The Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code

Im sure you all have read the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Its a fantastic book, but its only fiction. For more serious research try Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Micheal Baigent. Most of his work has been refuted, ironically most of the criticsm comes from the Vatican, but his theories give you something to think about. In the Da Vinci Code itself Brown gives a bibliography of the books his character uses as fact, those are actual books and I reccommend them all.

Original Raider said:

Most of his work has been refuted, ironically most of the criticsm comes from the Vatican, but his theories give you something to think about.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown has been refuted, or Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Micheal Baigent? I've been considering reading HB,HG for some time now, and would love to know what you thought of it. By the way, I wouldn't put much stock into what the Vatican refutes.

HB, HG and other scholarly study of the Holy Grail has been refuted time and again by the Vatican. Which makes perfect sense because the theory those books present refutes Chrisitian Dogma. Da Vinci Code has been ignored by the Vatican but the cult featured in the book, Opus Dei, has categorically denied everything in the story. For more information including Church reactions check out these sites:

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/The-Da-Vinci-Code.htm

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5342&longdesc

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep5ddd.htm

There are at least a half-dozen books written by Protestant as well as Catholic scholars that de-bunk The Da Vinci Code. It's a good read, but uses unreliable theology.

Pilot said:

There are at least a half-dozen books written by Protestant as well as Catholic scholars that de-bunk The Da Vinci Code. It's a good read, but uses unreliable theology.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the theory is sound its the evidence thats lacking. I studied Art History in Florence, Italy for about a year and the processes desribed in the Da Vinci Code are true. Artisits of the time did hide subliminal messages in their religious artwork to convey a different meaning. Read the part in the book about Da Vinci's Last Supper piece, thats all true. Botticelli's Birth of Venus is the same. And the secret societies did exist back then but due to no written records exisiting to account for them research is hard.

Pilot said:

...uses unreliable theology...

Click to expand...

Pilot means that if you subscribe to the theroy that Christ was married to the "Holy Grail" your theology will most likely be dramaticly diminished, and contrary to most sects of Western Religions.

Most of the Da Vinci Code is complete nonsense. It takes good facts and good conspiracies and turns them into a story - but the specifics are complete bunk, dumbed down entertainment. It is good entertainment at that though. But I couldn't bear that one he wrote about cryptology, it just blatantly gets the facts wrong over and over.

Also, in general Theology is very unreliable. By the definition of faith it is unreliable.

I think that Brown was trying to write an entertaining novel (and make himself some money doing it) if so he seems to have succeeded.