What do you think about the religion in the Da Vinci Code?

Hm, I don't know if I agree with you. I admit I haven't read the book, so I can't really make an informed judgement. But from what I've heard I suspect it contained a lot of inaccuracies regarding Christianity and the Church. Could be wrong though. But I don't think it's a big enough deal to worry about.

Angles and Demons was better IMHO. Any books that make you think good or bad are endorced by me. I know it's fiction but it still sparks good conversation and theory.

You can have a non-believer's opinion too!

A masterful working to ensure maximum sales and a movie offer (successful!) - stand by for the sequel.

Honestly, it is poor, formulaic fiction written to catch an audience. It is also at odds with the only written accounts of the events in Roman Palestine -so its bad history too. Enjoy, but it will blow over.

Yea people, don't forget that this book is fiction!!

DaVinci code
One thing that looks like it has a historical basis, however, is the reference to Mary Magdelene as being far more central to the Christian story than the repentent prostitute she has become portrayed as.

It is clear that there do appear to be references to her in some fairly recently found late 1st and early 2nd century texts that refer to her as the "companion" of Jesus. The painting of the last supper by daVinci is clearly and unambiguously (to my eyes, at least) of a woman next to Jesus (not a pretty man), very distinctively and qualitively more feminine than any of the other figures. This surely suggests that daVinci may have thought the person on Jesus's right hand side (traditionally thought to be John, "the beloved one") to be a woman. And daVinci was no fool.

It seems to me as though Mary Magdelene may be a far more important figure in Christian history than she has hereforeto been portrayed. Perhaps even, although this remains speculative, the true author (or author of the basis text) of the Gospel of John...

While I disagree with its stand on religion, The Da Vinci Code was a fun book to read. It was a nice little murder mystery with a lot of history in it (both secular and religious). I would love to be able to perform mirror-image writing.

When I first read it, I was astonished at the amount of "evidence" pointing to Mary Magdelene. However, I then realized (quite suddenly) that it was all based off of Leonardo Da Vinci's work. Are all of those Pegan references in his works? I believe so. Does it mean anything? Probably not. Just because Da Vinci believed in Mary doesn't mean that it was so.

The Shroud of Turin is another argument one could make. One could argue that Da Vinci just liked to pull practical jokes on both people in his time and those in the future.

All and all, I think that The Da Vinci Code is a book (appropriately labelled under "Fiction") and nothing more. I've heard, however, that Dan Brown (the author) believes in everything he put in this book.

The 'factual' basis for the story is rooted in the 'Holy Blood/Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln.


In my own opinion this 'concept' is nothing more than a 'new age' spin to the origins of Christianity and just has more popular appeal than images of some bloke being flogged to near death then crucified. The 'reality' of hidden scrolls and secret, sacred mysteries is pure hogwash (but profitable!).

Most of Holy Blood/Holy Grail is speculation, the Priory of Sion probably never existed as described, and much of what is passed as "fact" is guesswork or flawed.

BUT I have not heard anyone deny the authenticity of the Nag Hammadi documents, discovered relatively recently, which all seem to be dated late first or early second century and, if they are to be believed (e.g., Magdelene was certainly one of the disciples, some other disciples were apparently envious of her "special relationship" with Jesus), then without further evidence Magdelene remains far more central than she is portrayed in traditional Christianity.

Plus it is just like the paternalistic Church to demote Jesus's only female disciple to the status of a prostitute, so the claim retains the ring of truth.

If anything that book says is actually true, like the priory of sion, then i say, were do i sign up. It sounds fine by me to belive in a god and that there was a man that kaniving people used to elevate their influece in the world and also to put down any other persons reasoning or belief.