Close Topic Options

Da Vinci Code

I recently wrote a research paper for my Literature and Composition class concerning the Da Vinci code. It's a long read, but you may find it interesting.

Offtopic but, Edit: Well, it seems I'm unable to post multiple times in a row. I would attatch the paper as a notepad file, but I don't see any options that enable file attatchment. . . sorry.

Message Edited! Persephone: Learn how to use the offtopic tags so that threads do not encompass multiple topics and ideals.

Code Vinci Da

Well, I thought we already had a topic open on the Da Vinci Code, but I can't find it. Maybe one of the other moderators can find it.

I am very interested in reading your complete paper, but suggest that you post it on a website such as a Yahoo! Geocities site, then post a link and a few pertinent quotes from it for us to enjoy and to tickle our interest. We do not allow consecutive posts, nor the posting of very long essays and papers on the forum.

Please make these arrangements, then be prepared for some discussion about it.

Thanks.

Da Vinci Code Beliefs Religious General

Offtopic but, Well Nighthawk, I did as you suggested. By the way, thanks. This is the first time I've ever made a webpage. It's something I'd been meaning to get around to doing, but never really did, now I'm interested in learning HTML.

The files are Microsoft Word documents, and the links to them appear in bright purple at the upper left of my lame little page. Here is the page link.

Download

Anyway, I hope to have a nice heated discussion about the conspiracy with you and others.

Message Edited! Persephone: Learn how to use the offtopic tags so that threads do not encompass multiple topics and ideals. Do not link to external sites save for that which is relevant to your quote only. Your link has been changed to point to the actual text.

Code Vinci Da

I would be interested in the scriptures you believe portray the Savior as having been single. I believe it is mostly tradition that has him single. I am not aware of any actual statement in the Bible that says he was single. In fact, Jewish law would be a strong argument to suggest he was married.

As far as the argument relative to Mary. I agree it is unlikely Mary Magdeline was a prostitute. The Bible doesn't label her as such either. An early Pope did. I forget which one, but he said that the prostitute mentioned in the Bible a little ways beyond the story of Mary Magdeline was in fact the same person. The Bible doesn't name this prostitute as being this same Mary.

Edited: funbikerchick on 3rd Apr, 2005 - 11:53am

Code Vinci Da

Before I start into the paper, let me state one thing. I believe that Jesus was married, and that He had children. However, I find some statements in this paper to be overgeneralizations and to be very weak arguments. I have no agenda at all with this argument. I really enjoyed the book, and have some knowledge of the Grail theories from outside the book. All of the Grail theories are very weak in their arguments, as they are conspiracy theories that try to explain obscure bits of history.

Having said that, I do believe that the Priory of Sion exists, that the Templars protected a very special secret, and that the Freemasons are the historical heirs of the Templars. However, I believe that all of them lost track of what the real secret was centuries ago.

This is not only a harsh statement, but patently untrue. How do you define the phrase "right-wing Christian"? Is this basically meant to be any Christian who believes that the theories behind The DaVinci Code are false? Or is the statement meant to mean that anyone who believes that the foundations of Catholicism (and thus of Protestantism) is absolutely true is a "right-wing Christian"?

The truth is that those who find the book extremely offensive come from the complete political spectrum. While the phrase "right-wing Christian" is extremely popular in the media today, it is normally used to describe people who don't agree with the Left. IMHO, it shouldn't be used in a literary critique.

I think that despite the reasons you give, that this statement would be extremely difficult to defend in a formal debate. For one thing, there is a lot in the Bible that is beyond historic dispute. The Holy Grail theories are just that - historical theories. In fact, they are conspiracy theories used to explain historical fact.

Yes, there is evidence that gives them some support. But that same evidence can be used to support other theories just as well.

Now, your discussion about some of the discrepancies about the Gospels and what the later Church claimed about Jesus' marital status seems to be right on. I have read a few documents that debate some of these things, and the logic seems very solid to me. But then I am biased.

There are several problems with this statement. After all, ALL books are written by men and women. That doesn't mean that they are all full of fabrications and deliberate errors. There are REASONS to SUSPECT fabrications and ommissions. But there is no proof, so your statement becomes very weak, and can only be considered a statement of opinion, not a logical argument.

Again, I find this to be extremely simplistic. There is no support for this statement, other than the assumed hostility of the reader to Christianity and its history. The statement is offensive to anyone who believes in Christianity.

Again, I hope you don't take offense at my analysis. I am certainly not a scholar in any way. These were just points that jumped out at me.

Message Edited! JB@Trinidad: Link works direct to document

Da Vinci Code

Of course I wouldn't take offense. You're simply expressing your opinions.

Well, you certainly make some valid points. I tend to be a bit overzealous in my papers in an attempt to give it flavor. I have always been under the impression that a research paper is supposed to present a specific argument:

"In the end, the holy grail theory presented in the Davinci Code is more likely to be true than the traditional biblical stories of Christ for the following reasons:"

and then attempt to validate that argument with as many different sources as possible. My teacher was one who likes an interesting read, and the bolder one's statements are, the more likely that the reader will be intrigued.

It's true, I've used that phrase in error. Up until this point I had thought "right-wing" was simply an adjective to describe a particular person as overly conservative to the point of illogicality. I was actually even hesitant to put that line in, but my overzealous nature came in to play. Sorry if I've offended you or anyone else.

The Bible is somewhat of a unique book. It is certainly POSSIBLE that no un-fictional book that has ever been released by man is fully true. However, because the bible was to be a foundation of morals and the future of the christian society, there would have been far more temptation and reason to include fabrications. The point of the argument was primarily to explain that the possibility of fabrication is easily present, and then to explain why it may even be probable. The very fact that some books of the Bible were omitted seems to speak for itself.

It was intended to be a re-iteration of the primary point after each of my 'reasons' had been duely noted. Yet, I'm sorry, but I believe that statement to be true to any reader, not just to those that are biased against christianity. The reason it is more believable, is simply that many of those events which occurred in the biblical stories are impossible by today's standards in physics. A few examples: jesus walking on water, turning water to wine, healing blindness with mere touch, rising from the dead. Now you might argue that these are metaphors intended to illustrate certain points, and they very well could be. However, if one takes the bible literally on all counts, then logically the story of Christ isn't very believable. Does it not make more sense to believe Jesus was simply a genius of a man, and very powerful figure that had the ability to rally support through this humble logic and great will power?
Think of it this way, if you were to present to a present-day person who has never heard of Christianity, an account of the original biblical stories as well as an account of the stories changed to fit the grail theory, which do you think that person would believe?

In conclusion, I'de like to say this: It is difficult for me to not be biased against Christianity considering my liberal upbringing. I didn't want or intend for any of that bias to show through in the research paper, but it did. I'm sorry for that, and if I've offended anyone with some of my brasher statements, please note, that wasn't my intention. The paper is surely not free of error or weakness in many areas, but I still believe it presents a strong argument. The primary fault that I can deduce, was a lack of clarification of my intended meaning in several statements, as well as a poor attempt at flavor. So anyway, thanks for reading, and I look forward to any more feedback you may present.


Edit: Sorry, I don't know why but I totally missed your post funbikerchick.
Okay then.

He is portrayed as celibate by the fact that the bible never openly gives any mention of Jesus having had a wife or lover. If he hadn't been single, or certain people hadn't wanted others to believe he was single, surely there would have been some mention of his relationships?

Edited: Zeuts on 3rd Apr, 2005 - 7:29pm

Da Vinci Code

Why? Is there any mention of any of the Apostles being married? How about various other prominent figures in the Bible?

Marriage was so common, and such a basic fact of life, that it would have been remarkable if He wasn't married, and His disciples would have had to defend Him against the charge of not being a valid teacher in Judaism.

Yes, I recognized this. That is why I pointed it out. The Left, including the mainstream media and academia use the phrase as a catchall phrase so that they can just dismiss any argument or point made by a Christian.

This subject is a perfect example. By assuming first that someone who is "right-wing" is conservative to the point of illogicality, you can just dismiss their arguments without thoroughly examining them. In this case, I would like to know if you have read with any detail any of the books that take The DaVinci Code to task. I haven't yet read any of them, because I am not taking either side of the argument. I read the book with the same attitude that I read any science fiction, fantasy, or mystery story. I read the story, and don't worry too much about how it deals with reality

However, you have taken the time to do a research paper on the subject. You reference a few articles, but I don't know whether or not you have read any of the books treating the subject. Did you read any of the articles written by prominent Catholic scholars? Did you read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, from which Dan Brown is accused of plagiarism? Did you see how shaky their (and thus Mr. Brown's) line of logic and research actually was?

I suggest, if this subject is really of interest, that you read what Catholic Answers (https://www.catholic.com) has to say on the subject, as well as a few of the more scholarly Protestant apologetics sites.

My point here is that you admit to an assumption that anything that "right-wing" equals "just discard it, since it is illogical. You have embraced this philosophy for some reason. What is that reason? Is there a valid alternative? Is it possible that the whole of your paper is built on this bias? Do you think you might learn something more about the subject, and about Christianity in general, if you approached this subject again, acknowledging that bias?

Did you realize that some of the greatest philosophers, scientists, inventors, professors, and teachers are committed Christians?

All of these questions have a lot to do with how you approach this particular subject, and how you analyze what you learn in the research.

Now this question is just for passing interest. What grade did you get on it? What comments did your professor make on it?

Thanks for the opportunity to explore this subject.

Da Vinci Code General Religious Beliefs

Offtopic but, First, to the Moderator: Sorry about the problems with the off-topic tags. I either didn't notice your modification of my posts until just now, or you just now modified them. Regardless, I did read about the off-topic tags and linking in the rules but forgot. Sorry, it won't happen again. Also, here is a link to my "Works Cited" page which shows where all of my information came from -the primary source being a book that was a collection of over 30 different accounts from various knowledgable people on the topic. I had originally intended for this page to be presented as well, but due to my improper linking, it was lost.

Well, according to several of the scholars in my primary source book, there is mention of many of the Appostles' marital statuses in the bible. They could be wrong.  I certainly didn't scour the entire bible myself, that would have been an effort beyond what I was willing to expend. However, I believe it's safe to assume that the scholars are accurate, it is a published book presented as non-fiction after all.

Admittedly, I did enter into the research paper with a bit of bias.  Yet, I was careful to be sure not to present any blatently false information that was not obviously an opinion.

I have read many accounts from those not in favor of the grail theory, and many of those that say there is too little information to draw any conclusions.  I personally am of the opinion that there is too little information to draw any conclusions, but that wasn't the point of the paper. The point was that the 'holy grail theory' itself, is more likely to be true than not, simply because of common logic.  If all bias is dispelled, the grail theory just makes more sense.

Which is exactly the point. This, among other things, is why the grail theory is so much more likely to be true.

Now, in the case of my having used the term "right-wing" to describe those apposed to the theory, I say this: It was wrong to use the term, because it doesn't really even mean what I thought it meant, however that doesn't mean I dismiss the views of those apposed to the theory. Granted, I do place less priority on their claims for the simple fact that they fight more on faith, than logic. There is no evidence that can be presented to rebuke the grail theory, there is only evidence to say why it cannot be proven true. Which, I do recall stating this in my paper.

"The power behind the DaVinci Code's claims resides not in a proof, but a probability. If neither the traditional biblical texts nor the grail theory can be proven true, we are then forced to look at the likelihood of truth in one or the other." -Me

However, I would like to also bring to light this:
I personally did not want to write the paper on the Da Vinci Code because I was aware that the only claim it made which held any ground was a claim that was not even Dan Brown's. I didn't even think it was all that well written, and was annoyed to find all of the factual discrepancies in his work. Yet, as stated in my paper:

"That isn't to say that skeptics and critics are incorrect in their journalistic bashings of the Davinci Code's historical accuracy. However, the theme of the holy grail itself is no less true than anything one will find in the bible."

Also, my grade was an A-, primarily for incorrect format in the citing of a few of my sources. Also, (I'm assuming) for some of the poor taste, such as my statement about "Right-Wing" Christians. Anyway, this reply is getting too long for the forum to allow it, so I'd better stop it here.

Edited: Zeuts on 3rd Apr, 2005 - 10:02pm