The Da Vinci Code. Fiction about fiction?

[Britisocialist]

This is mainly based on something my dad said "The Da Vinci Code is fiction about fiction. Therefore its true."

I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. Does anyone else?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Your dad is basically saying that the whole Christian faith and the stories about Jesus are fiction, therefore he says that the DaVinci Code is a fictional story about another fictional story.

[Irishman]

Since the subject matter of the book is based on fiction, in the fictitious world of the bible, the davinci code is true. WWhat he is saying, is people can add onto the bible at any time, and people are making such a big deal about the D.C. getting facts wrong, but the bible isn't even based on facts.

Its like if someone added another book to the lord of the rings series, it is obviously not real life, but it is true in Tolkien's world.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

people are making such a big deal about the D.C. getting facts wrong, but the bible isn't even based on facts.

As an atheist myself, the only claim in the book that this would apply to would be the claim that Jesus was simply a man. All the rest of the novel's whacky claims are supposedly based on facts and Brown manages to get these 'facts' spectacularly wrong.

He claims Christians didn't believe Jesus was God until 325 AD. That's plain wrong.

He claims the Bible was compiled for political reasons and the compiling was done by the Emperor Constantine. Both wrong.

He claims the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Christian records. Wildy and hilariously wrong.

He claims Jesus' life was “recorded by thousands of followers across the land.” Completely wrong.

He claims eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament." Wrong again.

He claims the Nag Hammadi gospels depict 'a very human Jesus'. Totally wrong.

He claims all Jewish rabbis had to get married. Wrong.

He claims Mary Magdalene was of the royal house of Benjamin. Wrong.

He claims the 'Q' document was written by Jesus and is somehow being suppressed by the Vatican. So wrong it's funny.

He claims the Knights Templar were suppressed on the orders of the Pope. Wrong.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This clueless clown barely manages to write a single page without managing another historical howler.

[Turnus]

This clueless clown barely manages to write a single page without managing another historical howler.

Indeed. In fact I went to see the movie as a comedy due to the over-the-top story and ridiculous inaccuracies. Especially funny was his whole idea of men and women living as equals under the 'pagans', which was then turned around by the evil Christians, who purposefully oppressed women and covered up their (supposedly enormous) role in the religion. It seems that he completely forgot about Mary mother of God and the female saints, as if Mary Magdalene was the only female figure in Christianity...

[Irishman]

He claims the Bible was compiled for political reasons and the compiling was done by the Emperor Constantine. Both wrong.

There were political reasons along with spiritual reasons, on which books to include or not. There were political purposes for the crusaders.

He claims eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament." Wrong again.

A simple overstatement, not a complete lie. Many gospels were considered.

He claims all Jewish rabbis had to get married

They were STRONGLY encouraged.

He claims the Knights Templar were suppressed on the orders of the Pope

They were. The Knights Templar were the most rich and powerful order on the planet, and they had the resources to influence papal decisions. The pope (Clement) excommunicated the members of the order and had its leaders killed. This was, of course, propagated by King Phillip of France, but you need to get your facts straight, they were.

He claims the 'Q' document was written by Jesus and is somehow being suppressed by the Vatican. So wrong it's funny.

A question here, does he claim that the document was written by jesus? cause these gospels are collections of sayings from jesus. Plus, all gnostic gospels are either denied or banned by the church, so yes it is being suppressed.

He claims the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Christian records. Wildy and hilariously wrong.

Some scholars argue that portions of the dead sea scrolls contain part of the gospel of mark in them. This would make them the earliest known records of christs divinity (I am not speaking of census records of course because they do not prove religious thought).

He claims Christians didn't believe Jesus was God until 325 AD.

The original followers of Christ thought he was the divine son of god, not god himself. This belief did come later, if it was 325 I cannot tell you.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This clueless clown barely manages to write a single page without managing another historical howler.

And as I have just shown, most of your assertations are either wrong or misguided. Look at all of the things that I have said, most of Brown's assertations can be seen as legitamite if looked at in the right light. I realize he probably does have an insane ammount of innaccuracies, but do not be so hasty to judge my friend, as most of the statements you cited are defendable.

EDIT-

It seems that he completely forgot about Mary mother of God and the female saints, as if Mary Magdalene was the only female figure in Christianity...

But maybe he didn't forget about the whole, women can't be priests and god is masculine. That is sexist my friend.

[Turnus]

But maybe he didn't forget about the whole, women can't be priests and god is masculine. That is sexist my friend.

Indeed, but I was pointing out that he left things out to strengthen his weak argument (not that Christianity itself does not contain certain misogynist sentiments). If Mary Magdalene was the only feminine aspect of Christianity and that was covered up (as Dan Brown argues), then that would mean that the entire feminine side (which was supposedly so central to Christianity) would have been covered up also. This coupled with his idea of men and women being equal before Christianity appeared shows that Christianity is the cause of such sexism (which is entirely incorrect).

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

He claims the Bible was compiled for political reasons and the compiling was done by the Emperor Constantine. Both wrong.

There were political reasons along with spiritual reasons, on which books to include or not.

Considering the period in which the canon of the scriptures was being debated and a consensus was being reached was one in which Christianity was a marginal, underground and persecuted religious sect with no political power and few political objectives other than survival, I'd be interested to hear what these supposed 'political reasons' were.

He claims eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament." Wrong again.

A simple overstatement, not a complete lie. Many gospels were considered.

I'm quite aware of that. And I said it was an error, not that it was a 'lie'. We have copies of, references to and fragments of about 18-20 gospels dating from the First to the Third Centuries - the other 60 suggested by this statement of Teabing's simply do not exist and there is no evidence for them at all. Even taking into account various the 'Acts' and Epistles (as opposed to 'gospels' per se) that were not included in the New Testament, the count is still nowhere near 'eighty'. Brown's figure of '(m)ore than eighty gospels' is flatly wrong.

He claims all Jewish rabbis had to get married.

They were STRONGLY encouraged.

That's not what Brown claims.

He claims the Knights Templar were suppressed on the orders of the Pope

They were. The Knights Templar were the most rich and powerful order on the planet, and they had the resources to influence papal decisions. The pope (Clement) excommunicated the members of the order and had its leaders killed. This was, of course, propagated by King Phillip of France, but you need to get your facts straight, they were.

I've got my facts quite straight thanks. Brown depicts a total fantasy scenario whereby Clement sends 'secret orders' to his 'armies across Europe' to suppress the Templars on account of 'secret knowledge' they supposedly had. This is nothing like what actually happened and none of this fantasy is supported by the evidence.

He claims the 'Q' document was written by Jesus and is somehow being suppressed by the Vatican. So wrong it's funny.

A question here, does he claim that the document was written by jesus? cause these gospels are collections of sayings from jesus.

Yes, he does:

Also rumored to be part of the treasure is the legendary "Q" Document - a manuscript that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly, it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in His own hand."

"Writings by Christ Himself?"

"Of course," Teabing said. "Why wouldn't Jesus have kept a chronicle of His ministry? Most people did in those days.
(The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 60, p. 256)

This is nonsense. No scholar claims 'Q' was 'possibly written in His own hand'. 'Q' simply consists of sayings attributed to Jesus.

Plus, all gnostic gospels are either denied or banned by the church, so yes it is being suppressed.

'Q' isn't a 'Gnostic' work. And if 'the Vatican' is still trying to 'suppress' the Gnostic texts (which don't include 'Q') then it's doing a pretty poor job. I bought my copy of James M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library in English in a Catholic bookshop.

He claims the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Christian records. Wildy and hilariously wrong.

Some scholars argue that portions of the dead sea scrolls contain part of the gospel of mark in them. This would make them the earliest known records of christs divinity (I am not speaking of census records of course because they do not prove religious thought).

Few scholars agree that those fragments are actually from Mark. And that's not what Brown claims anyway - he maintains that all the DSS are Christian works, which is utterly wrong.

He claims Christians didn't believe Jesus was God until 325 AD.

The original followers of Christ thought he was the divine son of god, not god himself. This belief did come later, if it was 325 I cannot tell you.

I can tell you then - it didn't. Wrong again, Dan Brown.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This clueless clown barely manages to write a single page without managing another historical howler.

And as I have just shown, most of your assertations are either wrong or misguided. Look at all of the things that I have said, most of Brown's assertations can be seen as legitamite if looked at in the right light. I realize he probably does have an insane ammount of innaccuracies, but do not be so hasty to judge my friend, as most of the statements you cited are defendable.

I'll give you points for trying, but none of your defences stand up to scrutiny. Brown is either totally clueless or he's an unscrupulous liar. Take your pick.

[Zenith Darksea]

but the bible isn't even based on facts.

Even a reasoning atheist couldn't possibly uphold that statement.

[Gwendylyn]

This is mainly based on something my dad said "The Da Vinci Code is fiction about fiction. Therefore its true."

I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. Does anyone else?

No, I don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion. It is the same thing as saying that false conclusions based on false data are completely true.

Sounds like something you dad said off the top of his head, not as a philosophical questions meant for greater debate.

[Britisocialist]

Sounds like something you dad said off the top of his head, not as a philosophical questions meant for greater debate.

Probably.

Simple mathematics, m'boy. Negative x Negative = Positive.
It's a math joke.

But he's right in the statement that The Da Vinci Code is fiction of fiction. That's a good'un.

Ah. I see. Very clever

[Irishman]

Even a reasoning atheist couldn't possibly uphold that statement.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The myth itself is based on facts(as all myths are), Jesus did exist but the divinity and the religion is where the fiction comes in. That is based on imagination and dogma, not fact or evidence.

[MaximiIian]

This is mainly based on something my dad said "The Da Vinci Code is fiction about fiction. Therefore its true."

I don't see how you could come to that conclusion. Does anyone else?

Simple mathematics, m'boy. Negative x Negative = Positive.
It's a math joke.

But he's right in the statement that The Da Vinci Code is fiction of fiction. That's a good'un.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Hapsburg, you're right. Its maths.

Negative + Negative = NEGATIVE.

[MaximiIian]

Hapsburg, you're right. Its maths.

Negative + Negative = NEGATIVE.

Ah but, "fiction of fiction" implies multiplication. For example: 20% of $1.00, is done in a calulator as: 0.20 x 1.00 = 0.20. Thus, "fiction of fiction" would be done mathematically as a multiplication problem. Since nonfiction = real = truth = positive, and fiction = not-real = false = negative, ficiton x fiction would be a negative x negative problem, equalling a positive.

To note, I think both TDVC and the bible are fictional. I'm just pointing out the comedy in the mathematics of it.

[Gaidin]

The difference between conspiracy theory and thriller: the thriller is published as fiction, the conspiracy theory as non-fiction.

Both need to mess with history to be believable. Both need to leave history relatively untouched to be believable. The thriller is essentially an alternate universe that has the same general timeline and historic figures. Often it is only one key event that makes it the thriller(especially for political thrillers), in this case it would be council where the Bible was canonized(whose proper name escapes me at the moment). The timeline of the history leading up to the story(for both Theories and Thrillers) is often a big stretch and subtly connected. Not subtle as in clever, but subtle as in barely there if you really think about it.

What is the difference? For the theories we(defined as the body of readers) tend to go, 'Wow that was stupid!'. For the thrillers we tend to go, 'Wow that was a fun read!'. It doesnt matter that there are nuts that subscribe to both the theories and the thrillers as true. That is irrelevant and happens with even the most out of this world books(see Star Wars and the Wheel of Time for example). What matters is the classification and what it means to the value of the story as a whole, as well as its legitimacy.

Now let's ask ourselves: what is the DaVinci Code published as? Fiction? Right? Couldn't be...not with the way ThiudareiksGunthigg responds like a broken record in every thread(sorry to target you...but you do).

Lets think on that for a little bit.

Fiction.

[Turnus]

Now let's ask ourselves: what is the DaVinci Code published as? Fiction? Right? Couldn't be...not with the way ThiudareiksGunthigg responds like a broken record in every thread(sorry to target you...but you do).

I'd agree with you if Dan Brown hadn't said it was historically accurate.

[Gaidin]

I'd agree with you if Dan Brown hadn't said it was historically accurate.

I'll quote myself if you don't mind.

That is irrelevant and happens with even the most out of this world books(see Star Wars and the Wheel of Time for example). What matters is the classification and what it means to the value of the story as a whole, as well as its legitimacy.

This INCLUDES the author. Especially the author.

[Turnus]

This INCLUDES the author. Especially the author.

It is classed as fiction because Dan Brown admits that the actual story, characters etc. are fictional, but says that the history described in it is accurate. What ThiudareiksGunthigg and others are arguing about is this (supposed) history in the Da Vinci Code, NOT the established fictional aspects.

[Gaidin]

It is classed as fiction because Dan Brown admits that the actual story, characters etc. are fictional, but says that the history described in it is accurate. What ThiudareiksGunthigg and others are arguing about is this (supposed) history in the Da Vinci Code, NOT the established fictional aspects.

The catch to all this bs over a fictional book with which the author claims legit history is two-fold. 1 - He's(Brown) self-defeating in the fact that he claims the core timeline of a fictional thriller as true history. Dan Brown needs to get published in a recognized research publication(which we all KNOW will never happen). 2 - Those attacking him are self-defeating(including the historians) because they're giving a fictional core timeline enough legitimacy to debunk it. The attackers need to sit there and let him make a fool of himself UNTIL a legitimate research publication has balls big enough and brains small enough to publish a research paper written by him over this.

It's one thing to debunk a conspiracy theory as untrue. It's totally another to do the same to a fictional thriller.