go, I must warn you that it is graphic and somewhat sexual in nature. These are Jewish laws, I did not manufacture them, I'm only providing the source

[AnnoyedOne]

The DVC does not contradict any of those things. It professes, if I recall correctly, that when Christ died, Mary Magdelene was with child.

[Rockitz]

Thanks for the correction.

[Hodar]

...but I had assumed that in the DVC:
1. Christ doesn't go to the cross and die.
2. The body of Christ is not ressurected on the 3rd day.
3. Christ does not ascent to be at the right hand of God the father.

These are not mentioned either way, the whole point of the DVC is that there is a 'secret' that has been hidden, defended and sacrificed for over the past couple of thousand years. This book does not question, discuss or disparage Jesus in any way; other than to suggest that 'maybe' he was married and had children.

[AnnoyedOne]

Very interesting link, Hodar, thanks for posting it. I had heard some of these things before, but thats an interesting compilation on the subject.

[AnnoyedOne]

other than to suggest that 'maybe' he was married and had children

Or at least that some, like the Templars, Da Vinci, and possibly the RCC believed it to be true. But even if they did believe it, that does not mean it IS fact.

[truth_seeker]

"I've seen some signs around here (SC) saying all copie should be burned."

Book burnigs in SC? That is not conservative.

I thought it was the whacked muslims that did the religious censorship, not American Christians.

I guess we have our book burners, too. It doesn't present the best face of Christianity.

[Rockitz]

Or at least that some, like the Templars, Da Vinci, and possibly the RCC believed it to be true. But even if they did believe it, that does not mean it IS fact.

I guess that it might be considered, at best, later-day apocryphyl literature that would have been tossed from the bible we know today by Constantine et al?

[fortunecookie]

The fact that The DaVinci Code is pure fiction should give people a clue.

BTTT!

[fortunecookie]

I'm with you. C&D for me, at least. I will find a movie to see that weekend, hopefully the 19th.

I will have my hands full with C, a good friend and I share a lot in common, including faith and religion, but she is absolutely convinced that the movie is truth marketed as fiction for Brown's protection and these are truths that the Church has been hiding for centuries, and finally someone had the courage to air them publicly. We disagree. It caused a brief chill in our friendship when the book came out. Sigh.

[Cyclopean Squid]

other than to suggest that 'maybe' he was married and had children

Or at least that some, like the Templars, Da Vinci, and possibly the RCC believed it to be true. But even if they did believe it, that does not mean it IS fact.

To be fair, when discussing religion, it is all faith and therefore it does not mean that any of it is fact.

[birbear]

Yeah, it was a bit of a fun read, but Brown's previous book followed exactly the same formula

In my mind I get points of "Angels and Demons" and "Da Vinci Code" mixed up, because they are so similar.

I thought "Digital Fortress" was a much more original story. Although I will admit to reading "Da Vinci Code" in record time. I started on a Friday evening and finished on a Sunday afternoon...which for me is quite fast for a novel.

All I can deduce from his works is that he hates Catholics.

I'm not a Catholic. And I definitely don't want to start an anti-Catholic thread. (Or even propose any anti-Catholic comments). There's a unique history to the men and women involved in the Church that doesn't necessarily mesh perfectly well with the tenets of the faith. (which is true of all denominations and religions, I understand.) I think Dan Brown is trying to explore that history in a fictionalized way. He may very well be anti-Catholic. I tend to think he's pushing the envelope into story-telling of some very sacred things. Which, as a Christian, I cringe at. As a writer, I applaud.

[Lakeshark]

Ummmm....let me see......

Could it be that everything written about him by the people who knew him, every historical reference about him says he wasn't married.......and absolutely none say he was.

Don't let such silly things like that get in the way of such deep thoughts.

/sarcasm

[Cyclopean Squid]

History can be rewritten. Sometimes even when its participants are still alive (witness the methods of Stalin and to a lesser extent the media).

[birbear]

but it also seems to me that any who are so little educated in theology as to be seduced by such a movie, are probably already among the lost, so little harm is done by the movie there.

Exactly. Those who are secure in their faith, will let this movie roll of their back. Those who don't have any faith, may believe some of the issues for a few weeks and then forget it.

Those that let a movie dictate their faith, well... they have my prayers.