When Petra came, she brought along a book with her that she seemed to not be able to put down. She read consistantly turning page after page. I kept asking her, “A good book?” And she would sort of shrug and say it was OK.

After a few times of watching her really read the book I told her, “I am not convinced the book is only OK, you really seem to be reading it steady.”
She then said the writer was really good at writing a story.

While she was here I had work piling up, but when she finished with the book she asked,” Would you like me to leave it here for you to read?” And I told her if I ever got the time, yes I would like to.

I put the book on the shelf, and worked piled up even more, and I never got to touch it. Turns out the book was the very popular, “DaVinci Code” everyone had been talking about of late.

Then while Enric came, he said he had to do a report on the DaVinci Code, and was I familiar with it. I told him no, but that I had a copy of it, compliments of Petra. I told him he was welcome to borrow it for school, but he had to send me a copy of his report.

So, fresh from Northland Baptist Bible College, here is Enric’s take on The DaVinci Code:

The Da Vinci Code

Enric Lopez

This is in no way a total critique of the Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code . This is only an attempt at covering some of the issues that surround doctrine. There is much more study that could be done as it relates to the historical issues that Brown raises.

I. Attacks on the Word of God.

A. “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.” The Bible is a product of man. (Brown 312)

B. It was produced by man to have a historical record.

C. It has evolved through countless translations and revisions; therefore…

D. History has never had the word of God. There has never been a clear rendition of it.

E. Problems:

1. Perhaps the Word didn’t fall from the clouds. What Brown ignores is that God spoke and interacted with his choice servants. He spoke to and through the prophets in the Old Testament.

2. II. Timothy 3:16 says that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” That sounds like our Bible is directly from God

3. To say that the Word has evolved through the ages is simply a fallacy. Yes there have been countless translations, but how else are people supposed to understand what the Bible says and teaches? The Bible remains unchanged through the centuries.

II. Skewed view of Constantine and surrounding History

A. The book declares that there were 80 gospels written about the life of Jesus.

B. We are told that Constantine was on a power trip to get his empire under control. The Christians were growing to sizable numbers to the point where they were warring against the pagans (which Constantine was one.) Therefore, as a business move, Constantine decided to unify the empire under the name of Christianity so Rome wouldn’t be torn in two. Problems so far are…

1. There weren’t more than 40 gospels written by the time of Constantine. Most of which were the Coptic Gospels which were written in the 3rd century.

2. The book totally leaves out the historical fact on Constantine’s claim of seeing the chi and rho in the sky where he claims that he was told to conquer under this sign. It is obvious to the Christian that this revelation to Constantine was a hoax of some sort. My point though is not to defend Constantine in this way, but to explain what Brown’s book says about this time in history. So, with that it mind, history declares that Constantine was making this move sincerely, even if he was misled

3. There are no records of the Christians and pagans warring against each other. Unless of course, Brown is referring to the vicious onslaught that the Roman government had ensued to systematically exterminate the believers (which was failing miserably). Brown doesn’t specify clearly what he is talking about in this point. But whatever he was speaking about, I don’t believe the conflict was going to rip the empire in two. Throughout the entire novel the reader can find these twists in history so the story can fit what Brown is trying to get across.

(To give brown some credit. The infiltration of pagan symbols entering into Catholicism is probably true.) Now on to the next twist of history and doctrine

C. Council of Nicaea: According to Brown, Constantine held the Council of Nicaea in order to strengthen his new Christian belief system. Among the issues that were being dealt with, the divinity of Jesus was one or them. Brown then states that until the Council was held, Jesus was only viewed as a mere man. A prophet, and great teacher, but not divine. Constantine did this to strengthen his power and the power of the church/government. Brown states that by making Jesus God, the foundation for all beliefs and decisions made, are backed up by a deity, making it infallible. To question the Roman empire is to question God Himself. “It was all about power,” Teabing continued, “Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of and state. Many scholars claim that the early church literally Jesus from his original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power.” (Brown 316) He then states that all educated Christians know the history of their faith. The facts are that Jesus influenced millions to better lives. And Constantine took advantage of His amazing influence and used it for his own gain.

D. Brown claims that the other main purpose of the Council was to get rid of all the writings on Jesus that focused on His human aspects, or, the Gnostic Gospels. By doing this, Constantine could rewrite the history books, and set his plan in motion.

E. The conclusion to these statements is that all we were taught about Jesus is false.

F. Problems…

1. The purpose of the Council was not a result of Constantine’s power trip (which as discussed earlier, was not his intentions). It was held because of the rise of Arian heresy which, among other things, stated that Jesus was begotten of the Father, therefore had a beginning and was not God. So, the purpose was to refute this heresy, not make up doctrine.

2. The thought that says Jesus’ followers never believed He was God is absurd. Jn. 1:1, Jn. 10:30. When Thomas was doubtful, and said that the only way he would believe that Jesus rose from the dead was to see Him, and see the scars from the crucifixion. When Jesus showed the scars to him he said, “ My Lord and my God.” ( Jn. 20:24-28). All the disciples believed that Christ was the Messiah, God incarnate. All the Church Fathers believed that Christ was God. He wasn’t declared divine by a vote. If Jesus wasn’t God, then who gave him the authority to do what He did? And why would Christians die a martyr’s death for 2 centuries before Christianity would be legalized? It doesn’t make sense.

3. Without saying directly, Brown denies the deity of Christ.

a. By saying that His followers looked at Him as a good teacher and prophet.

b. By saying that he was looked at this way until the Council of Nicaea voted that he was divine… therefore

c. Jesus is not God. If no one viewed Him as God, and He had to be voted divine by a council, then that is the conclusion.

4. As far as the Gnostic gospels being thrown out so there would be no record of Jesus’ humanity; it’s ludicrous. The topic of the Gnostic Gospels wasn’t even part of the Council of Nicaea.. As I said before, the council was held as the result of Arian heresy It wasn’t debated then. The church Fathers had already rejected the Gnostic Gospels. They were written after the apostles walked the earth so their origin is unknown. The Gnostic Gospels were proven as false and heretical.

III. Skewed view of Jesus and His relationship with Mary Magdalene

A. Mary is viewed in the book as the Holy Grail “San greal”= Holy (Royal) Blood is supposed to be coded into the word “Sang Real”

1. Mary is from the Royal line of Benjamin and has a rite to the throne.

2. Not the possessed harlot that the Bible says that she is. That was put there by Constantine to erase her true history.

B. Jesus is her companion in the Da Vinci Code, which he says means wife.

1. Apparently Jesus’ had an agenda while he was on earth. Since Mary was of the tribe of Judah, marrying her would make a union of two royal lines. He wanted to form a political union to become king and she the queen.

2. Jesus was going to begin his church with Mary, and not the disciples as we were deceived.

3. Jesus also in marrying Mary, had children and began a Royal/Divine bloodline of whom is one of Brown’s characters in the book.

4. The people who know the “true” history, believe that Mary is the Holy Grail or the Divine Feminine. Basically, Jesus made Mary divine by giving her divinity in her womb. In the book, she is worshipped by the people who know the “truth” in the form of goddess worship.

C. The only two sources that Brown actually uses for this claim are…

(Brown altered these two texts. For the gospel of Mary so it would flow better. But for the Gospel of Philip, he altered completely; the following will show what the text really says)

1. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene:

“Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?… Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying any other rule of other law beyond what the Savior said.”

2. The Gospel of Philip:

“And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene […loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and used to ] kiss her [often] on her […]. The rest of the disciples… They said to him ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ The Savoir answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her?’”

D. Problems. The reality is that Brown rewrote the history books

1. Mary Magdalene’s genealogy is non-existent. We don’t know where she comes from. There is no record in the Biblical account. There is no historical account. Period.

2. Jesus never started His church with Mary Magdalene.

3. There is no record that Jesus had any type relationship with the woman.

4. The list could go on. The bottom line is that most of these concoctions are straight from Brown’s head. He meshes much of his beliefs from a few books that were written in the 1980s: The Gnostic Gospels; The Templar Revelation; Holy Blood, Holy Grail; The Goddess in the Gospels, And others.

5. I realize that we don’t hold to the Gnostic gospels as inspired. But I thought that it was interesting that these are the only two sources that the author uses to back up what he claims. The only other thing that the book declares is that the marriage between Mary and Jesus is a matter of historical record. Which historical record? He doesn’t say.

Conclusion: To conclude, I would like to point out an ironic conflict in what Brown says. If Jesus is not God, then what right does Christ have in making declarations of how the church should start. Therefore, this logic forces us to realize that if Christ is not God, then Mary Magdalene cannot be divine either. By taking away the foundation or premise, Brown takes away his result.