WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB (a riddle)

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.

FACT: The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Where is this elusive reference to historical events???

All of the bolded sections represent historical claims. The last line is the most important and relevant, since the documents cited in Brown's book (like the Les Dossier Secrets hoax) make historical claims. Isn't the "Priory of Scion" supposed to be keeping the secret of Jesus' marriage? Brown is making historical claims indirectly.

This section is also very misleading:

In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

Brown is lying by stating a partial truth. He fails to state that these documents were inserted into the Paris library by an eccentric Frenchman who was actually hauled before a French court. The man's case was ultimately dismissed since the court regarded him as a harmless eccentric.

Brown also refers to Opus Dei as the "personal prelature" of the pope, as if Opus Dei functions as the pope's right arm. In fact, the word "personal" refers to "persons," as in a "prelature of persons." Opus Dei is composed largely of lay members. The purpose of the organization is to sanctify ordinary life.

In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

This is 100% accurate, the cocuments are a complete fraud but they do exist and were discovered at the Bibliothèque.

the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion

These reports were mostly from disgruntled ex-members and the reports did stur controversy

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

For the most part, this is a true statement.

Brown is lying by stating a partial truth.
Good one, that's the same reasoning used for calling Bush a liar.

He fails to state that these documents were inserted into the Paris library by an eccentric Frenchman who was actually hauled before a French court. The man's case was ultimately dismissed since the court regarded him as a harmless eccentric.

My guess is that he chose not to state the origins of the documents. That doesn't change the fact the they exist.

Brown also refers to Opus Dei as the "personal prelature" of the pope

Hate to break it to you but Opus Dei did recieve a "Personal Prelate" from Paul VI.

You obviously have a problem with the book and that's fine but keep in mind it's a made up story and the term "Historical Fiction" is meant as a period based literary referral, not an oxymoron, and certainly not an assertation of historical fact.

Incidentally, Brown has never described the book as "Historical Fiction", that has been done by the books critics.

This is 100% accurate, the cocuments are a complete fraud but they do exist and were discovered at the Bibliothèque.

So what's the point of including this on his "facts" page? I found a map in my local library today that shows the wearabouts of Noah's ark. I've included this on my "fact page." I drew the map myself and stuck in in the library yesterday.

Hate to break it to you but Opus Dei did recieve a "Personal Prelate" from Paul VI.

Again, "personal prelature" does not mean that the organization is the pope's personal organization. The phrase simply means that Opus Dei is a prelature of persons, or a prelature of the laity, by and large.

Here is their apostolic constitution

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

For the most part, this is a true statement.

According to every expert I've heard, his knowledge of art and architecture is laughable. The documents that he relies on are a hoax. And doesn't he have Opus Dei engaging in "secret rituals," like satanic orgies?

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

LOL

hardly a sweeping endorsement against marriage -

and I, for one, would not care to wake up and find I had married an eunuch - born or made.

Nor is HE intimating that He renounced marriage, a prerequisite for rabbis.

If He were celibate, it would have been contrary to Jewish custom and would have probably been noted and explained why He went against tradition.

As for it not being stated that He was married, we know that his kin were targeted for extinction - hunted down and killed, by decree. Joseph of Arimathea and other family members managed to escape - others did not.

It would seem more than reasonable that a wife and child would not be exposed in writing for the authorities to track down and slaughter....more reasonable that all attempts at protecting their existence and whereabouts - most particularly his wife and direct heir, a direct hindrance to usurping leadership of the church/.//

Opus Dei?

Lots of info on it on the web...secrets aren't so easily kept in the days of the Internet. Not saying aye or nay - just posturing the question if or not folks should not take as whole cloth what others profess - especially if too LOUDLY ;o) - do the research and look at both sides...especially people who have "been there."

for example:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1856656&page=1

the History Channel is showing a program about OPUS DEI the following:

Saturday May 20th @ 9pm

Sunday May 21st @ 1am

ALSO:

National Geographic Program, re-scheduled for May 21-22, 2006

and

Sunday May 21st @ 4pm

Also :

http://www.odan.org/

"The truth does not need to be hidden and can stand the LIGHT of day. m.t."

hardly a sweeping endorsement against marriage -

Did I say that it was? Jesus is saying that the person who can "renounce marriage" "because of the kingdom of heaven...should accept it."

and I, for one, would not care to wake up and find I had married an eunuch - born or made.

What's your point? Jesus is talking about people who "renounce marriage."

Nor is HE intimating that He renounced marriage, a prerequisite for rabbis.

Follow the logic.

Jesus is saying that he who can accept renouncing marriage "for the kingdom of heaven... should accept it." Was Jesus, the Son of God, unable to renounce marriage?

If He were celibate, it would have been contrary to Jewish custom and would have probably been noted and explained why He went against tradition.

And here is the explanation:

"others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

I don't see how this could be any clearer.

The Romans couldn't have figured out who Jesus was married to by asking around?

And then why didn't the Apostles keep their names out of the Gospels? Wouldn't they have wanted to protect themselves and thus preserve the patriarchy? Or did they know that it would be a futile effort, like hiding Jesus' imaginary wife.

Sorry to delay. I've been away.

No. The "begats" refer to parentage by birth which typically infers an inherited "bloodline".

That is not always the case. For example, today a woman can give birth to a baby who is not genetically related to her.

In the case of Christ's birth, Joseph was his legal father by marriage to Mary, Christ's mother. However, conception is described as having been "by the Holy Spirit". (Blood characteristics are determined by conception.)

Jesus did not have an earthly father (physically). He was the legal descendant of David by birth, not because of bloodline. Jesus body and blood are described as incorruptible. This would not be possible if he had David's blood, because corruptible things do not produce incorruptible things.

John also preached that the Jews should not interpret the privilege of Jewish heritage to mean they were better than others or God somehow depended on them for His plan, because God is able to raise up seed (descendants) to Abraham out the stones.

There is perhaps even a flaw with the whole concept of royal bloodlines anyway. After all, even children conceived naturally do not have blood identical to either one of their parents. Each individual has a unique genetic makeup, including the blood.

Brown's view seems to find legitimacy in the idea of royal bloodlines, as if genetics determine our birthright and place in life. However, the moral basis for things like property rights (which includes inherited wealth), liberty, and assignment of governmental powers, do not lie in our genetics. Our founders believed in human equality, inalienable rights, government by consent, etc.

Brown's view is the exact thing John the Baptist was preaching against. It is true that Jesus being a descendant of David is related to His right to be king. However, this is because God promised that all the future kings of Israel would be David's children. That did not mean that every child of David had some rightful claim to the throne.

So Christ's being a descendant of David was a fulfillment of prophecy and of God's promise to David. David contributed nothing to the virgin conception and birth of Christ. Christ's qualifications to save the world in no way relied on the contributions of David or any other person for either His blood or otherwise.

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.