Posted on 05/28/2006 11:29:54 AM PDT by fgoodwin
All these posts about the film have convinced me to go see it tomorrow.
And I usually don't go to the movies.
I suffered through two and a half hours yesterday of this incredibly stupid piece of balderdash. Anyone who has the faintest knowledge of the New Testament, Church history or art history would not be able to take this over the top story seriously. Unfortunately, there will be many, probably who have a beef with the Catholic Church to begin with, who will embrace the film's false depiction of history and its cardboard caricature of the Catholic Church. As anti-Catholic propaganda, it is so crude and unbelievable, just like old Soviet propaganda films by Eizenstadt, or stories about the Jews' killing children. The Church has apparently been spending 2000 years killing off people to protect the "secret" that Mary Magdalene is the true God-man, not Jesus Christ. The Church has spent 2,000 years persecuting women to cover up the "sacred feminine" (odd how the veneration of Our Lady is not mentioned, particularly as that is something anti-Catholics usually use against us).
The movies has it that supposedly the canon of the Bible was imposed by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, even though it was adopted earlier at the Council of Carthage which was approved by the Pope as the result of a process of discernment and sifting through books included in various local canons based on the criteria of apostolicity and antiquity. Contrary to the movie, Constantine did not declare Jesus the Son of God at Nicaea. Christ had been called the Son of God at least since the time of Paul, as his epistles attest. Arians would not have disputed that Christ was the Son of God, but just that He was not God but a lesser divine being. Nicaea clarified the doctrine of the Trinity as being three persons in one substance. These ideas are present in scripture, but the authoritative teaching office of the Church clarified exactly what the Scriptures meant on the nature of God. One has to understand the struggle with the Arian heresy and the clarification of doctrine at Nicaea in the context of the whole notion of apostolic teaching and the authoritative teaching office of the apostles and their successors, the bishops in union with the successor of Peter, the pope. Paul in his epistles already evinces a desire to preserve the pure apostolic teaching and warns of false teachers who will teach something different than what he preached from the beginning. This desire to preserve and clarify the orthodox apostolic faith is behind all the struggles with the early heresies.
And the idea of Sir Isaac Newton being persecuted by the evil Catholic Church despite the fact that practicing Catholicism was illegal in England of Sir Isaac's day is just one of the many preposterous falsehoods in this "fiction" that Brown claims is based on a factual basis. Going off to church this morning, I told a non-Catholic relative that I'm going off to assassination school, the ridiculous propaganda is so crude. In sum, I don't think the movie is a challenge to the faith of anyone who knows something about our faith, but it will be a danger to those who don't know anything and who will be inclined to think that this "novel" is based on a true historical background, when it is not.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Nobody's asked anyone to take it seriously. That's why its called fiction.
Then why are we seeing letters to the editor and the like defending its historicity or the possibility thereof? Case in point, this exchange with Robert Ebert posted on Amy Welborn:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/05/welcome_to_my_w.html
Roger Ebert hears from the Code-philes.
Q. Why did you refer to the novel The Da Vinci Code as a "preposterous" work of fiction, yet fail to label the Bible as such? Do you honestly believe the Bible is a work of non-fiction? Aren't parts of the Bible "preposterous"? If your devotion to institutionalized religion colors your ability to write logically, perhaps you should recuse yourself from reviewing films that require an unbiased view.
Fred Schultz, Dallas
A. The job of a critic is to express an opinion. If critics recused themselves from reviewing anything on which they held an opinion, there would be no criticism. The purpose of my review of "The Da Vinci Code" was not to review the Bible but to review the film adaptation of a novel.
Even doing that made some readers unhappy. Here is Lara Coates of Kennewick, Wash.: "Maybe you should stick to reviewing the movie instead of reviewing and insulting people who might entertain the ideas that Dan Brown suggests. Although Brown's suggestions may be preposterous, as you suggest, there is no way for anyone to know exactly what happened during Jesus' time. I guarantee you that I am of 'sound mind' even though I question the validity of the Bible."
Ebert again: Some of the material on which Brown's book is based did not originate in the time of Jesus, but is a French forgery from the 1950s. "60 Minutes" did a segment about that.
Thanks to my son, David, for passing that along.
This, "the Bible is just as preposterous as DVC" is pretty frequently voiced and not just by Ian McKellan. You've probably heard it as often as I have. Early on, I got this note from Laura Miller of Salon, a response to something I had sent her:
Personally, I can't understand why some people's faith seems to be so shaken by this sort of thing; if you're willing to believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, why is it so hard to believe that he never got married or had sex, even though most Jewish guys his age did? It seems quixotic to bring reason and evidentiary methods into the matter at so late a stage.
(Miller, is of course, the author of the excellent "Da Vinci Crock" piece to which I've linked early and often - invaluable for passing on to folks who won't dialogue with you about DVC because you, of course, are "blinded by faith." But let's just say I'd disagree with her on this one. It would be hard to figure out where to start.
"All these posts about the film have convinced me to go see it tomorrow.
And I usually don't go to the movies."
Good for you! It's a free country, for now at least.
I'll just keep complaining that it is a lousy book and it insults my beliefs.
See...we are both happy.
Ya so? I believe the NT is just as preposterous as the DVC. But that wasn't my point. Thee are those taking it seriously and those that don't. It was meant to be fiction period.
Author Dan Brown states in an online FAQ: "...the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss" . On the novel's first page one reads: "FACT:.... All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In an interview for WCVB-TV's "Chronicle" with Mary Richardson, Dan Brown says: "When I started researching Da Vinci Code I really was skeptical, and I expected on some level to disprove all of this history that's unearthed in the books. But after three trips to Paris, and a lot of interviews, I became a believer."
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.
BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.
The Priory of Sion, a 1950's hoax, is not a real organization. Dan Brown's description of Westminster Abbey, as one example, is riddled with errors, as NT Wright describes here:
http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/davincicode.asp
And in what you printed, Dan Brown admits that he believes the theories he puts in his book, despite their lack of any factual evidence, and obviously he wants his readers to believe them as well, and uses objectively false statements of history to try and accomplish this. His descriptions of history, as with the Council of Nicaea and Sir Isaac Newton, are objectively false as have been shown by many.
I believe alot of things to be true that may or may not stand the test of time. The problem is you apparently
think others are too stupid to think for themselves.
Do not attribute motives to other Freepers or attempt to read their minds.
I believe that to be his motive. That truth may or may not stand the test of time. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Nevertheless I have established the guideline to discourage flame wars.
Fair enough. I'll frame it instead in the form of a question. "Is it that you think others are too stupid to think for themselves?"
That works for me. Thanks.
Congratulations! You just publicly admitted being completely out of touch with reality. It's fiction! It's amazing how many psychotics are out there, and disappointing that so many are supposedly conservative.
Wow. A conservative who will pay $9 to see a liberal attack on Christianity just because another conservative hated it. You must lead a very sad, joyless life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.