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.

[MACVSOG68]

Got one little word for ya....................."context".

Yeah, sometimes I seem to forget. One's right and one's wrong.....context.

[maine-iac7]

Someone who feels the need to "stop" this movie must have a weak and insecure faith indeed.

Bingo -

Not to mention woefully unaware of other publications - NON-fiction - that have been in the public domain for millenia about the same themes...and the many in current print, again NON- fiction that are the source of Brown's 'ideas' -

These writer's books of NON fiction are much more detailed and documented then Brown's fiction tale, and yet, you don't hear bleep about them.

Curious.

One of the most enduring contemporary authors on the Jesus/Mary marriage, for example - and one that inspired Brown - is Margaret Starbird, a lifelong Catholic who set out to disprove this age old story.

She has an impressive 'rap sheet':

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

Her web site:

http://www.margaretstarbird.net/

I would recommend starting with her first NON-fiction book about the Jesus/Mary connection: "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar."

Just for fun - here's a stained glass window in a European church - made looonnngg before Brown was born. (Brown is being vilified and credited with 'ideas' that have been written about for many centuries -

And here's another author that will drive many wild, - with years of research and access to ancient archives, including the Vatican's: - Sir Laurence Garner

[Shadowfax]

Where did you get the idea that I was against writing a book for profit? I never stated or implied that I am against authors writing books with a mind to make money.

But when I purchase a book, I usually don't have to contend with the author trying to convince me that he actually wrote it to try to make me a better human being. Most authors don't try to invent altruistic motives for writing and publishing books. Your entertainment and their profit is usually the accepted (and unspoken) reason.

If Danny is sincere in his statement, he can go ahead and continue to bless mankind by donating his profits to some religious think tank somewhere.

[showme_the_Glory]

The battle is already been fought AND won.

[AConnecticutYankee]

Oh come come. I was agreeing with you. Oh well -- back to work. Have a good weekend.

[atlaw]

Actually, I'm not sure that he really has said that it is a work of fiction. And that's the problem.

If you carefully hold the book under a 60 watt bulb and stare intently at its cover, you can see a secret message printed just below the title. It reads -- "A Novel" -- which, when run through the "Webster's Special Edition Da Vinci Code Decoder Book," translates to -- "a work of fiction."

[maine-iac7]

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

Just on this one theme: (but applies to other of Brown's "ideas" -

They ain't' HIS ideas.

Good grief, it amazes me how many people, it would seem, live in a cocoon.

For those unafraid of learning something, read my post # 102

for those who are comfortable being spoon fed - better not chance it

[maine-iac7]

We don't want to go the route where we have religous mullahs like in Iran that tell us what we can or can't watch based on a religous doctrine. If you don't like it that is fine and your right to exclaim your views and maybe its an opportunity to push for a movie and/or publication that reflects what you want to see published about Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is always a great storyline for what a shining example of the glory of God.

Hear, hear. Well and truly said

[Always Right]

Actually, I'm not sure that he really has said that it is a work of fiction. And that's the problem.

Well he readily admits the characters he made up and their story is fiction. But the underlying story of Jesus and Mary having a child together and the conspiracy to cover it up, Brown has been somewhat clear he believes this theory.

[Always Right]

Which people do you refer to as being slandered?

Christ mainly, but also slaughtered Constantine and several other historical figures.

[maine-iac7]

One thing I don't get -- maybe somebody could explain it. Is this whole flap about a claim that Jesus was married and had a kid? Even if he had been married and had a kid, what difference would it make? Does it affect Christianity in some significant way?

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?

Jesus came to teach us "The Way" to live according to The Father's Plan...

For me, instead of being "shocked" at such an idea, it makes Jesus even more precious to me...

For any of you that think the whole idea is sacrilegious, WARNING: do not read my post # 102

[No Truce With Kings]

"Someone who feels the need to "stop" this movie must have a weak and insecure faith indeed."

I would not go quite that far. I can understand why people -- even those whose faith was strong -- would be deeply offended by this movie. But those folks need to take a deep breath, and calm down if they think this movie can really hurt Christianity.

Dan Brown patched together Gnostic and Arian legend to create a potboiler mystery. The basic plot elements have been around almost as long as Christianity -- longer for Gnostism, which predates Christianity by a century, since about the third century for Arianism.

The da Vinci Code issues were examined and rejected by the early church -- pre-Constantine, so despite what characters in his novel claim, the issues were settled BEFORE Constantine. They keep popping up every couple of centuries, and keep getting rejected by the orthodox Christian mainstream (I used orthodox rather than Orthodox because I a refering to mainstream Christian belief rather than the belief only of the Orthodox Christian Church. mainstream Catholic and Protestant churches reject Gnostism and Arianism, too.)

Anyhow, if so many brilliant, albeit misguided theologians over the last two millenia have failed to incultate Gnostism or Ariansm in Christianity why should anyone fear that a novelist -- who is not a terribly good writer -- will succeed?

[Shadowfax]

Didn't come off that way. Especially the part where you disagreed with me.

Oh well. Sorry if I misread you. Take care.

[Always Right]

If you carefully hold the book under a 60 watt bulb and stare intently at its cover, you can see a secret message printed just below the title. It reads -- "A Novel" -- which, when run through the "Webster's Special Edition Da Vinci Code Decoder Book," translates to -- "a work of fiction."

If I wrote a novel about a real person and portrayed that person as a pedophile (which he was not), and covered my slander up under the guise of my story was just fiction, would that be OK?

[Shadowfax]

Thank you for pointing this out. I can't seem to get my arms around the rational that insists that someone who gets upset about the blaspheming of Jesus Christ must have a weak faith. You can disagree with what they do with their offense, of course. And they may indeed have weak faith.

But it's not required. Sometimes it's the depth of the love that leads to the feeling of offense.

[maine-iac7]

If Jesus did marry Mary, it would mean that He is nothing more than a lecherous, two-timing cheater.

That would be laughable were it not so pathetic...

Why is the thought that Jesus may have married - which has been discussed for many hundreds of years, hardly Brown's idea, - so repugnant? Good grief - is marriage then repugnant, dirty, and married people lecherous? (I'm not really addressing you, Shadow..., for I would not presume to enlighten you on anything - but my remarks are for those who might be tempted to take your postulations as whole cloth)

WARNING: for those who do espouse to such cocooned dogma, DO NOT read my posts no. 102 and 111. I wouldn't want to be responsible for over-stretching the gray matter.

[Shadowfax]

I've already pointed out why it is so repugnant. Did you not read what I wrote? Jesus already has a bride.

You may not agree with it, but for those of us who call ourselves Christians, what I have stated are a couple of reasons why we are so offended by this idea.

[Always Right]

Dan Brown patched together Gnostic and Arian legend to create a potboiler mystery.

That's fine and wonderful, but why can't Brown just say he doesn't believe that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child? Brown will not denounce this theory either because it helps sells more books and/or that he really believes it. Brown intentionally implies that he has facts to back up this stuff, when in reality his alledged facts have been thoroughly discredited. There are A LOT of people who are buying into this blasphamous lie. I don't mind him making up stories about fictious people, but when he lies about history and known historical figures, I think it should be clearly stated that those 'facts' are not true.

[Sonora]

"On which side of the battle line will you stand?"

Why stand at all? This whole thing is silly and stupid, almost as bad as the lack of a fence on the border with Mexico. It's a movie - free speech. All kinds of crap comes out of hollywood. Who cares as you either believe or you do not. Those who read the book or see the movie and change their mind about Jesus are lame, at best.

Besides, it's apparently not even a good movie.

[atlaw]

Slander? No. Libel? Depends.

Is the subject an historical person, or a presently extant person?

In the latter case, there may be a viable claim for libel, although the notoriety of the subject may negate the claim. In the former case, not a chance. (Although I will note that pedophilia, as wonderfully inflammatory as it is, has anything to do with the book under discussion.)

I know, I know. Jesus is a presently extant real person, as you and I both believe, but in the eyes of the law, that is a religious inclination that cannot be imposed on others or enforced by means of sanction. Properly so, in my view.