The DaVinci Code (The concept, not the movie or book)

[Sir Toose]

Does this topic at all interest you? I think it's fascinating with all of its secret societies, its lies, truths and intrigue.

What is also fascinating to me is how quickly people will quote the book as a factual account, not Langdon and Co., mind you, but that DaVinci without a doubt had the motivation to expose the 'biggest secret of all' through his art.

I'm assuming that if you've clicked here you are up to speed on the general idea of the book? If not, the premise is that the Holy Grail as an actual cup or chalise is not really the Holy Grail. This idea has been around long before Brown's foray into the topic, and deals with the idea that Christ impregnated someone (lots of discussion there) and that the Grail is really a human with the Christ bloodline.

Plausible? Possible? Likely? Bunk?

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I think Dan Brown loves to look into history and then go off on an imaginative riff of storytelling without any heed to presenting fact. I just watched a film "debunking" the history in another of his books, Angels and Demons and I was LMAO at these degree'd scholars working so hard to disprove a work that never claimed to be history. It would be a bit like making a film where we debunk the physics behind throwing a little metal ring into a volcano and causing it to erupt. That said, as a way of piquing interest in history, Brown is a champ. I've run to Google several times during the reading of Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code, to see what the artworks and archeitecture mentioned really look like. His presentation of secret societies seems to be splashily imagined, but based on real groups.

Is it plausible that Jesus Christ impregnated someone? I don't know why not. We certainly don't know everything about him, and like many important historical figures, his personal life is rightly relegated to the dark.

There are just so many layers in Brown's fiction where something may or may not be true, you know? Did Jesus have a wife and progeny? Impossible to rule out or verify. Did DaVinci believe that Jesus had a wife and progeny? Also pretty impossible to verify, because there really was major squelchification of any non-catholic religion going on. I can tell you this: there IS symbolism in churchyards that is associated with underground societies and religions.

[NimChimpsky]

The idea that Christ sired a youngling is not far-fetched, though little (and by little, I mean zero) evidence to exists to support this; however, in all fairness, little evidence exists to prove much of anything about Jesus.

However, the idea that DaVinci coded stuff into his paintings, and that the arrangement of disciples makes an 'M' or some horse**** is freaking ludicrous. Not Ludacris, mind you; he's a hip-hop artist.

Oh, and Rent was terrible.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Like everything, there can be several interpretations and different views, I find it intresting that some people have gone to great lengths to debunk Dan Brown instead of rubbishing the book as a mere work of fiction. It could be argued that the bible itself is somewhat creative and open to interpretation.
I like the fact that the Da Vinci Code opens up other possibilities other than what we are to believe is the definite truth about Jesus, I'm not religious at all, so I'm very open to alternative theories and explanations.
I can also believe that the Da Vinci Code is pure fiction, but I am willing to keep an open mind, similar to my feelings about Nostrodamus and his writtings it's all about individual perception and beliefs.

[Sir Toose]

The idea that Christ sired a youngling is not far-fetched, though little (and by little, I mean zero) evidence to exists to support this; however, in all fairness, little evidence exists to prove much of anything about Jesus.

However, the idea that DaVinci coded stuff into his paintings, and that the arrangement of disciples makes an 'M' or some horse**** is freaking ludicrous. Not Ludacris, mind you; he's a hip-hop artist.

Oh, and Rent was terrible.


But he is ludicrous, is Ludacris.

[NimChimpsky]

I am willing to keep an open mind, similar to my feelings about Nostrodamus and his writtings it's all about individual perception and beliefs.

I'm sorry, but keeping an 'open mind' in regards to the prophecies of Nostradamus is like keeping an open mind about Rorschach tests.

Here's my vision of the future. I can see it clearly. Keep an open mind, and maybe the mysteries of the universe will coalesce for you.

In the great year, a man, or a woman,
will be beset by lions of fire,
and those who see this will know that it happened.

[Darth Stujitzu]

I'm sorry, but keeping an 'open mind' in regards to the prophecies of Nostradamus is like keeping an open mind about Rorschach tests.

Here's my vision of the future. I can see it clearly. Keep an open mind, and maybe the mysteries of the universe will coalesce for you.

In the great year, a man, or a woman,
will be beset by lions of fire,
and those who see this will know that it happened.


Sorry, perhaps I didn't phrase myself clearly.
By open mind I mean I'm not willing to totally rule out his writtings as the work of a complete madman, I have heard so many different interpretations, but at the same time I believe that certain people have misinterpreted his writtings to validate them.
Without Nostradamus being here to clearly explain what he meant with regards to his visions his work will always be open to different interpretations and as such can we clearly rule out or validate them completely?
I find it intresting, and have similar feelings towards the Da Vinci Code and even the bible, who can really say what the truth is in regards to these writtings with complete authority.
Over the course of history I'm sure the bible has changed many times, and perhaps certain stories have been lost and other added, I guess we'll never know.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

In the great year, a man, or a woman,
will be beset by lions of fire,
and those who see this will know that it happened.



Anyway(s), you're totally mistaken about artists not working subsersive symbolism into their art. Whether DaVinci was saying what Brown claims or not, there is CERTAINLY symbolism in art, and it's often subversive in religious art. I froze off important body parts in England last February looking at them.

Lastly: do you have some sort of clarion that goes off when someone starts talking about this book??!

[Tea Barking]

Theres was a programe on this yesterday, the picture of the lastsupper there was a feminine looking john next to jesus which some say is the woman jesus shagged.
Then they got an expert's oppinion of the painting and his conclusion was that davinci was a poof.
Neither argument convinced me.

[Piddzilla]

I'm sure Jesus was much more human than lots of people want to believe. He probably had his share of booze and women and like Bergman kiddies all over the place.

[adidasss]

wow.....just wow.....at everything in this thread really.....

[Mrs. Darcy]

Most men married back then, and while Jesus wasn't an average man, he was playing to the masses. Why else travel earth as a man? He wanted to take that form so people would listen to what he had to say. Is it far fetched to believe that he might have assumed some of the traditional roles for men back then? I don't know why people want to debunk this idea either, it inspires discourse.

The books in the bible were chosen by a council of men that were still trying to control the masses of uneducated people...some say the choices were inspired by God, but maybe, jst maybe, they were just good choices to get people to fear and follow a set of laws that kept everyone in line.

[Twain]

I've been trying to read Angels and Demons and I just have difficulty accepting the existence of a group like the Illuminati. First, nearly everyone was religious at the time they supposedly formed (no Darwin yet to make everyone go "hmmm").

And secondly, skeptics rarely have the passion to be zealots. It's been said that "Creationists have passion without evidence and evolutionists have evidence without passion."

However, a brief look at the turmoil in the world among the monotheisms; Christian, Jew and Muslim; makes one wonder if the Illuminati had a point. :D

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I've been trying to read Angels and Demons and I just have difficulty accepting the existence of a group like the Illuminati. First, nearly everyone was religious at the time they supposedly formed (no Darwin yet to make everyone go "hmmm").
Get thee to an encyclopedia.
See: Copernicus, Galileo... and Illuminati.
Brace yourself, you're in for some shocks. ;)

[Twain]

Get thee to an encyclopedia.
See: Copernicus, Galileo... and Illuminati.
Brace yourself, you're in for some shocks. ;)

Ok, I took your advice and did a little research. Illuminati translates as "enlightened ones" and it's not surprising that many historical groups lay claim to that title. :D

From what I've read on the subject (and I admit it hasn't been a great deal) the "real" Illuminati was formed in Bavaria in the 18th century by Adam Weishaupt. A group of freethinkers in opposition to a conservative regime. This group (which didn't last all that long) is the most similar to Brown's anti-church and anti-Catholic depiction in his book.

While Copernicus and Galileo may have had their problems with the Church, I'm not convinced of any Illuminati connection.

[Yoda]

Is it technically possible? I suppose. Is there a shred of solid evidence to suggest it happened? No. I don't see why the idea is any more intriguining than any other technical possibility someone can dream up. Hey, maybe Tony Blair is actually the illegitimate grandson of Winston Churchill; somebody start a thread!

[Golgot]

We are all Winston Churchill's grandchildren.

(And possibly his grandparents too)

[Revenge of Mr M]

I never read the book yet people are wanting to take me on holiday to Italy or France or somewhere like that to look into the origins of it... where is it set?