Dan Brown hails court victory as 'good day for writers'

HarryApr 7th, 2006 - 20:10:48

I understand what the book describes and I am appalled that such a book is even allowed to sell at all. It is sacriledge to even right opinions about someone they didn't even know personally. The whole idea of the Da Vinci Code is a farse. It is all hearsay and just based on a person's opinions. Jesus never married. He was on this earth for one thing and that was to do his father's will and spread the truth to others about God's purposes for a government on earth. The only time Mary Magdelene was mentioned was when she bathed Jesus feet one day when he came to visit Mary's home. Nothing else happened. Let's stop spreading lies and made up stories. People have such weird imaginations and because they hate God or religion, they make up stories just to entertain themselves.

Report this comment

PilgrimApr 7th, 2006 - 20:43:16

Um, the Da Vinci Code IS FICTION!

Report this comment

AnswerManApr 9th, 2006 - 11:58:44

The author and publisher have only won the 'legal' trial. The next trial will be in the court of public opinion. The fact that THE DA VINCI CODE is merely a work of fiction does nothing to quell the ire and angst of Christians who consider its content sacrelige. Already, a Christian group in Korea is attempting to ban the film from showing there. The reason is because the film purportedly concludes that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child. Interestingly, though, noted historian and biographer, A.N. Wilson, reached a similar conclusion in his biography of Jesus titled, JESUS, A LIFE. Surely, Christian groups in many countries will apply considerable pressure to keep the film from the big screen. In the US, these tactics will probably go nowhere ... though pickets in front of theaters that show the film are a foregone conclusion. But elsewhere in the world, especially in countries where Christianity is considered predominant, the film might come up against significant obstacles.

I have not read THE DA VINCI CODE so I can't say for certain. But if it includes some of the other suppositions present in Wilson's book, the film could be in for a rocky time. For example, Wilson also conjectures that it was not Judas who betrayed Jesus. According to him, the Roman soldier gave Judas the pieces of silver NOT for betraying Jesus ... but to FRAME him in front of fellow disciples who always held Judas in suspicion because of his links to violent factions. Wilson further conjectures that Judas did not commit suicide out of feelings of guilt ... but out of the realization that no one would believe he was innocent. If not Judas, who did Wilson suspect as the betrayer? Jesus invited all his disciples to be with him in the Garden of Gethsemane (where he was later arrested). But, one of the disciples was absent - Peter - who was not only a disciple, but also considered influential to the Sanhedrin (the legal/political body that petitioned Pontius Pilate to arrest Jesus). Since Peter is considered the first Pope of the Catholic Church, you can imagine the conflict such a supposition would have among Christians - especially Catholics. And, the suppositions couldn't come at a worse time since scholarly interpretations of the Gospel of Judas, discovered 30 years ago, are starting to appear and be discussed.

In any event, expect heavy opposition to the film being shown in Italy, for certain, if the suppositions in THE DA VINCI CODE mirror those of JESUS, A LIFE.

Report this comment

AnswerManApr 9th, 2006 - 12:45:06

P.S. to Harry,

The Bible itself is based on opinions of the clerics who interpreted it for King James. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and The Gospel of Judas are three gospels not included in the Bible because King James' clerics didn't like what they had to say, not necessarily because they're illegitimate gospels.

Here's one more thing to consider. At the same time the clerics of King James were interpreting holy scripture to come up with their version of the Holy Bible, clerics in the Netherlands were doing the same thing. Some parts of the King James Version of the Bible differ from the Dutch Reformed Church Version. A prime example is Genesis 9:25. The King James Version is unspecific as to the nature of the curse put upon Ham. However, the Dutch Reformed Church Version indicates that Ham had a 'sign' put upon him to show him as cursed of God ... and, they defined that sign - dark skin. Later, when Dutch slave-traders did their evil, they claimed they were merely doing God's work ... since their dark-skinned cargo was cursed by God to be the servants of servants (or 'slaves of men' in the DRCV).

Fortunately, the Dutch Reformed Church no longer exists as it once did ... and now uses more standard versions of the Bible. But, one church still uses the DRCV Bible - the Church of Jesus Christ Christian - in the Aryan Nations compound.

One final thing to keep in mind ... and this comes from religious scholar, the late Alan Watts, who was an Anglican Priest for 20 years before leaving the church to do study in comparative religion. You'll notice that some words in the King James Version of the Bible are in italics. Nowadays, words are italicized to indicate emphasis. But back in King James day, italics were used to indicate a difference of opinion over the meaning of a word. And, not all translations to English went smoothly. Clerics differed in their interpretations ... hence, the italics. Two prime examples involve the nature of Jesus' purpose ... and the origins of the Book of Revelation.

Most Christians believe Jesus to be THE son of God. But Greek translations of the same scripture indicate Jesus to be 'A' son of God ... implying there may have been others. One follower of Jesus who accepted the Greek translation believed he was ALSO a son of God. His name was Mani and he lived in the 3rd Century. He went about the near East and Asia, preaching his version of the Bible and performing what some said were Christ-like miracles ... until the early Catholic Church sent zealots out to hunt him and his followers down and kill them.

Also, most Christians believe that the Book of Revelation was written by John after receiving the information from an 'angel.' Most Christians believe that angels are beings who dwell with God and do His work when called upon to do so. But Greek translations indicate that an angel is merely a 'messenger' of God ... someone who imparts God's information. In A.N. Wilson's biography of Jesus, he indicates that John was a good friend of a man named Daniel. This Daniel was known as a philosopher, an astrologer, and a seer ... as well as an ipsissimus (an adept at the black arts - in short, a warlock). Wilson believes that the Book of Revelation was written after John had spent considerable time with Daniel discussing the future. So, if this is true, the Book of Revelation could be the predictions of a warlock (perhaps inspired by God to see the future, perhaps inspired otherwise).

Report this comment

HezApr 20th, 2006 - 17:19:07

AnswerMan,
You can't counter opinion with more opinion. It's been known for years that neither King James nor Dutch translations are completely accurate, this is why there have been numerous attempts to re-translate from the oldest Hebrew & Greek texts that we have on archive. The Gospel's of Thomas, Mary, & Judas are historically known to be far more recent writings than the original Gospels, all three cropping up long after their reported authors were dead. The reason the Bible was canonized as it is because early Christians had issues with various people trying to write their own gospels & lead people into a form of Christianity that in no way reflected the message that Jesus himself taught. I, as a Christian, do understand that some people will always make certain arguments against Christianity based on unknowns or unprovens that are difficult to dispute. This is why it is Christianity is called a faith. The problem with the Da Vinci Code is that it's based on false histories & fraudulent gospels. This is why people want it to be banned is because it claims falsities to be indisputable fact & as a result many naive people will be led to buy into a lie.

On the note of scholars, there are hundreds of Bible Scholars who believe many different things & you can't single out one as the expert just because his views allow you to discount Christ as God Incarnate. The unfortunate thing about scholars as it seems they often have to little regard for grammar & too much emphasis on word translation. If a word can translate out to be “dog” or “God” you can't simply choose dog because it makes your sentence more provocative, you have to look at the whole paragraph (or book even) & measure the translation against the message that the writer was obviously trying to convey. Wilson would do well to understand that no writer of the Gospels is known to ever refer to a fellow human in the same terms as angelic beings. The New Testament is not rocket science people, it was written to common people to convey the hope of salvation in Christ.

Report this comment

AnswerManApr 25th, 2006 - 23:13:45

Hez,

You suggest that translations of scripture may be inaccurate ... but then say, quote, 'The problem with the Da Vinci Code is that it's based on false histories & fraudulent gospels. This is why people want it to be banned is because it claims falsities to be indisputable fact & as a result many naive people will be led to buy into a lie.'

If the translations may be inaccurate, how can you say the Da Vinci Code is based on 'false' histories and 'fraudulent' gospels?

You said it yourself ... it's a matter of faith. What may be a lie to you may ring more true to someone else. And what may seem true to you now might be seen differently in the future. For example, religious scholar, the late Alan Watts, was an Anglican priest for 20 years. And then, one morning, he (quote) 'Woke up from the dream.'

All evidence from all sources should be open to public scrutiny ... and each person has the right to assign doubt or belief to that evidence. And no one out there is going to force anyone to buy a ticket to the film ... or force them to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' what they see in it.

Report this comment