DaVinci Code

The OT is full of examples of men who are the worst witnesses possible, so I don't share your concern. The twelve were sinful humans, and what they did or thought outisde of scripture isn't of great spiritual concern to me.

I've known three Christians of varying faiths that have read it, and their faith isn't shaken at all. They recommend it as being good fiction. That's it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Especially given the fact that the OT is filled with murderers that God uses. So yes, I don't care if they murdered someone after they recieved the great commission, if they did not write it into scripture it is no concern to me.

The theology issue aside, I thoughtit was a poor quality movie. People got upset about the "dream sequence", where Jesus dreamt he didn't get crucified, but instead got married and had a family. Again, it's pure fiction. It was not based ono scripture, but to call it heretical was just plan silly. Poor filmmaking, yes. Heretical, no.

In fact, I submit that when the phrase "heretical" is used as such, it devalues and makes meaningles the word.

More like "Gore Vidal's Lincoln" is fiction. I have no problem with historical fiction. It generally doesn't interest me, but it doesnt' particularly bother me.

 

Perhaps we don't difine heretical the same. I define it as anything that challanges the truth of scripture. How do you define it. Besides, with all due respect, your opinion does not count much untill you read the book. I would like your opinion if you can find the time to read it.

 

"The OT is full of examples of men who are the worst witnesses possible, so I don't share your concern. The twelve were sinful humans, and what they did or thought outisde of scripture isn't of great spiritual concern to me."----------------------------------------------------------------

So you are telling me if Paul molested a little girl in every church he planted that would not concern you? Come on. We should take his advice on marriage and sex if he was doing this? Borne again Christians aren't all perfect, but some or more worthy of listening to than others. I expect the apostles were of the Highest character after Jesus got through training them -even if not perfect. If they were of questionable character as they most certainly would be if Brown's thesis is right, we would have a problem. Any case hinges on the character of the witnesses. If they are shown to be slefish, self serving, and dishonest, no one will trust their witness.

 

I don't see TDC challenging scriptural truth. Challenging traditional Christian beliefs, perhaps, but it's fiction.

Adhering to something that contradicts or violates scripture.

Granted. My information comes from Christians friends of mine that have read it. I'm by admission not akin to firsthand knowlege here. But based on what you've said about it, heresy does not appear to qualify here.

 

We have many christian books which are "Just Fiction" but most fans would tell you they are not just fiction. They would tell you that these stories communicate great spritual truths to them. Was Jesus parabals just fiction? Oh, see. Sometimes things dismissable as just fiction. And the things Brown puts forth effectively are not just things he made up. They are tennets of false religions. I could say that the Koran is just fiction because I believe Mohamed was lying of off his rocker, but I would never dimiss it as just fiction.

You may ultimately not find a problem with the book. But your "just ficition" approach is insignificant for dismissing concern.

 

To compare Jesus' parables to human works of fiction in this manner, be it the Da Vinci Code, Left Behind, or Chronicles of Narnia, is indeed heresy, imo.

 

Johnv, I can alway count on you to be very direct, and a little over the top. Since you saying I am speaking heresy does not even mesh with your definition of heresy.

I am glad you pulled this thread up, I could not find it.

Here is the end of the question, if you can admit it.

Dan Brown is being sued in court by the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It was obviously a major source book for Dan and I guess the authors feel he relied on their research a little to much. I have read the book in the past and I was aware that Dan's story was a fictionalization of this book, which is not fiction at all. I saw the book,which has had a resurgence since Dan's book, at the book store and perused it a little. In it the authors say, "We understand this information is heretical and maybe even blasphemus". See Dan's book is a fictionalization, but it was never "just fiction".

 

Forgive me, I did not intend to say you were speaking heresy. My apologies if that's the way my post came off. I was making a general statement.

It seems that people generally don't have too much of a problem with religious-themed fiction, so long as the topic of that fiction isn't Jesus. In fact, I don't know a single person who has a problem with the first or third Indiana Jones movies, even though the topic they cover don't align themselves with common scriptural thought (though, I'm sure some conspiracy nut somewhere really believes that the Ark of the Covenant is in a warehouse in DC).

The fact that people generally don't have too much of a problem with religious-themed fiction, so long as the topic of that fiction isn't Jesus, suggests that there is a fair amount of subjectivity on the topic (instead of scriptural objectivity). In fact, a fair number of people would think it heretical, or at least, inappropriate, if Veggietales had Jesus portrayed by a produce item. All other bible characters are fine, but in the minds of most, Jesus is off limits. It's a valid view, but it's personally subjective, not scripturally objective. Same with the Davinci Code, imho.

 

Forgive me, I did not intend to say you were speaking heresy. My apologies if that's the way my post came off. I was making a general statement.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was saying the heresy thing in good fun with affection. But I guess that does not come across in black and white.

I don't have a book burning attitude, but a "lets see it for what it is attitude." I've read his books, enjoyed them, and will go to see the movie. But I know what I am dealing with. And I think that is important.

 

Back to the Mason connection. The "secrets" that Masons keep are basically heretical doctrine tying their spiritual (and sometimes physical)lineage back to ancient pagan religions, specifically a fascination with early Egyptian relgion--which does incorporate godess worship. From Egypt they weave their beliefs in with Judaism, and from there into Christianity.

So, like Dan Brown, they redefine Christianity as a repackaging of pagan beliefs. Those in the church throughout history who have separated Christianity from other religions as unique, are viewed as covering up the "real" or "secret" history of the faith.

In medieval times, some of the crusaders (Knights Templar)returned from plundering the Holy land and advanced these ideas in Europe. This seems to be the root of Dan Brown's fiction, and may be the root of the Masons (who were very influencial in the founding of the USA).

 

I am not here to judge you. I am simply asking a question. Do you have a problem with the money you spend going to someone who would promote a heretical story of Jesus?

I am guilty myself, I bought the book--and although I didn't like the story's conclusion, I did enjoy the "read".

 

I did'nt buy the book.But I saw 2 documentary commentaries about it,one on a Christian tv network & one on PBC both were very critical of the book.

 

Actually, it was quite surprising to see secular television throw holes into all of the story's theories. They destroyed their theories by stating fact after fact that was not true.

 

I think he deserves the money. He wrote a good read. But if he sways the bride, we have only ourselves to blam, because we did not inform ourselves well enough to be immune.

 

I'm not so sure that is the issue. I am more concerned about the non-Christians who may believe the stuff he is pushing. The Dan Brown has been interviewed many times saying that although his book is fiction the theory of the feminine religious part of Jesus is not.

I have a REAL problem with this. I guess he does deserve the money because you can't take money with you and I don't think the book will gather him any crowns or rewards.

 

It is a mistake to dismiss this book as total fiction because it does promote some theories that are actually found in some real existing belief systems. Hence, we should not dismiss the book as mere fiction and laugh at those who would believe it.

Of course, people who read it know it is a novel and that the main characters are fictional. But the plot and characters are only a vehicle for the ideas and beliefs that are being promoted, which are real. Christians should be made aware of this and not sit by dismissing this book when it is pushing beliefs that people do accept (for example, some ideas from the Kabbalah are in the book, as well as endorsement of the gnostic gospels, which are currently enjoying a revival; and beliefs in the "feminine" side of God found in radical feminist theology and pagan religions).

 

Hey Marcia, we actually agree here

 

True, Marcia, its also difficult to know where fiction ends and truth begins. In other words, the Catholic organization used is far different from the way Brown described it. Even as a fiction read, you start wondering if something he says about an organization is true.

 

So did Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. As well as the original Omen and Seventh Sign.

I don't mean to belittle your point, but I think the concern on this topic need simply be minimal. I think we're giving more attention to DVC than is necessary. But we Christians tend to do that with things. Just look at the thread that will pop up telling us how unchristian Christmas is, or Easter, or Halloween, or shaking hands, and the like. I think we give criticism to such things in an attempt to artificially gird our faith, but if we're secure in our faith, then no such girding is necessary.