Fact, Fiction or Delusion?
Published on May 2, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Entertainment
I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen anything written here on Joe User on the upcoming Da Vinci Code phenomenon in the form of an upcoming movie. I'm sure Brown's movie, as was his novel, will not only be very popular but also widely controversial as well. Because of that he's managed to sell about 46 million books. He has been criticized by many different religious groups and scholars alike.

While I'm no fan of this man's work , I am not worried about Christianity's demise as a result of this work of fiction. I read a quote in the paper this week from a very wise British priest. He said..."Christian theology has survied the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin. Surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire." I agree. God is bigger than Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code.

What many seem to forget is that this book is fiction. It is not real. He said on CNN that tho his characters and action are fictional the "background is all true." Of course many scholars beg to differ. Here's a take on a few differences:

Jesus' Divinity

According to Brown and his version, Jesus was but a mere man until 325 AD when Constantine "turned Jesus into a deity" by getting the council of Nicaea to endorse divine status by a relatively close vote.

But his critics contend (that would be me as well) and cite that Jesus was worshipped by many in the early church. Paul wrote in the 50's AD "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped and became a man."
Historians also say that the bishops involved in the Council of Nicaea never questioned the divinity of Christ but rather debated the technicalities of how he could be both divine and human. Their vote was a lopsided one, not even close at all.

The New Testament

According to Brown there were 80 gospels considred for the NT but only four were chosen by Constantine. Brown would like us to believe that the omitted gospels spoke of his human traits and those chosen embellished his godlike ones. These unchosen gospels were gathered up and burned and that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the earliest Christian records not these four gospels.

The historians tells us that Constantine had nothing to do with the decision made about the cannon. The Christians had already reached a concensus on the authority of the gospels well before Constantine in the second century. But some of the 27 NT books were not universally accepted until after the death of Constantine. Some of the "other gospels" are rejected because they lack the narrative histories that characterized the NT four. The four we have today, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not only written earlier but they had won wide approval by the first century believers many of whom lived through what was written.

The rejected books often pointed to Jesus as lacking human qualities depicted in the NT gospels which is the exact opposite of Brown's scenario. These gnostic gospels often spurn Judaism's creator and the OT. Much different than the four we have today.
About the mass burning of books? There is little evidence to support that claim. They simply disappeared from lack of use and nobody bothered to make new copies this being well before the printing press was available.

As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls go, they were Jewish writings, not Christian ones.

Jesus as married

According to Brown's version Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their daughter initiated a royal bloodline in France.

Again his critics would say ,no this isn't true at all. The Magdalene myth came to the forefront in medieval times. I think it is true that the popularity of this whole scene is sensationalism. This is what sells especially to those who are unhappy with traditional answers.

The lawyer, Justice Peter Smith, who recently defended Brown in his troubles with plagiarism said this:

"Merely because an author describes matters as being factually correct does not mean that they are factually correct. It is a way of blending fact and fiction together to create that well known model "faction." The lure of apparent genuineness makes the books and the films more receptive to the readers/audiences. The danger of course is that the faction is all that large parts of the audience read, and they accept it as truth."

That my friends, pretty much sums it up for me. Follow the money trail all the way to the movies.




Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 03, 2006
geeeesh Chak, one has to stay on their toes around you. She may be referring to the fact that he would be rejected, alone and despised. He also said that he had no place to lay his head. If you notice when you read the gospels you see he never spent a night inside the city. He, from what I can see, spent many nights at the Mount of Olives, maybe in the garden, and was alone.

I agree with you about the obvious historical mistakes in his book. He really didn't seem to go too deep in his research. It's pretty easy to refute some of his "facts."

From reading the above responses I wonder how it is he sold so many books. Obviously you are all in the minority. It's usually my favorite place to be........

One thing I did find interesting tho was the fact that those that loved "The Passion of the Christ" could not get through the DVC book. Some even said it was creepy. On the other hand those that hated the POC loved the DVC. The lines were drawn quite clearlyaround here. Any have any thoughts out there on this? Did you strongly like one and hate the other? If so, why do you suppose?





on May 03, 2006

Sure, there was something there, and it may even be interesting, but it's so surrounded by mind-numbing boredom that it's hardly worth it.

Maybe James Mitchner could have written it.  Now there is a man who can turn a fact based history into a great story!

on May 03, 2006
This is really interesting. Could you please tell me where it is prophesied that the Messiah will be unmarried. It seems very unusual from a Jewish (OT) perspective.


Link

The above link givs a Jewish perspective on the messiah. --
respectfully, Moskowitz
on May 03, 2006
I agree with you about the obvious historical mistakes in his book. He really didn't seem to go too deep in his research.

Yes, that's the point. I've read books in which the authors were already experts in their subject and used that knowledge to create the basis for a work of fiction (Umberto Eco comes immediately to mind). It's so obvious that Dan Brown did indeed 'research' something about which he had little or no previous knowledge and did so in a slipshod way.

Still, I thought it was important to admit that I did finish the book. To be fair, it was at least a 'pageturner' - just disappointing on so many other levels.
on May 03, 2006
Sorry Chak...been busy today...yeah KFC pretty much answered it...alone to me, means that....not yoked.

Also I believe the Church is the bride of Christ, He didn't come here for procreation but salvation, and the fact none of the apostles ever mention Christ being married. Even when discussing marriage...
on May 03, 2006

The above link givs a Jewish perspective on the messiah. --
respectfully, Moskowitz


Thanks BM for the link. It was interesting. I really love to get the Jewish perspective. Boy would I love to go line by line and show you in scripture the answers to their questions. But I'll leave it at this. Check those geneologies of Joseph and Mary. One's in Luke, and the other's in Matthew. Notice David's name and notice that his son Nathan is in one geneology and his son Solomon is mentioned in another. They can't both be Joseph's as your link suggests. You can't have Joseph coming from David's son Nathan and also his brother Solomon. How does that work?

Just that should make you scratch your head and say....say what?

That's just the tip of the iceburg. Also there was never a question about Jesus' birth. It was meticulously recorded just for that reason. Check your OT book Ruth and you'll see that short book ends with a very important part of the geneology record. For a reason I might add.

All the answers are there. We just have to put it all together and it does make sense and makes for a beautiful picture.
on May 04, 2006
One thing I did find interesting tho was the fact that those that loved "The Passion of the Christ" could not get through the DVC book. Some even said it was creepy. On the other hand those that hated the POC loved the DVC. The lines were drawn quite clearlyaround here. Any have any thoughts out there on this? Did you strongly like one and hate the other? If so, why do you suppose?


I walked out on Passion of the Christ; it was the first movie I've ever walked out on. I know this isn't how many others perceived it, but I saw it as glorying in the worst moments of Jesus' life rather than the ones that make me respect him. There is so much to admire in the Jesus story, and a fair bit in it that would make for a good movie. Why did Gibson have to focus on his torture and death? The bloodlust was a big negative for me.
on May 04, 2006
The bloodlust was a big negative for me.


I have a friend who calls it a "snuff film."
on May 04, 2006
Why did Gibson have to focus on his torture and death? The bloodlust was a big negative for me.


Probably because it's the crux of the whole bible starting with Genesis Chap 3. Jesus came to die. That was and is the whole point. And it really has never been focused on like that before in the film industry.

It was very hard to see, but at the same time I think it was good to realize what was done for us by the one that loved us like no other. Scripture does say that he would be beaten beyond recognition. I had a hard time with the amount of detail and time spent in the beating and had to go back to scripture afterwards to check on this. It's a movie that I don't have to see twice tho. It's hard to see I agree with you. But I also felt that if Jesus could die on the cross for me, I could watch what most likely he went through; to be at the foot of his cross so to speak.

Again I noticed you could read the DVC book but could not get through the POC movie. This is very typical and very noticeable to me.
on May 04, 2006
Probably because it's the crux of the whole bible starting with Genesis Chap 3. Jesus came to die. That was and is the whole point. And it really has never been focused on like that before in the film industry.


Perhaps for you. But the way I see it had Jesus' main purpose on earth been to die, as you allege, there's no good reason for him to not die in childbirth. Far more painful, far quicker. It was his life and the example he set that made him significant, not the cruel way he died.
on May 04, 2006
The bloodlust was a big negative for me.

I have mixed feelings on the issue of bloodiness in movies. I remember for example, before modern films like Saving Private Ryan etc, those old war films in which people got shot with barely a discernible hole in them, and the 'dead' looked like they had just rolled over for a bit of a kip. None of the torn off limbs, heads smashed to pulp, and bowels hanging out that real war entails and more modern films will sometimes show. I often wonder how many young men marched cheerfully to war with 'romantic' views of combat that a previous era's cinematic squeamishness had a part in fostering.

..."Remember, there's a sequel!!!" (his resurrection.)

I seem to have heard somewhere that they're even working on a third movie. A lot of controversy though about its release date and who will get 'left behind'...
on May 05, 2006
Check those geneologies of Joseph and Mary. One's in Luke, and the other's in Matthew. Notice David's name and notice that his son Nathan is in one geneology and his son Solomon is mentioned in another. They can't both be Joseph's as your link suggests. You can't have Joseph coming from David's son Nathan and also his brother Solomon. How does that work?


I don't think my link was suggesting that they both came from Joseph. I think the implication is that there is discrepancy between NT accounts of lineage. That aside, how about the other requirements of messiah (for example, rebuilding the temple, rule at a time of world wide peace, et. al.)? How does Jesus meet these requirements?

Personal aside: I respectfully ask these questions, only because I have a personal interest in Jesus. My wife and children are all baptized Christians and we discuss these facts and I am always trying to understand what they believe, and why.
on May 06, 2006
That aside, how about the other requirements of messiah (for example, rebuilding the temple, rule at a time of world wide peace, et. al.)? How does Jesus meet these requirements?


It depends on what you mean by requirements. The Jews are looking to rebuild the temple and have in fact started the planning of it as well as the ruling body to put in place once built. What the Christians are expecting by reading the scriptures is that this will in fact be built but it will be the Anti Christ that will sit on it's throne not Christ. Christ speaks of this in Matt 24:15. This is called the abomination of desolation. The OT prophets spoke of Jesus ruling forever and doing so in peace. That will happen and is much anticipated by Jew and Gentile alike. What the OT prophets never saw tho was the church age. They only saw one coming. They didn't expect the Jews to not accept him when he appeared. It says in John that when Jesus came his own people rejected him. It says in Isaiah 53 that he was despised and rejected.

We are in the church age for the time being. This is the time of the Gentiles. But he is going to come back when it's right and he will again turn to the Jews and there will be understanding that they indeed did miss him when he came. There will be great weeping it says in scipture when they recognize the Messiah that was pierced. But many Jews will come to him during this time and be saved.

Jesus did not come as expected. He did not come and release them from bondage. He did not annhilate the enemies of the Jews. He did not come as a warrior but as a lamb. He came to die. He did not meet their expectations. But if they had read their OT carefully they would have seen that not only would there be a conquering Messiah but there would be a suffering Messiah as well. What did they thing Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 was saying? If you carefully check the OT you would see that he did indeed fulfill all the prophecies concerning his first coming. But there is more, there are prophecies of his second coming as well. I think the Jews were only reading about the second coming not the first. It was not flattering to read that their Messiah would come to die first to bring them out of bondage, therefore they rejected his message.


Personal aside: I respectfully ask these questions,


that's how you learn. You can ask me anything. If I don't know the answer I will search for it, because I will want to know as well.

Go with Christ........you will have a blast!!!
2 Pages1 2