davinci code protesters

[Confutatis]

there was no uproar when it was published as factual, yet a fictitious novel is causing a stir. Why is that, hmmm?

It's not the novel that is causing a stir, but the movie.

The first time I visited the United States (I'm not American), I met an Australian guy who had been working there for a couple of months. One day we went out together for lunch, and he told me he was quite surprised, and pleased, to find the American people are not violent morons as they portray themselves in movies. Funny thing was, I felt exactly the same. We were both amused to discover how we take movies for reality without even realizing it.

I'm still annoyed when foreigners ask me which beach they can go to in Brazil to see naked women. My answer is always that I myself have never seen a woman in topless in a beach, let alone naked. But having lived in Canada for a few years, now I know where they get those wrong ideas.

In the absence of more reliable information, people take what knowledge about a thing they may happen to have, and more often than not that comes from a movie.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

It's not the novel that is causing a stir, but the movie.

The first time I visited the United States (I'm not American), I met an Australian guy who had been working there for a couple of months. One day we went out together for lunch, and he told me he was quite surprised, and pleased, to find the American people are not violent morons as they portray themselves in movies. Funny thing was, I felt exactly the same. We were both amused to discover how we take movies for reality without even realizing it.

I'm still annoyed when foreigners ask me which beach they can go to in Brazil to see naked women. My answer is always that I myself have never seen a woman in topless in a beach, let alone naked. But having lived in Canada for a few years, now I know where they get those wrong ideas.

In the absence of more reliable information, people take what knowledge about a thing they may happen to have, and more often than not that comes from a movie.

*************
M*W: How right you are! When I lived in Europe in the 70s-80s, the locals envisioned us to be like cowboys and Indians! I can only imagine what they think of us now!

 

[charles cure]

Blah blah blah. It's not referred to as a novel, or to be found in the 'fiction' section of the library, is it? Hence, it is 'presented as fact'. I didn't need the synopsis, as I have read the book.

well, despite the fact that you read the book, you clearly didn't understand it. in order for something to be presented as fact, the author must say - this is all factual. the authors of HBHG don't do that, they don't even come close. it IS a non-fiction book, and as such, it is found in the non-fiction section of the bookstore. do you believe that all books in the nonfiction section are necessarily 100% truth? if you do then you're dumber than i thought.

in addition to that, you might want to go back and read your own quote, because in it, you characterized HBHG as having been presented as fact BY THE AUTHORS. which is definitely not true.

The point, which you missed, was that there was no uproar when it was published as factual, yet a fictitious novel is causing a stir. Why is that, hmmm?

blah blah blah, i didn't miss the point at all. there was in fact uproar when the holy blood and the holy grail was published. there just wasn't as much as there was when the DaVinci code was published. the reason is because HBHG is dense, and not very entertaining unless you are interested in history or religion. in addition to that, its authors are british and were not at all well-known in the US when their book was published. however, the DaVinci code is what would have happened if tom clancy had rewritten HBHG. its easy to follow, action-packed, accessible, and contains information that a lot of people have never heard of. probably 98% of what it takes to get people to pay attention to information has to do with how it is presented to them. if its easy to understand and digestable, then it works. if its dry, erudite, and filled with obscure references, it doesn't work as well. that pretty much explains the wider success of the DaVinci code. i would have thought that was pretty much common sense. now that the DaVinci code is a movie, it takes even less effort for people to check out the ideas it puts forth, garnering a whole new lazy audience that will probably never ever look beyond it for an explanation of what is contained within it.

 

[SkinWalker]

I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed, though it was the fastest novel I've ever read -had it finished in under 24 hours. I also plan to see the movie at some point.

But I have to disagree with a minor point about Brown's presentation of "fact" in the book. It clearly has a "disclaimer" in the beginning that points out that the events themselves are fictional but that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This would appear not to be true.

Perhaps the most prominent instance of this deception is on page 1 where Brown tells the reader, "[t]he Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci."

There was a Priory of Sion, but it went extinct in 1617 when the Jesuits took over. The name was revived by anti-semite Pierre Plantard 1956, who invented a descendancy from the Knights of Templar and forged documents to show it. These documents are well demonstrated to be forged and discussed in texts like TheMurdered Magicians:The Templars and their Myth (Peter Parnter 1982: Oxford) and on the Wikipedia page for Priory of Sion, which lists some additional sources (though I've not looked at these).

The great thing about the Da Vinci Code is the controversy it's created. People are talking and doubting and, more importantly, questioning. Obviously, substituting one fiction for another isn't the best outcome, but if they can question one assumption, then perhaps most people will come away from the experience with the silly taboo of questioning religious doctrine broken.

 

[Circe]

The great thing about the Da Vinci Code is the controversy it's created. People are talking and doubting and, more importantly, questioning. Obviously, substituting one fiction for another isn't the best outcome, but if they can question one assumption, then perhaps most people will come away from the experience with the silly taboo of questioning religious doctrine broken.

Well said

 

[Penny Lane]

i happen to believe the da vinci code... about jesus having a wife and a surviving bloodline... but the part of the Priory of Sion leaves me a bit hazy... if in fact it did exist and who's to say it didn't but eventually got covered up in time, but the fact that it might still exist, wouldn't that put the four secret keepers in our time in danger of being found out? Maybe it no longer exists... and maybe the secret to knowing who could possibly be christ's survivors... who knows? But to me, it's hinkey to believe that Jesus couldn't have a wife and child and still be that divine figure that he is to xtians. Why does celibacy and divination have to go hand in hand... and I'm a pagan and I do not believe that Jesus is a savior, I beleive is simply man. I believe he existed in history as a man. If anyone was a savior, it has to be John the Baptist. But this is irrevelant here bc those are not my beliefs. Celibacy and the Divine do not go hadn in hand. The Lord and The Lady... are handfasted and you can still be divine and be a father and husband at the same time.

And the bible is tainted! Certain gospels were removed bc it made jesus look like a man nonetheless. So... how can we really know what's true? Who cares? People look at me all the time say I'm going to hell... but think about it... we create our own hell...

READ: Jesus Papers by Michael Baignet

I'm currently reading this and it's brought so much knowledge toward me about the life of Jesus and saying the crucifixion was rigged and they found documents saying that Jesus was alive in 45 AD assumably under a new name, an interesting non-fiction book

 

[charles cure]

And the bible is tainted! Certain gospels were removed bc it made jesus look like a man nonetheless. So... how can we really know what's true? Who cares? People look at me all the time say I'm going to hell... but think about it... we create our own hell...

READ: Jesus Papers by Michael Baignet

I'm currently reading this and it's brought so much knowledge toward me about the life of Jesus and saying the crucifixion was rigged and they found documents saying that Jesus was alive in 45 AD assumably under a new name, an interesting non-fiction book

if you like the jesus papers, and haven't read any of the following, you should try them out, they sort of rounded out my view on the PoS and the bible.

misquoting jesus - bart ehrman
the temple and the lodge - baigent
the gnostic gospels - elaine pagels
isis unveiled/the secret doctrine - blavatsky
the pagan dream of the renaissance - godwin
the templar revelation/the sion revelation - picknett and prince
holy blood holy grail - baigent, lincoln...et al.
jesus the magician - morton smith
out of the flames (cant remember the author)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed, though it was the fastest novel I've ever read -had it finished in under 24 hours. I also plan to see the movie at some point.

But I have to disagree with a minor point about Brown's presentation of "fact" in the book. It clearly has a "disclaimer" in the beginning that points out that the events themselves are fictional but that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This would appear not to be true.

Perhaps the most prominent instance of this deception is on page 1 where Brown tells the reader, "[t]he Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci."

There was a Priory of Sion, but it went extinct in 1617 when the Jesuits took over. The name was revived by anti-semite Pierre Plantard 1956, who invented a descendancy from the Knights of Templar and forged documents to show it. These documents are well demonstrated to be forged and discussed in texts like TheMurdered Magicians:The Templars and their Myth (Peter Parnter 1982: Oxford) and on the Wikipedia page for Priory of Sion, which lists some additional sources (though I've not looked at these).

The great thing about the Da Vinci Code is the controversy it's created. People are talking and doubting and, more importantly, questioning. Obviously, substituting one fiction for another isn't the best outcome, but if they can question one assumption, then perhaps most people will come away from the experience with the silly taboo of questioning religious doctrine broken.

*************
M*W: Well stated, SkinWalker. I agree.

 

[charles cure]

Perhaps the most prominent instance of this deception is on page 1 where Brown tells the reader, "[t]he Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci."

There was a Priory of Sion, but it went extinct in 1617 when the Jesuits took over. The name was revived by anti-semite Pierre Plantard 1956, who invented a descendancy from the Knights of Templar and forged documents to show it. These documents are well demonstrated to be forged and discussed in texts like TheMurdered Magicians:The Templars and their Myth (Peter Parnter 1982: Oxford) and on the Wikipedia page for Priory of Sion, which lists some additional sources (though I've not looked at these).

you know, i dont think that anyone has a lot of doubt about the dossiers secrets being inauthentic documents, but i disagree with you about the PoS. between its formation and its apparent disappearance in 1617 the Priory was periodically focused on attempting to restore the Merovingian dynasty to the throne of France. in several instances, this caused their organization to assume other names or go completely underground, producing virtually no record at all of its existence. that doesn't mean it wasn't there. try tracking any secret society through the whole history of its existence from the outside. lots of them appear and disappear periodically jut like the priory. i agree with you in the sense that i think there was no real continuation of the Priory since its goals shifted and their character seemed to change significantly over the years, but i think that it was still around in some form the whole time. whether there will ever be any satisfactory proof of that or not is another story. i guess the question is sort of moot being that the priory has never come forward with even an inkling of an indication that it can deliver on its claims. but i don't think dan brown was inaccurate. the facts and circumstances surrounding the PoS are controversial and debated hotly by many different and reputable authorities. he may have spun his fact page a little, but its just as hard to refute his claim as it is to verify it.

 

[Cris]

The movie is possibly one of the best events for quite a while. Not because it is a good or bad movie, or whether it is fiction or not, but because it introduces an idea about an area that many have considered "sacred", and that will make people think. And the one thing that Christianity cannot afford is to have people think. Clunk - another nail in the coffin of Christianity.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The movie is possibly one of the best events for quite a while. Not because it is a good or bad movie, or whether it is fiction or not, but because it introduces an idea about an area that many have considered "sacred", and that will make people think. And the one thing that Christianity cannot afford is to have people think. Clunk - another nail in the coffin of Christianity.

*************
M*W: Tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap... tap, tap, tap!

 

[ggazoo]

Here's the problem with the Da Vinci Code: people are taking it as gospel. It's a work on fiction. Is it based on fact? No. It's based on real life theories.

Now I know that there are many (if not most) people on here who take the Bible as fiction, but it was never meant to be. Dan Brown's book was. Big difference.

I believe in God, and I don't see any problem at all with The Da Vinci Code. I actually find it interesting. Do I believe it? No, not really. But at least it's entertaining - much like the Bible for all of you non-believers in here.

 

[Cris]

Ggazoo,

Here's the problem with the Da Vinci Code: people are taking it as gospel.

Gospel? The gospel as far is we can tell is largely fiction. I don’t think that quaint phrase has any meaning anymore.

Now I know that there are many (if not most) people on here who take the Bible as fiction, but it was never meant to be.

That seems doubtful. Given the colossal number of inconsistencies in the bible and the fact that there is still nothing to show that gods exist; then the original mythmakers must certainly have known they were constructing works of fiction. It is only the Church that promotes the bible as non-fiction, not because they know it is true but because that is their policy.

 

[KennyJC]

I went to see this movie on the opening night when I was on vacation (in cleveland ohio). The cinema had a handful of protesters outside with two small children which I thought was inappropriate...

Later I saw on the local news those same people (I figured as much since I saw news vans outside the cinema) and the woman said "it's just a movie"... and the kid said "BUT ITS JESUS!"...

The plot in the Davinci Code is obviously fiction, but the aspects of the story of Jesus and the Church... well it is no more dubiously sourced than the Bible itself.

1. Jesus had a wife.
or
2. Jesus was the son of the creator of the universe who was put here by God via virgin birth and performed many supernatural feats then died and came back to life and bodily ascended to heaven.

I know which one I find easier to believe...

Seriously though, it was funny watching this movie in a pretty conservative US state...

 

[Michael]

the thing about the dvc is that people will think this aosulte fiction is fact because of some sreads of history laced into the movie, the masses unforunaty are not as intellegant as some of the people here and will take the whole thing as convising fact and make life desions based on a fictional movie and while well intentioned the protests are not helping christains. i saw the movie and left very frustrated not only was it not a good movie but it was more subversively antichristian than the book

Funny I was just thinking:

The thing about the Bible is that people will think this absolute work of fiction is fact because some threads of history are laced into the book, unfortunately the masses are not as intelligent as some of the people here and they will take the whole thing as fact and make life decisions based on a fictional Book…..


One thing I find interesting about Theists is their ability to speak coherently and logically about most anything, yet when confronted with their own brainwashed ideas, they simply can not apply the same logic.

Michael

 

[ggazoo]

Given the colossal number of inconsistencies in the bible and the fact that there is still nothing to show that gods exist;

Hey Cris,

Can you give me a couple of examples of the "inconsistencies' to which you refer?

 

[thedevilsreject]

i read both the da vinci code and the holy blood, holy grail books and i found them both to be riveting reads, however both were based on hypothetical nonesense and i didnt believe the main part of either text, that said i cannot believe that so much trouble that sprouted from this could be over nothing so i do believe that there was a slight degree of truth in both books

 

[charles cure]

Given the colossal number of inconsistencies in the bible and the fact that there is still nothing to show that gods exist;/QUOTE]

Hey Cris,

Can you give me a couple of examples of the "inconsistencies' to which you refer?

there's like 5 threads on here about bible inconsistencies - here's one

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53061

people knew about the problems with the bible long ago, probably even as far back as the creation of the bible itself. various people have tried to make these things known over the course of history, many with disasterous results. a man named Michael Servetus for example, read the bible in hebrew, greek, and latin, and discovered many inconsistencies and mistranslations in the vatican's sanctioned latin version. he then wrote several books on the subject of what he thought was wrong with bible scholarship and was burned at the stake for it. more resently, a religion professer named Bart Ehrman has written a good book on the subject called "Misquoting Jesus" that discusses the process by which the bible became the document it is today and how nearly impossible it is to determine what the original documents that are its basis actually said. he attributes this to centuries of copying by both uneducated and highly educated scribes who would make mistakes, and then corrections, and then correct the corrections again later to agree with the original mistake, or sometimes even alter the wording of entire passages to make them reflect what the scribes interpretation was. that's just the beginning, without even broaching the overt additions and subtractions made by priests and bishops in order to strengthen the hold of the church over the populace.

 

[charles cure]

i read both the da vinci code and the holy blood, holy grail books and i found them both to be riveting reads, however both were based on hypothetical nonesense and i didnt believe the main part of either text, that said i cannot believe that so much trouble that sprouted from this could be over nothing so i do believe that there was a slight degree of truth in both books

if you liked those, read these:

the templar revelation
the sion revelation
the messianic legacy
the woman with the alabaster jar
the gnostic gospels

reading them all gives one a better understanding of the subject i think. both the templar revelation and the sion revelation take issue with the premise of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but delve in depth about similar subjects, and come to not an altogether different conclusion, but in a more plausible way.

 

[ggazoo]

Anyone see "The Da Vinci Code: Bloodlines" on the History Channel?

Josh Bernstein proved that the whole legend of the bloodline of Jesus carrying over into the Merovingian line was a hoax, as well as the so called society that claimed it.

As well as the DNA evidence of the Merovingian queen. Her DNA is "typical European" - no Mid-Eastern indications.