Posted on 05/15/2006 7:35:21 AM PDT by unlearner
Everyone likes a good riddle. It's human nature to want to find meaning, solve problems, and seek out purposeful solutions. Dan Brown capitalized on this by writing the best selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code".
Speaking of which, the title of my post is a riddle: WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB. By rearranging the letters of the title, you can find a meaningful question posed about this novel and film. The solution is in the context of the story, as the answer resembles a major puzzle within it.
If it is not obvious at this point that T. HANKS is for Tom Hanks (not "thanks") and D.C. is for Da Vinci Code (not the US capitol), you may want to sit this one out and let someone else solve the riddle. Tom Hanks plays the main character in the upcoming movie directed by Ron Howard and adapted from the Dan Brown novel. (The official movie website is at http://www.sodarktheconofman.com, using a phrase taken from the book.)
The film and the book are a big fib. That is, they are a lie. "Yes", some object, "but they are fiction. They are not meant to be taken literally." Not quite. The story is intertwined with historical fact and historical fiction. Leonardo Da Vinci was a real person. So was Jesus. So was Mary Magdelene.
The story extends poetic license to depicting these characters in what many would consider a slanderous light. It goes beyond this to the point of denigrating biblical doctrines and substituting fairy tales in their place.
If Jesus fled persecution and had children by Mary, then the most essential doctrines of Christianity are false: the atoning death of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, the spiritual body of Christ (i.e. the Church - Christ's bride). Mr. Brown fails to see that a relationship with Mary would make Jesus an adulterer, and thus a hypocrite, since He spoke against adultery.
The movie is to be released May 19, 2006- just in time to celebrate the aniversary of legalized homosexual marriages. ("Legalized" by judicial edict, not legislation, and only in Massachusettes.) Do I exagerate? I do not know if this is intentional, but of course Tom Hanks has been a champion of liberal causes such as homosexual rights, as is demonstrated by the Academy Award winning propoganda piece, Philadelphia. (I would be amiss not to point out Mr. Hanks also has been a champion of some conservative causes as well- such as supporting our troops.) Co-star, Ian McKellan, is a militant homosexual activist who, while being interviewed, has bragged that he likes to vandalize Gideon Bibles which have been freely donated to hotels. I wonder if the movie will throw in the idea that some famous historical figures may have been homosexual.
Anyway, you can count me out for being one of the crowd to go see this movie when it opens. By the way, I read the book for free using my local library. I did not want any of my money to go to its author or publisher. If I ever watch the film, I will wait for a free coupon from RedBox or until my library has a copy. May I suggest to those conservatives who cannot wait for the DVD, don't go see The Da Vinci Code on opening day. Wait as long as possible. The longer you wait, the less money goes to those who made and distributed it. And they are liberal. This movie is the liberal answer to The Passion of the Christ.
It should come as no surprise. Most Hollywood movies contain many references to Jesus. Hollywood has no problem making Jesus a major subject matter within its films, as long as those references are limited to things such as using His name like a four-letter filth word. This happens, on average, several times in a typical Hollywood film. Yet movies like The Passion of the Christ, which attempts to portray the actual events surrounding Christ's death, are unacceptable to the liberal elite in Hollywood. A similar protest, albeit slightly quieter, was made against Chronicles of Narnia which contains what some interpret as allegorical references to Christ.
Here's my take on Dan Brown's novel under discussion. Aside from the callous insult against biblical Christianity as well as special insults reserved for Catholics, the story is fairly well told. Not amazing, but OK. Some parts are weak. When we are awkardly informed a major character is allergic to shell fish, it is obvious instantly this is a not-so-subtle setup for his later demise using this plot device. The overall plot is weak, too. The explanations for why these supposed secrets have been protected in a secret society are convoluted. Why are they important enough to preserve but not important enough to tell? Why are the secret group sex rituals necessary? The memories of a girl walking in on her uncle in the middle of one of these rituals is quite over the top. It is just too hard to swallow Brown's take on these things having some sort of intrinsic beauty. To me it is just incestuous and disgusting.
It has already been pointed out, but may be worth repeating, that Brown has his facts so mixed up as to be unrecognizable. Gnostic gospels never gained much foothold in early Christianity because those closest to the actual events were present to refute these errant writings. They were not removed by a Constantine persecution. Brown would transform the legalization of Christianity into the persecution of all desenting views. And what's more, even if the Gnostics were an alternative Christianity, they would never come close to supporting Brown's fascination with "the sacred feminine". Gnostics despised women, the physical, and the sexual. None of this fits.
Ok. That's my two cents worth. But what about the riddle? With a little effort some Freeper is sure to solve it . The way to find the answer should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the riddles in the book. Any takers? I will provide some additional hints if no one is able to solve it.
I liked this article:
How Dark the Con of Dan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1632068/posts
" As Amy Wellborn points out, "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction but the author makes assertions about history and presents them as widely accepted facts, introduced by such phrases as "historians say" and "scholars understand." "
Hmmmm. They must be related to "critics say" that I keep seeing in newspaper articles.
No one has a name. Maybe it's a conspiracy.
No.
It's a hoax.
Is the a Dossier Secrets?, Yes
What's the "a Dossier Secrets"?
Does Opus Dei exist?, Yes
Do they have monks? No. Not even albino monks.
Did his wife fact-check anything? No. Did he? No.
Does Dan Brown attest to the veracity of these things? No
What about his "fact sheet" at the front of the book?
Did Dan Brown invent these things?, No
Yes.
What is he lying about??????
Jesus being married!!!!!!
There are countless other factual errors like the ones I mentioned above, plus the fact that there are 13 cups in the "Last Supper painting." One for everyone. Not one short, as Brown claims.
The Church wanted to eliminate the Sacred Feminine the Goddess aspect, and maintain a patriarchal system (Page 46,116) Of course, Christianity elevated women to an equal status with men, in contrast to all other religions of the day. And Catholics hold that the greatest human being (aside from Christ, who was God/Man), was Mary, His mother.
According to Brown, Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Boticelli were all Grand Masters in the Priory of Sion they were responsible for preserving the True identity of Jesus to be released in the future. (Page 113) The Priory of Scion (POS) is a POS --a modern hoax.
According to Brown, Constantine held a gathering known as the council of Nicea .(325 A.D.) Until that moment in history Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet not the Son of God. (Page 233) This is absurd. All of the writings of the Church Fathers contradict this.
I could go on, but there is an endless list at Debunking Da Vinci
Actually, Bull sharks are known to go hundreds of miles into fresh water rivers...but I doubt they could make it to Lake Michigan! :^)
"Dimestore ontology,dimestore ontology,dimestore ontology,dimestore ontology,dimestore ontology,
Heh.
nowhere in the New Testament does it state that Jesus was celibate. For centuries people have speculated about this, both ways...people with vast knowledge, education, access to documents unaccessible to the general public - and still they speculate, even though they have their own opinions. Perhaps they need to get in touch with you, who 'knows' :O)
MM by Leonardo
below: stained glass window in European church - long before Brown was born.
I love this painting below of MM - done by a student of Leonardo...
you write There are countless other factual errors like the ones I mentioned above, plus the fact that there are 13 cups in the "Last Supper painting." One for everyone. Not one short, as Brown claims.
What is really left of the original painting that Leonardo did? Not what you see in Milan now.......but I'll give you a clue - Brown has good reason for his claim -
go to link and scroll to "restorations":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo)
Experts agree that what is now called the Last Supper is only a shadowed guess of what Leonardo painted - but accurate descriptions of the original do exist... Another avenue those with the ability to use their own mind that God gave them - (but not for you who already know all the facts) There is the writer - whose books on MM came out LONG before Brown's - you might enjoy. She is a life long Catholic:
- "Margaret Starbird holds BA and MA degrees from the University of Maryland where she concentrated in comparative literature, medieval studies and German language, studies she pursued on a Fulbright Student Grant at the Christian Albrechts Universitat in Kiel, Germany. She taught German language at the University of Maryland for four years and for one year at North Carolina State University. She later studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville, TN. She has lived and traveled extensively in Europe including pilgrimages to Black Madonna and Mary Magdalene shrines and Cathar citadels in Provençe.
(she's on the web - http://www.margaretstarbird.net/
I would suggest "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar" first
Then there are many scholarly books by many writers for 100's of years concerning MM - one of my favorite contempory writers, besides Starbird, is Sir Laurence Gardner - who has access to many ancient texts, including the Vatican.
Caution: You do have to be able to think for yourself, these are not for the spoon fed. I find, like Starbird, these studies to be faith building....(sorry for the long post - but believe me, it isn't even touching the tip - )
Ayah!
I've never...
I've never...
I've never...
I've never...
Awww, come on, admit it...you know you always wanted too...
Personally, I still have an invisible dragon as a best friend, and I'm 42.
Yeah - after the hatchet job he did on the NSA, I'm more than willing to accept that he's an expert on anything.
I had completely forgotten that little tidbit. I guess I can be excused by the utterly forgettable nature of Brown's drivel. I imagine Clement, Polycarp, Iraeneus, and Eusebius would have been quite shocked to discover that this was their belief.
I got the latest package from the Military Book Club yesterday. In it they have "The Davinci Code" for sale, along with other "Non Fiction" Christianity bashing books.
Too bad I don't have the descriptions of said books now. Rest assured they were all filth.
Please. His "fact" page claims that the references to historical events, and so forth, are factual.
Where on the "fact" page is there a claim that Opus Dei has monks.
Where on the "fact" page does he claim that Jesus was married.
See above. He's claiming that his book is historical fiction.
What about his "fact sheet" at the front of the book?
That is what I'm talking about.
In the interview posted on his website he explains...
I thought you were talking about the "fact sheet"?
I thought he claimed that one cup was missing.
Perhaps you should read it.
I would if I considered my time to be worthless.
More importantly, there's no mention that Jesus was married. Did the people who walked with Jesus not think it important to mention His wife? Secondly, there is no mention in the early Church Fathers of Jesus being married. Thirdly, Jesus commends celibacy "for the kingdom." Since He claimed to be the Son of God, He would certainly take His own advice. Fourthly, Brown cites the gnostic gospels, which are hare-brained, to say the least. (In the so-called Gospel of Thomas, believers are told that women can be saved if they become men.) Fifth, the gnostic gospels were written centuries after the true Gospels. The writers were not witnesses of Jesus' life.
For centuries people have speculated about this, both ways...
For decades people have speculated about (insert idiotic idea here; i.e., alien abductions), both ways...
At the very least he has given the Christian community a stupendeous opportunity to witness Christ to unbelivers. Where I normally wouldn't have the oppotunity to discuss Jesus with a co-worker, who is fascinated by this book, now I can speak with her openly and not come off "preaching" as to who Christ is.
Don't miss boat the Christians, this is a fabulous opportunity to win souls to Christ.
I don't know what Brown's motives are, but by this novel he has gotten people searching about things which they would have shunned in fear before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.