I've been seeing more and more about it and wondered if anyone here knows anything more.

The story is based on actual events, but it is completely fictional, I mean completely fictional. And when the author decides to reference fact he gets it wrong. This book is sweeping across the nation and people are actually believeing it. I saw a special on this book on T.V. debuking it, and a new book is coming out, which I belive is called "cracking the da vinci code" Basically this book brings to light all the B.S. and gives the facts.

This is all based on the T.V. special I saw, I haven't read the book.

I would recommend reading the book. Very entertaining and thought-provoking, if nothing else. Just don't read it from a defensive stance.

If a person reads this and they are not firmly grounded in their beliefs then I could see where it could lead to some problems. It may be thought-provoking but you have to remember that it is nothing more than fiction and not meant to be taken literally since this guy knows absolutely nothing about historical facts.

I knew the basic premiss of the book just wondering if anyone had any specific debunking information. On antoher website I said that the DaVinci Code it to theology what Fahrenheit 911 is to political truth.

I might go pick it up at B&N.

Josh and others - check out equip.org and search for DaVinci code and you will see a great and cheap paperback book for sale that is very good. It is written by Hank Hanegraf.

I read the book..Awsome reading..could not put it down...but yes you are lead to belive what is written is true...and doing so will lead the unknown beliving things that just are not true

I have read the book, and it was a great book!!! And, the book is based upon facts, but I don't believe that it is intended to be factual. It is like a Tom Clancy book, his books are based on Military facts but his books are still fiction. It is just entertaining when the book actually makes sense and isn't way off base.

Again, I loved the book, and actually bought his other 3 books and am on the 3rd one now. He is a great writer, and I would recommend his books to anyone looking for a good read.

Doesn't the book say that Jesus was married to Mary Madelon and that they had a kid? That's what I gather form the info I've gotten. If that's the case, I have no interest in reading it. I have no desire to purchase a book that advances falsehoods about Jesus, whether it is presented as fiction or not. Things of that sort can lead people astray. Look at Fahrenheit 9-11. There are thousands of people who hold to it as truth. And I guarantee there are people who think this book is or could be true. I want nothing to do with that.

Yes it does, and that is the great thing about this country...you don't have to read it. God Bless America.

A good article

OK, what a minute. You just got done saying that the book is based on fact but then in the next post you say it says Jesus was married and had a kid. This is not a fact but a lie. And you call this good reading? Its nothing more than left-wing propaganda.

what the hell is the da vinci code? a book? what's it about?

Da Vinci Code was pretty good, but Angels and Demons was great! Same author, but found Angels and Demons more interesting.

Yeah, I liked angels and demons also.

As far as it stirring things up, I love it. How many versions of the bible are there? Which one is the right one? Amazingly enough the answer you get from most people is whatever is used in their church.

People take it at face value, even when stories within are different when told by different people.

If nothing else I think his books will get some people interested in their faith and they will become better educated when they look for facts and the truth. But to each, their own.

A common misconception.
Well most Bibles are pretty darn close to the original. It was discussed not too long ago so you might search the forum if you are interested. Basically, people asssume that since there are several, not many, versions of the Bible out there that they must be translations of translation of translations. Not the case. I can think of only one that is not translated from original texts. So in effect most Bibles have only been translated once.

Actually there is no proof that Jesus was married or not. nowhere in the bible does it say that he was single or married. There was a report lastnight on 20/20 called Jesus, Mary, and Da Vinci...

They investigated the book and the possibilities of Jesus being married along with other things from the book. Everyone including Catholic priests said that it was possible that Jesus was married but that there was no proof either way.

Also it is a well known fact that the catholic church lied about Mary being a prostitute. That is just not true. It is thought that she was very close to Jesus and they even said that she was probably the most trusted of all of the apostiles.

I do not know if Jesus was married, but why would that be a bad thing. It was almost mandatory for Jewish men in that time to be married, so would that make Jesus any less of a man? I just don't think that because one persons interpretations of the bible says that he was not married, that we should just close our eyes and minds and just take their word on it.

Just my 2 cents.

Saying that Jesus was or could have been married is a blasphemous lie. Marriage is a devoted commitment to one another. Jesus did not come to earth to be committed to another human, but only to God and to giving salvation to Mankind. Jesus knew his mission and it was to come to earth to preach and to be a final sacrifice for humanity. Getting married would have taken time and attention away from His mission which he would not do. He knew his ministry would only be for a short time. Plus, maybe you didn't know or have forgotten this, but Jesus is God. The people of earth are God's children. God loves everyone on earth as they are His creation, not in any sexual way. To say God would fall in love with One of His creation ridiculous. (And I won't even begin to say how wrong it is to say Jesus conceived a child. I would hope you can see that one on your own) Quiet frankly, it is sad that you and many others have been duped into believing it is possible. Perhaps you should spend your time reading the Bible and not some blasphemous Fairy tale.

I am not trying to sound holier than thou either. I when I was younger I was lead into believing a few out right wrong things about Jesus and Christianity myself. But by reading the Bible, I was able find the truth. I only encourage you to see how blatantly wrong and evil The Da Vinci Code's proposals are. Hang out here and become part of a Bible believing church if you are not already.

I think that you misunderstood me. I don't believe that Jesus was married either, but what I said is that it is never stated either way as to that fact. Show me one place in the bible that says he is not married.... It isn't there.

I also don't believe that if he were married, just for arguments sake, that would make him any less of a great man/god. When Jesus was on earth, he was a human. Yes he was the son of god, but still human. He had all the temptations of humans, he was just able to deny them. But how is being married to a woman and even having a kid, again not saying that he did just a point, make him a sinner or less of a man/god? That is just ridiculous!

Again, I don't understand how you can say that...that is no better than people saying he was married. You have ZERO proof of that!!! And if you do...please show me where.

I guess I am still confused in how a man being married and having a family is a bad thing. Granted he was the son of god and savior of men, but he was still human. I would not think any less of my religion if he would have been married, he was still a greater man than anyone else has ever come close to being.

I watched the 20/20 show last night too. It really got me thinking about all this.
I would like to read the book because I am just interested in what it has to say.

I agree what breadfan35 says about marriage. But like you have stated. No where does it say he was married or not.

The Bible never says that Jesus was not a homosexual either, should that be up for debate as well? Of course not. Just because it was not spoken about does not mean that we should automatically assume the opposite is true.

I have to go with Breadfan on this one. I don't think there is anyway he was married. Along with his points I'd also offer up what Paul said, "For I would that all men were even as I myself." This was regarding his marital status. Paul was not married because he knew that it took time away from his ministry.



I know what your saying BlackCrow and I am not trying to suggest that you think he was married.

Well, think about this. There is a thing called the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb". We, the Church, are the Bride of Christ and Jesus is the Groom. If Jesus got married while on earth and had a child then one of two things: 1) Jesus and Mary got a divorce before He rose so that He could marry the Church but this could not have happened since God disapproves of divorce and only instituted it because of our hardened hearts, or 2) Jesus and Mary are still married and Jesus will commit either adultry and/or polygamy. But since Jesus is pure and sinless I really dont think that He would start sinning now.

The choice is very simple and it is easy to come to the conclusion that Jesus was never married and to believe otherwise is nothing more then the enemy trying to twist scripture and the truth. The problem is, alot of people are believing a lie.

You are taking that statement literally, which is not its intent. How do you marry a church? How do you cheat on the church with your wife if you are married? See that just doesn't make sense.

Again guys, Im just saying that the book was interesting, and that they brought up some good arguments. Too many people get defensive about religion if anyone suggests anything different than their priest told them when they were 5.

I don't believe that god wants us to close our eyes, ears, and heart and take the word of others. I think the best part of religion is reading the bible and that everyone has their own personal meaning from each scripture. You can go to 10 different churches and get 10 different points of view on the same subject. Why should this be any different? Because you have always been told since you were little that Mary was a prostitute and Jesus was single. Well we know for a fact that mary was NOT a prostitute and that was just a blatant lie by a pope to deminish Mary's credibility to keep women out of any power in the church.

Again, I still have not heard any good reason why it would make Jesus less of a man or god if he were married. You say it like to be married to a woman was a sin! All jewish men were married, why would it be bad for Jesus to be? Like I said before, i don't believe that he was, but I am not going to close my eyes and plug my ears and not look at any possibility because my preacher told me that he wasn't when I was 5.

Not to mention the fact that the church chose which desciples to put into the New testimate. What about the other's stories. Like the church hasn't tried to hide other truths because they were afraid of what they might make people believe.

I guess that I am just a very open minded person, and I believe in looking into all of the facts/hypothesis and determine how I believe it happend. And I believe that Jesus was single, and that he did not have any children, but I also believe that the desciple that was closest to him was Mary and that the other disciples were jealous of that.

Yes, I take the bible very literal. Is there a problem with that? Jesus is commited to the church, He is, nor has He ever been commited to just one person. The bible is very clear on this. Like I said, if He married Mary, then they either divorced, and that would not be a good thing, or they are still married and He cannot marry again.
It only says that Jesus cast out seven devils from Mary. It says nothing about her being a prostitute, I have never really believed that. I also believe that Jesus was not married because old Jewish tradition is that the groom was to leave home and prepare a home that the couple was to live in. Sometimes this would take more than a year or two. After that he would return for his bride to be married. We all know that Jesus at this very moment is off preparing a place for His Bride, the Church. If He was married I am 99% sure that a huge event like that would have been written down.
It would not make Him anyless of a man or God.

Believing that there is no possible way that Jesus was ever married is in no way close-minded. It means that some of us read the bible and take it for what it says and do not think that something might have happened just because there is nothing written about it. It doesnt say that Peter and Jesus were never married either. After all, Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loved Him.

HUH?

All very good points MoonDog. I think the one that seals the deal though is your point about the groom going to prepare a home for his future bride. Jesus' ministry was only 3 years long. I am not sure where Mary's exorcism falls into the time line of his ministry but I am sure that it was not at the very beginning. Had Jesus gone away for a year certainly it would have been reflected in the gospels. Jesus knew exactly how much time he had to work with during his time here on earth. So, I highly doubt he was going to waste time building a house or tending to a wife when His Father's work needed to be done. Besides he would have never been home. Matthew 8:20 says that Jesus did not even have a place to lay his head.

All good points.

That is not to disparage you BlackCrow. You are welcome to your opinion. I just tend to be aligned closer to MoonDog's point of view.

Again, that is the whole point to discuss things. And everyone has their own opinions. It all comes down to faith.

Ok, I don't really think that is called for. I have read the bible, taken Theology classes and attended my share of church sermons etc....So just because you believe one thing, which also happens to be the same thing that I believe, doesn't give you the right to imply that you are a better person cause you read the bible and I do not.....I was just bringing discussion into a hot topic in our society today, and don't think that it is necessary for you to bash me for my discussions. Talk about not being very christian like....

It was not meant to imply that you have not read nor know anything about the bible, sorry you took it that way. All I was saying is that some of us around here take the bible literally and do not try to read between the lines. And I never once said that I was better than anyone, like you and everyone else, I am just forgiven. Again, sorry if there was offense taken.

It seems amazing that someone can draw a conclusion about a book [and a movie] without ever having experienced either. You can read interpretations all day long, but that does not double as actually having digested the information through your very own filters.

The book in question was very entertaining to me. At no point did the author present this as a 'lost Gospel'. He drew on some religious facts [some common knowlegde, some not], secret society myth, and modern world events and combined them to weave what I considered to be an entertaining narrative. Of course, your mileage may vary.

The movie in question was also entertaining. It was intellectually dishonest in a few places, but the semantic games that Moore played were no more 'untrue' than what you would expect in a standard campaign ad. After seeing it, I was left with a sense of "that's all?" because it could have been much more damaging, in my opinion.

I know this is going to stur some Serious controversy but I am going to say it anyway. I am a devout christian, I goto church, I pray everynight. I am tired of people saying though that the da vinci code is just a book. SO IS THE BIBLE! Why is it that you will believe everything out of one book but not another. Granted there is some, I say this loosely, historical fact behind the bible. The key to all this is to examine the source and take it for what its work. Just stop using the excuse its just a book.

I believe everything out of the Bible because I believe it is the Word of God. If you do not wholly trust the Bible, then you do not wholly trust God.

From my perspective, if you do not wholly trust the Bible, then you do not wholly trust those who say it came from God.

I read the book. Im open minded.
Keep in mind, that Dan Brown collected historical fact and myth and rumours and created a fictional story around that information.

If you don't want to read it because you believe a FICTIONAL book might be blasphameous, then you are missing out on one of the best books you may ever read.

Dan Brown didn't claim his work was any gospel. He based it on the long thought possibility of The Holy Grail. Do a search on google for it. There are lots of books out there that have facts and rumour/speculation about the subject.

The Holy Grail is believed to be literally the Blood Line of Jesus Christ. That Jesus and Mary were married and had a child, possibly two. That the people in power at the time were highly afraid that the offspring of their union would be entitled to being a King. Without cracking open the book right now or research, I don't rememeber where.
The children where then hidden from the Roman Catholic Church by a secret society that exists to this day, The Priory Of Sion.

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur3.html

The Roman Catholic church couldnt afford for evidence of this to come to the light of day, as it would destroy its power, which its enjoyed now for centuries.

Perhaps you should research Roman Catholism and its history. I was RC until 15. Confession was used in the time even AFTER Jesus as a way to gather information on crimes going on in the city. There has been no need for a Christian to go to confession since Jesus died and cut out the middle man for us.

Anyway, The Priory of Sion has supposely hidden this evidence, tho what, I don't remember.

In the end, its a very intriquing story. It discusses how the bible itself came about, or the stories published rather than all the gospels that were actually submitted. Its a well written, exciting story that will make you think about various facts you may have never read about or discussed before.

Keep in mind, even IF this story were true and evidence came about that could prove it 100%, what difference did it really make? None.
You still live the life of a Christian or should or don't if you didnt already. You still follow gospel. Nothing really changes, you aren't granted some new right to sin.

Personally, I dont follow anyone blindly. Im not in the military and I think for myself. I don't believe that Jesus was married to Mary, mostly because of lack of evidence. Whether or not I dis-believe the Holy Grail Bloodline story, doesnt make it any less false or true. Just like if you believe in Jesus. Whether or not you believe doesnt change the fact of the matter that Jesus came and died and is God.

Personally, I think it sparked more interest in old religion. Personally, I'd like to learn old Hebrew and read over the red sea scrolls myself and interpret the original script for myself. There are lots of things I'd like to research and learn about now, because its actually interesting, especially after reading something that makes you think.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it has been written as anything other than fiction. I do believe though that many many people are decieved into taking the book as fact.

There is quite a differnce between the two books though you'd agree, right? One is written as fiction one is written as fact. One is full of half truths and the other is full of truth.

If you are unable to take the Bible as fact how do you know what you believe is right? Why waist your time on something that might be false?

Does any Christian KNOW what they beLIEve is right? Whatever happened to FAITH? Faith, despite physical evidence to the contrary, etc.

That is one reason I do not understand Christians who attempt [and mostly fail] to use the language of science to argue the validity of the Bible. It seems an attempt to stray from faith.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. However, if there is evidence to be seen why not take a look? True no person, at least in this life, will ever be able to prove without all doubt the claims of the Bible. That is where faith lies, at least in my estimation of it. It takes up the slack where proof is absent.

Christianity, despite what people might be led to believe, is not a blind leap into the great unknown.

So Josh, have you read the book yet?

No sir. I've got about 15 other books in front of it first.

I understand. I've got 4 more Left Behind books, 2 Clive Cusslers, 1 Dale Brown, 1 Stephen Coonts, Deception Point (by Dan Brown), and countless others in my cue. I really do think you should take a look at Da Vinci Code, though. Like many have said before, it is fiction. Its pretty entertaining and personally I don't see it as an attack on Christianity. However, if you disagree after you read it that's fine, and you will have a lot more solid ground to stand on if you wish to debate the matter.

Angels and Demons would be a good idea, too.

All non-fiction, right?

Except the parts explicitly outlined as fiction in the text.

i liked angels and demons better too- just finishing up da vinci now and love them both, very thought provoking.....and i am very open minded when it comes to religion. after spending my childhood growing up in catholic school in a church with pedofiles (i knew him) running things and screwing over people for money (still screwing over my mom who runs their day care), i am not a big fan of organized religion per say. i stopped going to church, although i believe in god. i was interested to hear some other thoughts on the history......faith is just that, faith....we don't know for sure what did or didn't happen, you have faith that what you believe happened did in fact happen.....it is interesting to read another viewpoint. not to say either is right or wrong. I already thought pretty openly anyways, so this book didn't sway me to say the bible is false....i had my own thoughts long before that.

This was emailed to me about this topic:

To read Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, one might conclude that, yes, the Bible we now read is the result of powerful leaders in the church redefining Jesus to become a god. The claims in this runaway best-seller have upset the faith of many people and given refuge to others who want to reject the teachings of the Bible.



But, there is another side to the story. Contrary to the account given in The Da Vinci Code, there are historical reasons to believe the books included in our present Bible have a solid foundation for having been chosen. Church fathers referred to the four gospels in the early second century – long before the Gnostic gospels Brown claims to be authentic were even written. No list of gospels by any early church father included the books now known as the Gnostic gospels – or the “lost gospels.”



In fact, these “lost gospels” were written between 150 and 250 AD – long after the eyewitness accounts of the disciples of Jesus. Some of them steal the names of prominent early church leaders (The gospels of Stephen, Barnabas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc) in hopes of giving the stories credibility. But all of these were written after those whose name they bear had already passed away!



But how were the books included in the Bible chosen? The councils that gathered to discuss what books should be considered as true Scripture essentially looked for three things:

1) Is there good evidence to believe that it was written by one of the apostles or someone acting on behalf of one of the apostles?

2) Does the doctrine taught in the book conform to other doctrine taught in other books that have already been accepted?

3) Is there evidence that this book has already received widespread acceptance by the church throughout history?



By these commonsense, simply criteria, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were accepted as gospel accounts of Jesus and others were rejected for obvious reasons.



Of course, Satan has sought to undermine and attack the word of God ever since the strategy worked in the garden of Eden. He continues today to challenge the authority and reliability of Scripture through The Da Vinci Code. In this book, Brown offers both simple accusations against the Bible (i.e. it has been mistranslated, changed over the years, written by mere men, etc) and more complex assaults (such as how the books were chosen, etc).

I borrowed the book and only read a little of it before I had to give it back, but I have also seen some of the news storied around it. I thought that it was definitely thought provoking and interesting, but its not going to make you loose your faith just by reading it. For me I have gotten completely turned off by organized religion and I think that it is easier to accept other view points wether I agree or not...

I heard yesterday on the radio that Ron Howard is making a film about it. A bunch of big name actors are jockeying for the lead role.

And yet you find it perfectly understandable that Cain would be limited to either concieving with a younger sister, or his mother (Eve), since Adam, Eve, and Cain were the only 3 people on Earth once Cain killed Able

As for The DaVinci Code, it's FICTION. My god, people! "I only encourage you to see how blatantly wrong and evil The Da Vinci Code's proposals are." ... What proposals? It's a STORY. Maybe if you actually read it, instead of reading about it on some website that's "debunking" it. What's to debunk? It's fake. Made up. Fiction. And it's not once been presented as anything different, EXCEPT by religious nuts that think it somehow threatens their view of Christianity.

I have to wonder if "Queen of The Damned", or "Memnoch The Devil" was met with similar blind hatred, simply because the story presents a different view of the relationship between God and Satan.

That being said, I hear they're making a movie based on the book. Looking forward to it