Post by Johnny Gotham on Feb 23, 2005 22:56:39 GMT -5
For over a year now, feminists, new agers, and an assortment of others have been singing the praises of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. The book claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, who bore him a daughter. The bloodline is supposed to exist to this very day, protected by a secret society known as the “Priory of Sion”, whose members include such titans of men as Sir Isaac Newton, and Learnado da Vinci. The book goes on to explain that the Church fathers suppressed the true Gospel, because they were sexist and greedy. Apparently the Bible as we know it today was assembled by Constantine and the Council of Nicea in the fourth century as a political power play to control the masses, while the true Gnostic teachings of Jesus were suppressed.
For the sake of space, I'll only focus on some of the more blatant historical errors in the book. Mr. Brown claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls were Christian documents found in the 1950's, when they are really Jewish records discovered in 1947. The "Priory of Sion" was not founded in 1099, but was the brainchild of Pierre Plantared, who forged and planted the discovery papers as a hoax in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1956. The "Priory of Sion" was exposed as a sham in a series of French books and a BBC documentary in 1996, seven years before Code was released. How about that? Brown's whole novel was written around a hoax, by a Frenchman no less.
What about the Gnostic Gospels, which supposedly contain the true teachings of Jesus? They were actually written centuries after the Gospel period, and not written as historical narratives like the ones in the Bible. And contrary to Mr. Brown's novel, the Gnostics were not feminists, but outright chauvinists. In the fraudulent "Gospel of Thomas" Peter says the following about Magdalene: “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male”.... “For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”<br>
Clearly, Dan Brown can not be counted as a credible source, and from what I understand, there's nothing spectacular about the way he writes. According to Laura Miller of the liberal Salon.com "Even by conventional thriller standards, the book isn't particularly good; the plot is simply one long chase sequence, and the "good guy who turns out to be evil" is obviously a ringer from the moment he's introduced." And what about the supposed scholarly evidence? The only scholars (for lack of a better word) who support Brown's theories are fringe liberals so far out you need a telescope to spot them.
So why do so many people embrace it? Probably because it makes the right enemies. After all, while it's not only politically correct but fashionable to bash Christianity, but those tolerance Nazis will be on you faster than you can say "sensivity training" if you are even slightly critical of any other faith. Another reason is that it gives people an excuse not to believe the Bible; people would rather believe the lie than believe the truth. Finally, this book is popular because liberals hate Christianity. They hate it because it has done more good for the world than the "enlightened" humanists ever have. That's why history is always being rewritten to vilify Christianity (and in spite of what you may have heard, it is often humanists, not Christians who rewrite history).
Has any good come out of The Da Vinci Code? It certainly proved this scripture from Ecclesiastics 1:9-10 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.”<br>
The ironic thing is that the very God Dan Brown tries to kill is the one that will judge him in the end. Hey Dan, life may seem long, but its awful short compared to eternity.
Others places that refute The Da Vinci Code:
Chuck Missler has an excellent and comprehensive four part refution on his ministry's website http://www.khouse.org:
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040701-527.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040801-532.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040901-538.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20041001-545.html
Letusreason has a good, extensive, three part rebuttle:
www.letusreason.org/Current45.htm
Other rebuttles:
homepage.mac.com/closerlookbooks/documents/TheDaVinciCode_001.pdf
www.contenderministries.org/discrepancies/davincicode.php
www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm ***(Excellent)
www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040816
christiananswers.net/abr/davincicode.html ***(Excellent)
www.davinci-code-breaker.com/ ***(Excellent)
I recommend the following books:
The Da Vinci Deception: Credible Answers to the Questions Millions are Asking about Jesus, The Bible, and the Da Vinci Code by Erwin W. Lutzer
Cracking Da Vinci's Code by Dr. James Garlow and Dr. Peter Jones
And before anyone complains that my sources are biased, there are plenty of secular historians who agree with the information in those links and books above. Besides, everyone has a bias. It's a question of which bias is the correct one. Would you discredit an account of the Holocaust because the author was Jewish and a victim? No, so long as it does not distort or disclude important and critical facts. None of my sources do that. Sadly, some willnot take any of the information seriously because it contradicts their preconceived notions and ideals. Don't assume someone is wrong because they don't believe what you do, a credible source is a credible source.
For the sake of space, I'll only focus on some of the more blatant historical errors in the book. Mr. Brown claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls were Christian documents found in the 1950's, when they are really Jewish records discovered in 1947. The "Priory of Sion" was not founded in 1099, but was the brainchild of Pierre Plantared, who forged and planted the discovery papers as a hoax in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1956. The "Priory of Sion" was exposed as a sham in a series of French books and a BBC documentary in 1996, seven years before Code was released. How about that? Brown's whole novel was written around a hoax, by a Frenchman no less.
What about the Gnostic Gospels, which supposedly contain the true teachings of Jesus? They were actually written centuries after the Gospel period, and not written as historical narratives like the ones in the Bible. And contrary to Mr. Brown's novel, the Gnostics were not feminists, but outright chauvinists. In the fraudulent "Gospel of Thomas" Peter says the following about Magdalene: “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male”.... “For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”<br>
Clearly, Dan Brown can not be counted as a credible source, and from what I understand, there's nothing spectacular about the way he writes. According to Laura Miller of the liberal Salon.com "Even by conventional thriller standards, the book isn't particularly good; the plot is simply one long chase sequence, and the "good guy who turns out to be evil" is obviously a ringer from the moment he's introduced." And what about the supposed scholarly evidence? The only scholars (for lack of a better word) who support Brown's theories are fringe liberals so far out you need a telescope to spot them.
So why do so many people embrace it? Probably because it makes the right enemies. After all, while it's not only politically correct but fashionable to bash Christianity, but those tolerance Nazis will be on you faster than you can say "sensivity training" if you are even slightly critical of any other faith. Another reason is that it gives people an excuse not to believe the Bible; people would rather believe the lie than believe the truth. Finally, this book is popular because liberals hate Christianity. They hate it because it has done more good for the world than the "enlightened" humanists ever have. That's why history is always being rewritten to vilify Christianity (and in spite of what you may have heard, it is often humanists, not Christians who rewrite history).
Has any good come out of The Da Vinci Code? It certainly proved this scripture from Ecclesiastics 1:9-10 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.”<br>
The ironic thing is that the very God Dan Brown tries to kill is the one that will judge him in the end. Hey Dan, life may seem long, but its awful short compared to eternity.
Others places that refute The Da Vinci Code:
Chuck Missler has an excellent and comprehensive four part refution on his ministry's website http://www.khouse.org:
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040701-527.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040801-532.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20040901-538.html
khouse.khouse.org/articles/personal/20041001-545.html
Letusreason has a good, extensive, three part rebuttle:
www.letusreason.org/Current45.htm
Other rebuttles:
homepage.mac.com/closerlookbooks/documents/TheDaVinciCode_001.pdf
www.contenderministries.org/discrepancies/davincicode.php
www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm ***(Excellent)
www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040816
christiananswers.net/abr/davincicode.html ***(Excellent)
www.davinci-code-breaker.com/ ***(Excellent)
I recommend the following books:
The Da Vinci Deception: Credible Answers to the Questions Millions are Asking about Jesus, The Bible, and the Da Vinci Code by Erwin W. Lutzer
Cracking Da Vinci's Code by Dr. James Garlow and Dr. Peter Jones
And before anyone complains that my sources are biased, there are plenty of secular historians who agree with the information in those links and books above. Besides, everyone has a bias. It's a question of which bias is the correct one. Would you discredit an account of the Holocaust because the author was Jewish and a victim? No, so long as it does not distort or disclude important and critical facts. None of my sources do that. Sadly, some willnot take any of the information seriously because it contradicts their preconceived notions and ideals. Don't assume someone is wrong because they don't believe what you do, a credible source is a credible source.