Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dan Brown's "DaVinci" errors??

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... FWIW! Interesting! No, I haven t read the book or seen the movie. Sincerely, Robert Baty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bobby Valentine writes, in part, and alleges Dan Brown has revealed a number of errors in his book/movie "The DaVinci Code":

      > Brown is careless, extremely
      > careless, about his "facts" to
      > the point of being simply
      > absurd or lazy.

      > A simple internet search could
      > have eliminated most of the
      > faux paus.

      > Despite the claims for even
      > accuracy of architectural
      > details Brown simply reveals
      > his top ten "errors" for all
      > the world to see.

      > The Top 10

      > 10) Westminster Abbey does
      > not have spires

      > 9) There are no frescos in
      > Notre Dame

      > 8) Why would Isaac Newton
      > be afraid of the Roman
      > Catholic Church in 17th
      > century England? (perhaps
      > Brown never heard of the
      > Reformation!)

      > 7) Constantine collated the
      > Christian Bible at the Council
      > of Nicaea in A.D. 325.

      > 6) There was a close vote on
      > the deity of Christ at the
      > Council of Nicaea. There was
      > a vote regarding Arianism.
      > The vote was 218 to 3 . . . if it
      > were not for the hanging chads
      > Constantine may not have won
      > the day!!

      > 5) Q was a "gospel" possibly
      > written by Jesus' own hand
      > (DaVinci Code, p. 343)!!.

      > 4) The Dead Sea Scrolls were
      > discovered in the 1950s and is
      > a collection of the earliest
      > Christian writings. These
      > "errors" just keep getting
      > better don't they!

      > 3) Jesus is portrayed with
      > more "human traits" in the
      > Gospels banished by Constantine.
      > This one is patently absurd!
      > Jesus looses all identification
      > as a real human being in the
      > Gnostic texts of Thomas, Philip,
      > Peter and the recently discovered
      > Gospel of Judas. In these texts
      > Jesus becomes a super deity with
      > little connection to the flesh and
      > blood.

      > 2) Jesus was married to Mary
      > Magdalene. In fact Grail scholar
      > Professor Lee Teabag . . . I mean
      > Leigh Teabing . . . in a show of
      > unbelievable ignorance over-
      > whelms Sophie Neveu with a
      > citation of the Gospel of Philip

      > "There were three who always
      > walked with the lord: Mary his
      > mother and her sister and the
      > Magdalene, the one who was
      > called his companion. His sister
      > and his mother and his companion
      > were each a Mary."

      > The brilliant Teabag, I mean
      > Teabing, says "As any Aramaic
      > scholar will tell you, the word
      > companion in those days, literally
      > meant spouse" (DaVinci Code,
      > p. 246). There is no Aramaic word
      > for "companion" in the Gospel
      > of Philip for an Aramaic scholar
      > to define. Philip is written in
      > Coptic, not Aramaic. Second the
      > word "companion" in the Gospel
      > of Philip is a Greek loanword (not
      > Aramaic) koinonos which does
      > not mean wife or spouse
      > but "companion," "friend," or
      > "associate."

      > In all of the ancient literature,
      > Orthodox or Gnostic, there is
      > not a single place, in ANY
      > "Gospel" that even alludes to
      > a marriage or "romantic"
      > relationship between Jesus
      > and Mary. The writings of Paul,
      > the "Gospel" of Peter, "Gospel"
      > of Thomas, "Gospel" of Philip
      > (cited by Teabing), "Gospel" of
      > the Egyptians . . . not even the
      > "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene
      > suggests the existence of this
      > secret love of Jesus (Bart
      > Erhman has a very good discussion
      > on this in his Truth and Fiction in
      > The Da Vinci Code, pp. 141-162.
      > Erhman is a "happy agnostic" on
      > the subject of religion so I find
      > his writing especially interesting
      > though I disagree with him on
      > many details as well).

      > 1) Jesus was not thought of as
      > "divine" until the infamous
      > Council of Nicaea. As Teabag,
      > I mean Teabing says

      >> "My dear,' Teabing declared,
      >> 'until that moment in history,
      >> Jesus was viewed by His
      >> followers as a mortal prophet
      >> . . . a great and powerful man,
      >> but a man nontheless.

      >> A mortal.
      >> Not the Son of God?
      >> Right,' Teabing said, 'Jesus'
      >> establishment as 'the Son
      >> of God' was officially proposed
      >> and voted on by the Council of
      >> Nicaea." (DaVinci Code, p.233)

      > Brown finds himself in some
      > serious self-contradictory speaking
      > through Teabag. How do we explain
      > the mere existence of the Gospels
      > (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that
      > "won" at Nicaea if no one thought
      > of Jesus as divine before 325?

      > In those Gospels, all of which date
      > to the First Century, Christians
      > already were calling Jesus God.
      > What of the writings of Paul?

      > He clearly thought of Jesus as
      > divine. And as we have seen the
      > Gnostic Gospels themselves (the
      > ones supposedly suppressed by
      > Constantine) affirm the deity of
      > Christ (their issue is that the
      > humanness of Jesus is cast aside . . .
      > despite the claim of Teabag,
      > I mean Teabing).

      > This, in my view, is truly Dan
      > Brown's biggest "error" of all!


      FWIW!

      Interesting!

      No, I haven't read the book or seen the movie.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.