THE
DA VINCI CODE (PART 2)
What do readers of this book find so
attractive? The adventure part of it
might grip the reader; perhaps some like the nifty explanations offered of the
origin of certain words, or maybe it is the use of anagrams, symbols, and the
secret societies, along with the alleged cover-ups that appeal to people.
Some of the clues are actually anagrams,
such as O draconian devil and Oh lame saint! But then the author, Dan Brown, gets carried
away. Too many things become anagrams,
including the name Mona Lisa, which is purportedly the names of two Egyptian gods (121). The author stretches credulity in his
comments about the rose. After asserting
that Mary Magdalene is referred to as the Chalice, the Holy Grail, and the
Rose, Professor Teabing adds that the rose “has ties to the five-pointed pentacle of Venus,” before
pointing out that the word rose is
identical in English, French, and German (254).
Robert Langdon (the book’s hero) adds this tasty trifle: “Rose is also
an anagram of Eros, the Greek god of
sexual love.” One can only assume that
Langdon (and perhaps the author) has a one-track mind.
The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives as the origin of
our English word rose
the Latin
Doing anagrams may be enjoyable if not
profitable. What should we make of the
fact that the word evil is the word live spelled backwards? Is living evil? Furthermore, lived backwards is the devil. The goosebumps should
be breaking out all over by now. And what about the name, Dan
Brown? From it we can get:
BORN
DAWN
BARN
DOWN
BOND
WARN
BRAND
NOW
WORD
BANN
BAD
WRONN
On WORD BANN the second N is for
emphasis, and the last phrase—well, in Greek, if two G’s are together,
the first G becomes N (as in aggelos [angel]; why not reverse this practice here with the two N’s
and make the second one a G, thus making the author’s name an anagram
for BAD WRONG, which somehow seems appropriate?
“Goddess” Versus the Bible
The
thesis of this book is that “goddess” worship represents balance and harmony,
symbolized by the sexual union of man and woman, which is regarded as highly
spiritual. But then that evil Christianity
came along and has all but destroyed the beauty of “goddess” worship. According to Brown, the word pagan simply referred to country
dwellers, who “clung to old, rural religions of Nature worship” (36). Theoretically, the Church so feared those who
“lived in rural villes”
that they made the word referring to those residents, villains, refer to evil souls (36).
How dastardly!
Even the pentacle was vilified to be
associated with devil worship, but originally, it innocently referred to Nature
worship. Langdon states:
This
pentacle is representative of the female
half of all things—a concept religious historians
call the ‘sacred feminine’ or the ‘divine goddess.’
“The
goddess had a place in the nighttime sky and was known by many names—Venus, the
Eastern Star, Ishtar, Astarte—all
of them powerful female concepts with ties to Nature and Mother Earth (36).
. The
International Bible Encyclopedia confirms that Venus corresponds to Astarte and Ishtar. Not unexpectedly, it is pointed out: “The
immoral rites with which the worship of Ishtar in
Brown’s
“Church”
It should be increasingly noticeable that,
when author BAD WRONG refers to “the Church,” he is speaking of the Roman
Catholic Church, which he erroneously depicts as the only one of record. Apparently, he does not realize that the
Roman Catholic Church is not the church described in the New Testament—they are
an apostate version of the one Jesus established. The New Testament does not speak of
cardinals, archbishops, a pope, a diocese, mass, Christmas, Easter, secret orders
(such as Opus Dei or the Priory of Sion), monks, abbots,
friars, indulgences, monasteries, or convents.
Furthermore, neither
First of all, if the Catholic Church was
the only church, and they tried to rewrite history, then why did they not do a
better job of it? Why, for instance did
they not clearly identify Peter as the head of the church and living in
The truth of the matter is that it took
several centuries for the Roman Catholic Church to develop into the apostate
church they had become by the A.D. 600s.
The New Testament does not authorize secret “Christian” societies or one
man to rule over the church (Matt. 28:18).
Peter was a fallible man (Luke 5:1-8; Matt. 26: 69-75; Gal.
The
Deity of Christ
Professor Teabing
assures the heroine, Sophie, that “the early Church
needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore,
any gospels that described earthly
aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible” (244). Here BAD WRONG shows his ignorance of
history. Many early manuscript fragments, and lectionaries (Scripture readings for the
church) set forth the Deity of Jesus before it was ever questioned by the
Gnostics and the material they wrote in the third and fourth centuries.
One of the first attacks against Jesus and
His atoning work was to question or deny the Deity of Jesus that was set forth
in the New Testament. As already
presented, it is the foundation of the church—Jesus’ church—the church of
Christ (Matt.
No one made this doctrine up after Jesus
died. If the apostles originated this
idea out of some sort of misguided motive, they only brought misery upon
themselves and died for a lie that they concocted but refused to renounce. What happened is that, as Christianity began
to spread, men began to develop theories about Christ. Some theorized that all flesh is evil and
therefore Jesus could not have had a literal body; He only “appeared” to have
one. The epistle of 1 John begins with a
refutation of that error. Jesus had a
physical body—the apostles had touched Him.
Eventually, heretics arose who denied His
Deity (for reasons best known to them).
Of course, the Pharisees had this objection all along—even when inundated
by evidence. What Brown fails to realize
is that the evidence Jesus and the apostles presented to people is the reason
they believed. The Jews did not need a
new religion founded upon some man. They
already had a religion of God given through Moses. The Gentiles did not need a new god; they
already had several. Yet he apparently
thinks that the world decided to follow Jesus as just a human being and without
evidence. Why would they? The fact is that literature denying the Deity
of Christ arose later, which is the reason the church rejected it. They knew it contradicted Truth.
“Moreover, Jesus as a
married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard Biblical view of
Jesus as a bachelor” (245). “And
why is that?” the reader wonders.
“Because Jesus was a Jew, and the social decorum
during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried” (245). Really? And where did Brown obtain that
information? And what is his proof for
Jesus being married? “If Jesus were not
married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would have mentioned it and offered
some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood” (249). What?
One of those unreliable, rewritten “gospels” would have mentioned if He
was NOT married? What kind of argument
is this? Would the Scriptures also tell
us that Jesus did not have four wives?
Should we therefore assume He had four?
What about John the Baptizer? No
statement tells us that he was a bachelor, either; so students of the Bible
ought to assume he was married, also, right?
The fact is, however, that Jesus does have
a bride—the church. John said of Jesus, ”He who has the bride is the bridegroom” (John
See the flaw in logic? Jesus is being called Savior. Only one who is without blemish can qualify to
pay man’s penalty for sin. If Jesus is
not the perfect Lamb of God, then He cannot be the perfect sacrifice for
sins. If He is a flawed human being, as
all of us are, then He cannot take our place and redeem us from our sins. Jesus, however, was perfect and therefore
qualified to be our Savior. However, He
could not be perfect and lie about who He was.
He cannot claim to be Deity (as already shown) if He is not and still
qualify as a perfect sacrifice. Liars
are far less than perfect human beings.
Therefore, whether the Gnostics realized it or not, the Deity of Christ
is linked to His being Savior.
Furthermore, if any of the Gnostic
“gospels” taught that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, Brown would have
quoted the text. The closest thing he
could find was that she was called “the companion of the Saviour”
in the Gospel of Philip (246). He then
alleges, through Professor Teabing that “any Aramaic
scholar” would say that “the word companion,
in those days, literally meant spouse”
(246). Porter offers up a pertinent
reply:
Since
the Gospel of Philip is written in
Coptic as a probable translation from the Greek, it really makes no difference
what an Aramaic scholar thinks. What does a Coptic or Greek scholar think? … the word for companion, “koinwnon,”
is simply a transliterated Greek word (4).
It is rendered as “companion,” “partner,”
“fellow,” “accomplice,” and “sharer.” Porter points out that spouse
is not one of the recognized definitions (4). Jesus was never married to Mary Magdalene or
any other woman; His only bride is the church.
A
Royal Marriage?
The book further alleges that Mary
Magdalene was of royal descent of the house of Benjamin (248).
By
marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines,
creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate
claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon
(249).
What?!
First, who said that the House of Benjamin was powerful in New Testament
times? Second, who said that a royal
bloodline from Benjamin even existed? Samuel said to Saul: “But now your
kingdom shall not continue…” (1 Sam. 13:14).
Later God tore the kingdom away from Saul himself (1 Sam.
Third, where is the proof that Mary
Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin?
Fourth, Jesus did not need to marry anyone “to make a legitimate claim
to the throne” since He was descended from the tribe of Judah and David. In fact, He was raised up by the Father to
sit on David’s throne (Acts 2:30ff), but it is a spiritual throne—not a literal
one. Brown is thinking earthly kingdom,
just as the Jews did and just as premillennialists
do. Jesus is king over the spiritual
kingdom of prophecy (Isa. 2:2-4). He never came to restore a line of earthly
kings.
According to BAD WRONG (via Professor Teabing), Mary was with child when Jesus was crucified. She fled to
The
Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene’s power, perpetuated
her image as a whore and buried the evidence of Christ’s marriage to her,
thereby defusing any potential claim that Christ had a surviving bloodline and
was a mortal prophet (254).
This would be laughable, if it were not so
blasphemous. If “the Magdalene” was so
powerful, why did she have to sneak away to
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please
refer to this article as: "Whatever the article name from above is (
Return
To Article Index