Da Vinci Code, Dead Sea Scrolls,

[phatcatholic]

curtins,

when in doubt, peep the reference section

from the "anti-catholicism" entry:

[i]Dan Brown's [b]The Da Vinci Code[/b][/i]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5342"]Dismantling [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=36&art_id=19562"]Book Review: [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=20640"]Gnostics Are Back[/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=20912"][i]Resurrection[/i] vs. [i]DaVinci[/i][/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=21119"]Lies with Wings[/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=21198"]Inventing a Religion of Intolerance[/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=66&art_id=22091"]Explaining the Gullibility of [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=22996"]Pain: [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i] vs. [i]The Passion[/i][/url]
--[url="http://ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZDAVINCI.HTM"]Debunking [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZTRUTDAV.HTM"]The Truth Behind [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=50581"]The Truth Behind [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i]: Carl Olson Analyzes the Controversial, Confusing Best Seller[/url]
--[url="http://catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?article_id=1004&channel_id=1"]The Cardinal and the [i]Code[/i][/url]
--[url="http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/tdvc_abc_ncreg1.html"]Carl Olson on a Prime Time Fiasco: ABC Takes On Jesus, Mary, and Da Vinci[/url]
--Cracking the Anti-Catholic Code: Parts [url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-Part1.htm"][b]One[/b][/url] and [url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm"][b]Two[/b][/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=23630"]Dan Brown and His Books of Renown[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DaVinciCode.htm"]The Da Vinci Code Fraud: Cracked by the Critics[/url]

i hope this helps......pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Guest JeffCR07]

I've given a few talks on the DaVinci code, and on the page before the book starts, he makes what historians call a "fact claim" about all rituals and documents sited in the book. This fact claim lends authority to the conclusions, and so the DaVinci code needs to be approached from a scholarly standpoint. When it all comes down to it, his conclusions are wrong, but let me explain why:

Brown's argument hinges on Two fundamental Points:

1.) The Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not accurate

2.) There are alternate versions of history that can be found in other historical documents/literature

Basically, Brown makes the argument that "history is written by the winners" and that in the early church conflict of "Mary Magdalene vs. Peter" Peter came out the winner. Brown goes on to explain that Christ and MM were actually married, that Christ died and did not Rise Again, and that MM was meant to be the leader of the Church, not Peter.

His Sources: Brown draws almost exclusively from what are known as the "Gnostic Gospels" (they are not real Gospels, they are simply given the name to lend credibility). I have read all of them in depth, and he makes a series of gross generalizations about them. However, lets get on with the scholarly approach

Dealing with Brown Point 1.) The Canonical Gospels are not accurate

If he is true, and "history is written by the winners" then it would not be a stretch to say that the Canonical Gospels would be Peter's "version" of history, or Peter-propoganda.
So, does it:
1.) Portray Mary Magdalene (the enemy) in a negetive light, or erase her positive role?
- No, Mary Magdalene appears three times in the Canonical Gospels. Once when Christ casts out of her 7 demons, and she is made holy. Once when she is noted as being among the women who follow Christ throughout his ministry. And, most importantly, it is Mary Magdalene who is the first to discover the empty tomb, and it is she, Tradition has named, to have been the "apostle to the apostles" with the good news.
2.) Portray Peter and his crew as glorified heroes, exaggerating their accomplishments and minimizing their faults?
- No, it is in the Canonical Gospels that Peter denies Christ three times, that Thomas doubts and that Judas Betrays, and it is in these books that the Apostles are portrayed as, many times, not understanding Christ's teachings.

hey, I g/g but I'll get to part 2 later!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

The Gospels have been pinned as being written from (at the very earliest) 40 AD - (the last one) 90AD. The earliest of the Gnostic Gospels were written around 300 AD

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]The Gospels have been pinned as being written from (at the very earliest) 40 AD - (the last one) 90AD.[/quote]
I know this is true, so wy do so many secular sources give later dates?

[phatcatholic]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12443&hl=dead+sea+scrolls"][b]here[/b][/url] is a link to an earlier thread here in the apo board where we discussed the dead sea scrolls. in it you will find some very helpful articles and discussion.

make sure u peep that too

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 22, 2004 by phatcatholic

[MorphRC]

Where'd you get 40AD from??

All my sources. NJBC 2nd Ed. New Advent, NAB Intro's say the first written NT work was 51AD and that was 1 Thess, by St. Paul. Mark was written 66AD -> 69AD and the same sources say that.

Can you give some direct sources on this, would be awesome! Thx.