Is the theory behind 'The Da Vinci Code' fact or fiction?

Its all so higgledy piggledy and up in the air.

Do you believe a 2004 novel or a book written 2000 years ago which was taken from bits of other religions/books/stories and has been translated into many languages and lost some of the translation.

When youve read it ask yourself if the world would allow any of it to be true, then youll see why people are dumbing it down.

As you can tell I loved it and find it much more believable than the Bible stories Ive been told.

I think the Da Vinci Code is fantastic and i was just wondering if the book contained any truth. It's been on my mind since i reached the part in Leabing's study and i looked up the last supper. EVERYTHING Dan Brown described in the book is accurate even the colour of the robes. There is no denying the person sat next to jesus is a woman!

It certainly contains some truth.

But your example shows the problem with giving a definite yes/ no answer.

He accurately describes a real painting, the Last Supper by Da Vinci -- but it is much, much more debatable whether the figure next to Jesus is a woman.

Brown wrote a work of fiction using lots and lots of elements of truth -- he puts true elements together and leaves others out to give misleading impressions, puts true elements with utterly fictional ones, etc., etc.

It's not TRUE it's not FALSE, it's a work of fiction with a lot of historically accurate elements.

I know where you're coming from i guess. The guy on Jesus' right in the real picture is meant to be the youngest of the 12 which would explain why he was drawn with feminine qualities. I read somewhere that the Vatican is considering banning this book worldwide! That can't be true too many have already read it!

The Vatican are scared.
They/religion are the biggest business on the planet, can you imagine if we all started to doubt the Bible.

I guess it would be chaos, what do you think of those new Da Vincis they 'found' in Florence, i just seen something about it on the welsh international news! I love Da Vinci, wouldn't it be great if they were authentic! Anyway, so you think the Vatican are banning the book coz they feel threatened! Doesn't that mean the book is telling people something the Church don't want them to know?

Why do you think the Vatican will ban it, wales_rules?

I just did a quick Google search, didn't find anything.

Seems likely it's a rumor/ hoax.

It's probably a rumour, but i'm not sure do you think they would put it on the net so soon? I suppose they might ban it because like you said earlier there is probably some truth in the story, how much truth, we don't know but enough to at least start a rumour of the Vatican banning the book.

The book was published in 2003. If it was going to be banned, I am sure it would have been pulled much sooner.

Either way, this is a fun site for those who actually own the book.

Uncover the Code

DaVinci Code

This is cool too.

I have not read the book personally. Mr Wolf has, my aunt has and so has a few other people I know. So I get the idea of the book and the questions I pose about it are :

Why couldnt jesus have children? He was a real man ( according to the bible) So why not?
Why do christians( i hate to use the word christian in such a blanket statement.. but it suits my point) see it as such a crime for him to have HAD children?

If there isnt enough ' proof ' to support the Da vinci code, why is that same thought process not applied to the bible?? The bible was supposedly written 2000+ some years ago. And since then has EVOLVED into several diffrent translations. Translations are left up to the reader. Why is it still taken as stone? Humans read and rewrite , translate, explain parts of the bible every day today.. so if you can doubt one book about the bible , why not the bible? It may HAVE at one point included his children... never know.

I thought that myself, why ban it now? Afterall it has been out for a year now. Like i said it may just be a rumour, but you never know, good job we got our copies already, eh? Jesus could not have children in Christians' eyes because people believed he was a 'god on earth' not a human. But Jesus must have had at least 1 wife because he was a Jew and Jews must be married, and if he was married he probably had at least 1 child, unless he was shooting blanks or something!

Shooting blanks.
HA

I have found that the word/name jesus is derived from the meaning " many, or group ' of men.
I will hunt this information down as it has been a while since I read it, i dont remember where I learned this.

So are you saying that Jesus was not 1 man alone, like a group of men with a spokesperson that we know as Jesus? Like a secret society, like the Priory of Sion, maybe? Cool!

Maybe not a secret society...just a group of people , possibly.
Of course, it is VERy hard to find this information... hmm.. for some reason.. ?
I will have to wait until Mr Wolf gets home tonight as he was the one who showed it to me in the first place.
It was a site about the word jesus and its origins. One of its original meanings was group of men . And at the time of that particular meaning, the 'jesus' in the bible was supposedly in existance.
Though I remember reading something that placed the defination WAY away from the area that the popular jesus was at the time.. but it was a really neat article to say the least.

I'm reading it now...but it's not keeping me interested. I'll have to redouble my efforts.

I have heard that too Pan,
that it is actually a boring book. Not very well written at all.

You are joking, aren't you? Ok i admit it takes a while to get going but that book is an incredible read, especially when you reach Chapter42! Oh great now i forgot what i was gonna say! Oh yes, i was gonna ask if you thought my shooting blanks theory was right, can you imagine, God's son a Jaffa!

It's a bunch of crap, just like the bible.