The Da Vinci Code

[azumah]

About three weeks ago I was given this book. I didn't really know too much about it, except that it was anti-Christian. I wouldn't be posting anything about it normally. The only reason I thought it might be important to discuss is because it has been among the top 3 on the New York Times bestseller lists for over a year, and it is going to be made into a major motion picture by the same guy who made "A Beautiful Mind."

The book clearly indicates that it is a work of fiction. Before the prologue, the only thing stated as fact are the existence of the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei, and the desciptions of the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals. However, in an interview with NBC Dan Brown (the author) said that "absolutely all of it" is true.

Let me first say that Mr. Brown does uncover some truth. He descibes the history of the pagan practices and symbols of the Catholic Church. He points out on page 232-233 how Constantine shifted the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday (he incorrectly refers to it as a day of worship rather than the day of rest). He also points out how many of the most noteworthy works of art by Leonardo (Madonna of the Rocks and The last Supper) were done to mock the Catholic Church. Beyond that, however, there is very little in his book that is factual.

Among the more outrageous claims he makes is that Yeshua's divinity was the result of a vote, HIS early followers thought of HIM as a mere mortal prophet, and that HIM and Mary Magdelene begat a daughter named Sarah. In addition to this, he makes several errors in history such as saying the name "Jehovah" led to the tetragrammaton YHWH as we know it. As any scholar can tell you, the letter "j" as we know it only goes back 5-600 years, while the tetragrammaton goes back at least as far as the burning bush (at least 3000 years between the two events.

In my honest opinion, this book more resembles the work of someone like Clive Cussler than anyone else. It's embarrassing how poorly it is researched and how many people believe some, if not all of it. More than anything else, I think it shows how important is in terms of worshipping Yeshua. Pretty much all of his conclusions would hit a dead end if only he knew the first church was founded on .

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Thank you for sharing that Azumah. My brother gave me this same book about a month ago, and I have just been too busy to read it. But, because what you have communicated I may take it off the backburner. I was able to have an intelligent conversation with my brother (whom does not know Yeshua) because of this book. This was the first time (to my knowledge) that he acknowledged the pagan origins of Christianity, and the validity of what I believe.

This may be a good one for us all to sharpen up on for future conversations with unbelievers, or those whom are in the Church but have been ignorant of some of the facts that this book exposes. This may be an open door for many to know the Truth.

B'Shem Yeshua,

Reuel

[azumah]

Amen. There are hundreds of books like this out there, but for some reason this one is impacting a large number of people. Quite frankly, I'm astonished there has not been more secular criticism of this book. The amount of research that has been done on some of the issues addressed is at best pathetic.

In addition, there are many blatant contradictions. One of the characters in the book says that the church up until Constantine did not believe in the divinity of Yeshua, but later says that they chose four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that would best brainwash Christians into believing in Yeshua's divinity. My question is that since those four gospels were around, and they clearly show the divinity of Yeshua, then there were obviously some Christians around who really believed it. The Author clearly has an agenda that he wants to push, and is not focussed on just seeking the truth.