My Rant on The Da Vinci Code

This is my third attempt at writing this review, Firefox keeps crashing on me (this was supposed to be the more stable upgrade). And when I finished editing, I forgot to run a spell check and after I fixed all the misspelled words, Blogger died! Aaagh! Do you think the Lord is trying to tell me something? And because of the crashes this review will be a lot shorter than it was originally going to be. Maybe I should keep it as short as Mike Adams did:

Q: Oh, I just love that book. Have you read about the Council of Nicea and how they conspired to keep out the Gnostic Gospels? It was all so political the way they choose the Books of the Bible, don't you agree?

A: No.

Q: Well, why not?

A: I've read the Bible seven times, the New Testament ten times, and all of the so-called Gnostic Gospels.

Q: And what have you concluded?

A: The New Testament books were selected long before 325 A.D. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were either written by eyewitnesses or on the basis of eyewitness evidence. The Gnostic Gospels were not. In addition to being incoherent fragments, they were written many, many decades later.

I just try to treat the life of Jesus as a murder mystery, which is easy to do since he was, in fact, murdered. If you want to solve the mystery, you have to know everything you can about the victim. To do so, you should prefer eyewitness testimony over all other forms of evidence. There was no better type of evidence back then. And, of course, only a fool would give preference to the accounts that were written later. That is a backwards way of thinking. I mean that literally.

Q: Then why does The Da Vinci Code suggest that members of the Council of Nicea conspired to exclude certain books for sexist reasons, if it isn't true?

A: Because The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Q: How do you know?

A: Because I picked it up at Barnes and Noble in the section marked "fiction."

This was from a column in which Adams recounts actual conversations he had with people who saw that he was reading The Da Vinci Code. I am disappointed that no one started a conversation with me! Maybe I should hang out in airports with the book :-). Anyway, I think the conversations he had are indicative of why this book is so popular and why people (like the actor who plays Teabing) believe that there might be truth in the book, they are ignorant of church history and Christianity and since they are ignorant, Dan Brown can get away with a lot of stupid, meaninglessnless drivel.

Dan Brown includes a fact page in the beginning of the book:

If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

He takes real documents such as the Gospel of Philip and implies that it supports the theory of his characters when in fact it's fragmentary and not clear what's being said in it and it was written hundreds of years after Christ. The same with the Council of Nicaea. Teabing, one of Brown's main characters, states that Jesus was voted deity at Council and up to that point no one believed that Jesus was God. This flies in the face of the writing of the early church and Dan Brown is either ignorant of that fact or knows he can get away with it because of the ignorance of the general reading public. Let us end our ignorance right now:

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch died about 110 A.D. he was a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about the lords 2nd coming, "Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible". Only God is without time , eternal and invisible. In numerous other places in his letter to Polycarp he states "Jesus is God", "God incarnate"

"Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) JESUS CHRIST [the Son of God], who was descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who truly was born [both of God and of the Virgin ... truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin."

"For our God Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:9)

"...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)

"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:4)

"For even our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in the Father".( Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans 1:13)

Clement of Rome (Philipians 4:3)"For Christ is with those who are humble, not with those exalt themselves over his flock. The majestic scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with the pomp of arrogance or pride (though He could have done so), but in humility, just as the Holy Spirit spoke concerning Him." (1 Clement 16:1-2)

"Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God : as of the judge of the living and the dead".(2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)

Justin Martyr ( 140 A.D.) "the word of wisdom, who is himself God begotten of the Father of all things, and word, and wisdom, and power, and the glory of the begetter, will bear evidence to me".(Dialogue with Tropho Ch.61)

Polycarp (70-160). Bishop of Smyrna.A disciple of John the Apostle. "O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever"

That is just a small subset, go read the rest here.

Christ was clearly thought to be deity by the early church fathers, long before the Council of Nicaea. The reason that people even believe this stuff is because they haven't read the Bible and they haven't a clue what the early church believed.

Jesus himself states that he is God in a number of ways throughout the Gospels and the Pharisees understood this and were ready to stone him:

John 10:27-33 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

There are many more verses that I could quote in which Jesus clearly is claiming to be deity. When reading the New Testament with an understanding of the language of the Old Testament, it is quite clear that Jesus equated Himself with the Father and so did the authors of the Gospels:

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We believe that Jesus is God for a reason because the authors of the Gospels were credible witnesses. The Gospels were written by people who were eye witnesses to his earthly ministry, this is what was believed by the early church. The Gospels were accepted because they were believed to be written by the apostles and these were the same Gospels that were based down generation to generation. These are the church's sacred documents, don't you think that they would take care of them? Do you think that they would allow them to be destroyed or replaced? Look at the house church movement in China if you have any doubts. The writings of the early church fathers are filled with quotes from Scripture that match the versions of the Bible that we have today. The Bible was spread throughout the Roman Empire soon after Jesus' death, it would be impossible to destroy every single copy.

The main character's knowledge of history is laughable and what is really bad is that the main premise of the book makes no logical (or historical) sense. Magdalene was to be the head of the church, not Peter. She was of the tribe of Benjamin and therefore had royal blood and Jesus married her to strengthen his claim to the throne. But Jesus, who was a direct descendant of David, didn't need anyone from the tribe of Benjamin to strengthen his claim to the throne because the kingly line wasn't Benjamin but Judah and specifically David's descendants were in line for the throne. The premise falls apart once you understand the Old Testament and what it said of the coming ruler of Israel:

Isaiah 11:1-4 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.

Ezek 34:22-24 "I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken."

Amos 9:11 "In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old,"

If Jesus wanted to rule Israel, he had a claim to the throne and the people knew it:

Matthew 21:8-9 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

John 6:14-15 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, "This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!" Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's grant Dan Brown his premise. Jesus is just a prophet, who marries Magdalene to strengthen his claim to the throne and then grants her the right to be head of the church. And then she is worshipped as the sacred feminine. Now, let's look at some of the questions this poses, but are never addressed in the book:

1. Jesus is a prophet, for whom does he speak? There is no God, according to Brown's characters. The Bible was created by men so there is no creator God. Jesus speaks of a Father, what does that mean? Even the Gnostic Gospels retain this aspect of Jesus' teaching. Who is this Father and why is he talking about him?

2. Why would Jesus form a church if he wasn't deity and there was no God? What would be the point?

3. What makes Mary worthy of worship. If Jesus is just a prophet and there is no God, why worship her? What makes her sacred? Her bloodline as a royal? That makes her sacred? Why not worship Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth or Mary, Queen of Scott. At the end of the book, Langdon (the main character) remembers this quote "The quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one" and Langdon kneels. But why? What makes her worthy? Why pray to her? She's dead.

We are left with this mushy center to the book and Langdon's rejection of religion as just symbols to help man get through life makes the main premise of the book mushier. The bottom line to those who would worship anything to help them get through life: why bother when you know it's false? There is no answer to this in the book. In the book Brown defines faith this way:

"...acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.
Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration...Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible.
The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors...Those who truly understand their faith understand the stories are metaphorical."

But the Bible defines it this way:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. We know that the Bible is true, literally and we put our faith in that. Otherwise why bother:
1 Cor. 15:13-14 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

I don't think that Paul got the whole metaphor thing, do you?

The central point of the book does not bear all that Brown is placing on it and the book becomes a waste of effort for the reader. Just on that fact alone, this book should have been rejected as any kind of literary novel. If your premise is unsupportable, then all the actions of the characters are just silly because they don't make any sense.

And this part really irked me: "nothing in Christianity is original" and "virtually all the elements" were "taken directly from earlier pagan religions." And then he lists some superficial similarities. But I have one question. What about the atonement? What pagan religion has that? Did someone else die for the sins of his people? Christ is the only one who has done so.

And on top of all that it's not even good suspense. I figured out who the villain was early and throughout the rest of the book saw through all the red herrings, which is really bad form for a suspense novel. When you see the author's hand, then you know the book is poorly written. Now, I have to decide if I want to torture myself for two and a half hours watching the movie and after reading this review I want to watch it even less. And according to Peter Jones, it's even watered down paganism. How appealing.

I've seen comments on the Internet (including the fick&oz show), laughing at Christians for wasting their time on this book, that it isn't worth it, it's just a work of fiction. It's not worth our time defending Christ against the charges in the book. And I would agree if everyone understood that it was a work of fiction and realized how incredibly silly this book is but they don't, they look at it like it's a novel with truth in it. This is why I wrote this, to prove that it is completely fiction, the whole thing. Christians have a duty to defend the truth of the Gospel, I will not remain silent while lies about my Lord, Savior and God are spread throughout the world. It is my duty to proclaim Jesus as Lord and if we don't speak, the stones will cry out (Luke 19:40).

(Link to Adams' article via Bloggin' Outloud and the link to the movie review via Moonshadow)

Technorita Tags: Da Vinci Code, dan brown, The Da Vinci Code, Movie, Religion, Christianity