Why Should We Stop THE DA VINCI CODE?

Movieguide® ^ | May 19, 2006 | Dr. Ted Baehr

[Simi Valley Tom]

War on Christianity has been declared. On which side of the battle line will you stand?

The movie version of Dan Brown's book, THE DA VINCI CODE, is now in theaters. Although the movie significantly waters down the unrelenting, anti-Christian attacks and virulent paganism and goddess worship of the novel, it promotes the book and contains enough falsehoods and scurrilous conjecture to distort the truth about Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christianity, and God. That, coupled with the book’s popularity and some Christians’ ignorance about their faith, leads us to believe that the movie, and the attention it draws, will increase people’s hatred and prejudice against Christians and Christianity.

If this sounds like an overreaction, consider this:

* THE DA VINCI CODE presents blasphemous fiction as fact in a deceptive fashion

* THE DA VINCI CODE book denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, claiming He was no more than a mortal prophet, and the movie says it doesn't matter whether Jesus was divine or not

* THE DA VINCI CODE alleges Jesus married Mary Magdalene with whom He had a child

* THE DA VINCI CODE falsely claims the Christian church has historically hidden these “facts” through deception, murder and conspiracy

THE DA VINCI CODE novel has already caused great harm. Over 45 million copies of Dan Brown’s book have been sold, and it’s been a staple on worldwide best-seller lists for two years and counting. Brown, however, doesn’t present it as an overt work of fiction. A simple statement in the prologue reads, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

Many Christians are already theologically malnourished; how will they withstand the assault of distortions, lies and bigotry from THE DA VINCI CODE?

We must combat THE DA VINCI CODE’s attack on Jesus, the Bible and the very integrity of the Christian faith.

On which side of the battle line will you stand?

Note: See the News and Articles sections of www.movieguide.org for more analysis of Dan Brown's book, and see Current Reviews at www.movieguide.org for a review of the movie version.

[dread78645]

End the Conspiracy! Teach the Controversy!

RAmen brother!

[dread78645]

Because they have to wait so long between Harry Potter movies.

The "Two Minute Hate."

[dread78645]

Just for fun - here's a stained glass window in a European church ...

Or the 1510 woodcut of the Last Supper portraying Jesus holding a woman, with six apostles to the left and six to the right.

[maine-iac7]

yes, Albrect Dürer's - and there are more.

As a professional artist and writer - and lover of history, I have been following these 'ideas" for decades.

I hardly think Jesus would hold one of his male disciples in this manner - AND - there are 13 besides Jesus - ....

Here's another one with 13 besides Jesus - and a very female looking figure, with Jesus's hand on her shoulder - Oh, and no grail cup; by Crespi in 1500's

and a detail from the 1799 Last Supper by William Blake

P.S>

Just saw the movie - It followed he book faithfully - perhaps I liked it because I have been following the "ideas" for many years - so not as many 'surprises' - as "Oh yeahs" - good job on movie

[Deadshot Drifter]

I'll leave the bookburning to the Taliban.

[maine-iac7]

I'm sure they line up with your heretical view of scripture and Jesus quite nicely

the spirit of the Inquisition lives on - glad the laws and Papal powers don't

LOL

I am quite comfortable with the Jesus I know - a loving Lord who with great patience spent 3 years trying to get His teachings thru' to His apostles and disciples - which included woman, which He taught were equal human beings to men. (The hierarchy didn't like that and didn't take too long to deep-six it)

The Jesus I know taught us the great commandment above all else is to "love ye one another." - said something about not judging others, as I remember. We can disagree on ideas and things - but have no right to judge another...

P.S> the movie was very good

[Deadshot Drifter]

You are my hero of the day, unfortunately I think the genius of your post will be lost on this crowd.

I got it, but then, I hang out on Crevo threads.
In fact, I'm thinking of using The Da Vinci Code-teach the controversy! as my tagline. At least while it's in theaters.

[Deadshot Drifter]

Sure, and Farenheit 911from Michael Moore was fiction too, right?< No one believed that either, right?
The only people that believed Farenheit 911 to be accurate were/are moonbats.

[dread78645]

Exactly - why is the thought that Jesus may have been married - which was Jewish Law for a rabbi - and which, I believe, the prime directive of God "go forth..." and the reason for our existence - why is this idea so repugnant? Is marriage repugnant?

Indeed. Marriage is a mitzvah (commandment) to all Jewish men, not just kohein, Levites, and rabbis. Gen 2:18 "It is not good for man to be alone," provides the basis for that even before the "be fruitful and multiply" .
A unmarried man can be a rabbi (a person learned in Jewish law and tradition). But at 29-30 years of age, it would be considered unusual, if not unnatural for Jesus to be without a wife.

Then there's the reading of haftarah in Luke.
On the Sabbath in Orthodox synagogues, only married men are called to read from the book of Prophets, -- the Haftarah. A adolescent boy might read (whisper along with) from the Torah on their bar mitzvah, but that's aliyah, not haftarah.

The possibilities are:
1. Jesus was married or at least betrothed (In biblical times, the distinction was when the husband took the wife into his home).
2. Luke made up the story in Luke 4:16-20
3. Jesus was in the first ever Jewish-Reformed synagogue.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Given that there is freedom of speech, you would be allowed to produce and distribute the movie.

If the press made a big stink about it, you might even make more money. Especially if the film was bad.

[dread78645]

The main problem with the book is the lie that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was invented in the 4th Century as a political power play.

There's a reason for history books.

A faction of Christians held that Jesus was homo-ousios (of the same essence) as the Father.
The opposing group said Jesus was a "created being" made by God. Jesus as an inter-mediator was subordinate to God the Father and therfore hetero-ousios (of a different essence).
The debate wasn't new. In fact, the council of Antioch (264-272) explicitly rejected the homo-ousios formulation. But the food fight continued over the next 40 years and threatened to split the nascent Church.

That is, until the council of Nicea in 325CE.

The hetero-ousios group were now called the 'Arians' due to it's chief proponent Arius -- a presbyter in Alexandria. The homo-ousios group led by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius, were the Trinitarians -- beleiving the Trinity.

Five years before Nicea, Bishop Alexander had condemned Arius and forced him to take refuge with Eusebius of Caæsarea (the historian), and later with Eusebius of Nicomedia (the Bishop). Bishop Eusebius influenced Constantine (the Emperor) step in to settle the dispute.
A pagan, the Emperor Constantine thought the whole thing was rather silly and of no practical importance. At first he asks Alexander and Arius to come to a philoshopical compromise. When that proves impossible, Constantine (probably with Pope Sylvester in agreement) calls for a ecumenical council to reestablish the religious peace.

At Nicea, Constantine refused to entertain charges and counter-charges of apostasy made by the bishops against each other and ordered them to get to business. At the synod before the emperor arrived, debate was evenly divided, but by the time Constantine showed up, it was clear that the majority were supporting Bishop Alexander's group.
Constantine went with the majority (the Trinitarian creed) and exiled Arius along with Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, and later Bishop Eusebius.

By 330CE, all the Arians (except for Arius, who was poisioned on his way back), had been recalled from exile and back in good graces of the Church and Emperor.
Although requested by the Emperor to readmit former Arians to ecclesiastical communion, Athanasius refused.

In 335, based on charges from Bishop Eusebius, the Tyre Synod declared Athanasius (now Bishop of Alexandria), was anathema and he in turn was exiled.

So yes.
The question was decided in the 4th century for political reasons.

[Guenevere]

No....You come on!

Good grief, we aren't threatening folks lives over this movie....unlike the Muslim cartoons extremists.

[dread78645]

P.S>

Just saw the movie - It followed he book faithfully -

I hope not. Except where he went into the weeds, I was fairly interested in some of the things he brought up. But frankly Dan Brown writes dialog like, well ...
Let's just say the script writers probably wish they hadn't sold out to Hollywood.

[maine-iac7]

Especially if the film was bad.

Been waiting for the movie long before I knew there would be one :O)

Saw it last night - really good.

It may be that, since I was already familiar with all the "ideas" in the book long before Brown wrote it (He is being both credited and vilified for "his ideas" when they have been around for 2000 years - and there are many contemporary books in print today - NON-fiction - on these 'ideas' - with bibliographies - that no one seems to make a peep about. They are in much more depth, they are NON-fiction and they are fascinating. One that first caught Brown's attention is by a life long Catholic with an impressive background, who set out to disprovethe centuries old 'rumor" that MM was married. She has many more now in print on the subject and a web page - for the brave who dare to exercise their greatest gift from God - free will: "The Alabaster Jar" by Margaret Starbird, is a good start. Her web site - scroll down to her bio: - is

http://www.margaretstarbird.net/

Here's a stained glass window in a European church - Scotland, actually, where the Royal Blood line escaped to for protection - this window was around LOOONNG before there was a Dan Brown:

For more on the Jewish Law, at Jesus's time, regarding marriage, I recommend you read post # 209 by dread78645 ... and ponder possibility no. 2 of his post.

Does the Bible tell the truth? His/her post brings out Bible verses that support Jesus having been married much more plausible than the alternative.

Why the possibility that Jesus was married horrifies people so is a mystery to me.

I feel much more comforted that Jesus taught and showed us, by His example, how we can obtain joy and happiness - HERE, as well as on the other side, by following His teachings and nurturing the God-flame within us all...

He said we could do the things He had done - and more - by following His Way...that we, too, are heirs to the Kingdom...(and that that Kingdom is WITHIN us)as He.

But if he were not as we are, albeit far ahead in achieving the goal, then how are we ever to reach that goal?

The goal is still hard to reach, but at least we have the hope of reaching it...that to me, is a much more loving Lord, sent from the Father, as our Eldest Brother, to show us The Way.

[maine-iac7]

Thank you for this excellent post. I am copying it here again for I believe it so important - and it's also nice to see a 'calm' post ;o)

Indeed. Marriage is a mitzvah (commandment) to all Jewish men, not just kohein, Levites, and rabbis. Gen 2:18 "It is not good for man to be alone," provides the basis for that even before the "be fruitful and multiply" .

An unmarried man can be a rabbi (a person learned in Jewish law and tradition). But at 29-30 years of age, it would be considered unusual, if not unnatural for Jesus to be without a wife.

Then there's the reading of haftarah in Luke. On the Sabbath in Orthodox synagogues, only married men are called to read from the book of Prophets, -- the Haftarah.

An adolescent boy might read (whisper along with) from the Torah on their bar mitzvah, but that's aliyah, not haftarah.

The possibilities are:

1. Jesus was married or at least betrothed (In biblical times, the distinction was when the husband took the wife into his home).

2. Luke made up the story in Luke 4:16-20

3. Jesus was in the first ever Jewish-Reformed synagogue.

I hadn't come across this all but indisputable reference before but am printing it out for my records...tucked into some NON-fiction books on the subject that gives the history of the marriage customs, particularly for the Royal Blood line of The Vine, of Jesus' time, along with correct translations of terms, like consort, virgin, for example.

I find Sir Laurence Gardner's & Margaret Starbird's books to be my favorites...and I find these explanations much more plausible and "un-convoluted" than what most churches have cobbled together over the years.

For me, these 'ideas' bring Jesus much closer and His teachings and promises to and for us much more attainable and comforting - and He promised to send The Comforter - direct to each of us, not through another person - and that The Comforter would make known the truth of all things to us...that we receive the truth from The Father ONLY through HIM - not another person, for we are all equal in The Father's eyes...

Another quote from Luke (also covered inMatthew) :

Luke 6:43-44

For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit.

and Luke"13:26 = "By their works ye shall know them..."

He gave us the measure by which to recognize who follows His teachings and who doesn't. If they, be it individual or organization, do things that are in conflict with God's Laws, then they cannot be trusted and we follow at our peril. (How many of man's organizations pass this muster?)

[Cvengr]

Why are albino assasins associated with the Pope?

Remember this scene from "Foul Play", Goldie Hawn with Chevy Chase in his first film, encountering "Whitey Jackson", played by now deceased, William Frankfather?

Here's an interesting list of other albino roles and types of characters played.. http://www.skinema.com/AlbinismList2005.html

[RobFromGa]

Box Office Mojo has the Friday estimates up:

The DaVinci Code- $29.5 million first day

If that holds, it puts them at #12 all time, right ahead of #13 Star Wars Phantom Menace ($28.5 mmillion) and #14 Passion of the Christ ($25.5 million). Another half million puts them in #11 bumping Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets.

This would bode well for a $70+ million opening weekend which is pretty good for a fairly long "serious" movie.

[Cvengr]

I concur with your assessment.

The language used to imply Jesus would be a two-timer if he was married to Mary Magdalene, is probably better understood by others in the same vain to wit CS Lewis may have brought out counterargument or even the apostles and Paul noting that if our faith were untrue in its object then we are the most worthless of all creatures.

Generally speaking I find most of the Dan Brown novels to be preoccupied with Illuminati and antiChristian perspectives of religion and spiritism and the occult in general. The fascination with such things and lure to 'expose' a worldly scheme as presented in his novels reveals its own inadequacy.

If any person sincerely seeks God through faith in Christ, i.e. simply remaining honest and seeking to understand who God is and what He has prepared for us all, then one is led to an indwelling of all three persons in the Godhead, as well as a desire to more fully understand how Christ thought, made decisions and behaved prior to the Cross, while on the Cross, after the Ressurrection, and how He still reigns and is very much alive in body, soul and spirit today.

When I compare websites such as Dan Brown interests to sites such as www.watchers.com or even more new age sites such as http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/index.htm, I notice that the preoccupation with the supernatural and spiritual, when prefaced by honoring our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus takes a considerably different tone than those who fail to develop the basics of faith and doctrine in Christ first.

Even without the content of Brown's perspectives fully analyzed, when Brown becomes absorbed in angelology without a firm foundation in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, one is led to discern Brown is on the wrong track. When he then attempts to refocus a reader's attention on conspiracy theory, completely preoccupied with worldly perspectives of the Church, rather than first grasping the simple foundations of gradeschool level faith, and then degenerates into proposing grand conspiracies attacking even the behavior of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, then Brown well reveals a very degenerate thinking.

It is worth noting, however, that for the past week the History Channel has devoted quite a lineup on Dan Brown, Freemasonry, Catholic Church conspiriacy theories, the Illuminati and a handful of other occultic information shows.

Recent UFO shows on the cable networks, I must admit, have honed the presentation of their information to become quite believable.

It appears as though there is a substantial ongoing information warfare campaign to realign public perception of angels, demons, aliens, and Christianity, all with very little attention paid to the simplest foundations of faith.

It's been said that it takes only a very little more faith than absolutely no faith at all, to have a saving faith.

In all the recently presented volumes of conspiracy theory in such a recent occultic information campaign, it is revealing that such little mention is made for any significance of belief in God through faith in Christ.

[It's me]

bingo.

[puroresu]

I expect this turkey to falter after a strong opening. THE DA VINCI CODE has a cult following, not all that dissimilar from Michael Moore's following, and probably quite a bit larger. It's composed of people who want to believe the fictional story is true, even though it's utter nonsense.

Emotion and ideology will drive the cultists to the theaters for the first week or two, but the bottom line is this film has an abysmal 18% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It's hard to imagine a film that horribly awful (POSEIDON has a 28% rating) having the legs to carry it into the all time box office upper tier.

It'll be a hit, but I'll be surprised if it reaches the heights projected based on its opening weekend.