Da Vinci Code Truth Home Forum Discussion

The Truth About Da Vinci Weblog

This blog is the outgrowth of the www.TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com Web site. Many people have asked questions or raised points of discussion on Dan Brown's book and its recent movie release. Therefore, this blog was created to take the discussion farther - to capture certain thoughts and answer some of the questions we've received at the site.


To post a comment to this blog, click on the Comments link below each post.


May 2006 Blog Summary

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Musings: Thinking through a Contradiction
By now, The Da Vinci Code is well-established in the box office world. While its second week in the U.S. has shown to be stable but not stellar, bringing in $44 million over the holiday weekend), Europe is on fire for Da Vinci - bringing in almost $320 million in ticket sales. The ideas that underlie the story must be striking a responsive chord in Europe.

By now, you've seen many of the historical and theological inaccuracies that the book and the film voice. However, I wanted to look at some of the core ideas and see how they make sense. Internal consistency is one good test for truth; it's also an easy way for people who aren't versed in "academics" or who don't have a working knowledge of history to see if ideas are worth pursuing. Many times we call this a "common sense test" because we understand that an idea that contradicts itself just can't be true.

So, with The Da Vinci Code, what are the "Big Ideas"? Well, there's the idea that Jesus really wasn't who Christianity says he was - that is, his divinity was manufactured and a cover-up has ensued for some 1700 years to hide this fact. There's also the idea that Mary Magdalene was the supposed successor of the church and the aforementioned cover-up was designed to be a power grab. Lastly, there's the idea that a faithful but secret remnant still remains to carefully guard this legacy of the "sacred feminine", all the while venerating the bodily remains of Mary Magdalene while keeping guard over the "sangreal" which is interpreted to mean the royal bloodline.

Now, there's a rub here. If the first idea is accurate, then Jesus wasn't some type of deity but merely a man akin to Confucius. He said some important things and he taught some good precepts for life, but he was "a man nevertheless. A mortal", to quote Teabing. If that idea holds, then why should anyone venerate his wife and his progeny? How does it make sense that the wife of a great man should be held up as some type of divine female figure - a "sacred feminine" model? Mary didn't perform any miracles. We don't see the search for Socrates' offspring as relevant.

It seems to me that those in The Da Vinci Code want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want Jesus to be divine, except when his children are taken into account. At that point, we're to believe they are special or unique. In the film, after Sophie learns of her ancestry, she attempt to walk on water. Less explicitly, she's subtly credited for saving a junkie from his habit and curing Langdon of his claustrophobia. Now, why does the filmmaker go out of his way to make such a point? Are they trying to prove that by being in the lineage of Jesus one would have certain divine powers?

All in all, I think this is an interesting exercise that goes beyond just a single movie. It's amazing how much we can uncover just by stopping and thinking through all the ramifications of certain ideas. When it becomes obvious that they don't hold water, they lose much of their import. So it goes with every worldview, and so it goes with this one.

Friday, May 26, 2006

As Long As You Believe It
The suspense is great. If there were ever a book worthy of being called a "page-turner" The Da Vinci Code would qualify. And contrary to many of the critical reviews, I really liked the movie. The tension and intrigue kept me glued for the nearly two and one half hours from beginning to end. Of course the story is based on the crazy idea that the Roman Catholic Church has been engaged in a cover-up for over two thousand years: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they produced an offspring whose heirs are still alive, and only Opus Dei knows the truth, and would unveil it when the right time comes. We are introduced not to the "greatest story ever told," but to the "greatest cover-up" ever perpetrated, to use the lines from the eccentric Teabing.

From a murder in the Louvre to stops in France, to London, then the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland and back to the Louvre's Pyramid, we're treated to a great travelogue, interspersed with all the disclosed scandalous material, plenty to fill the long book and long movie. By now, most people know the doctrinal expose: Jesus was merely a man, a good feminist at that, the Council of Nicea voted on Jesus' divinity (the flashback in the film to 325 A.D. shows a chaotic meeting with shouts and waving hands), alternate Gospels were kept out of the New Testament, the "sacred feminine" is the bane of the institutional church, the Merovingians are Jesus' descendants...

OK, this is bad history, even troubling history. Many have lost their faith simply by reading the book. Those without faith are confirmed in their skepticism. Yet, there is something far more pernicious in the story than this. What could that be? The call to return to bland, Western humanism! How is it articulated? First, the obvious. Institutions are bad, people are good (except the bad ones). Religion is a human desire, not a divine visitation. Men are from Mars, women from Venus. All that stuff.

Second, The Da Vinci Code gets even more preachy about the tired claims of humanism. Teabing furiously proclaims that for thousands of years the Church and its believers perpetrated wars, murders, violence. Richard Dawkins must be envious of the persuasive clarity of this message. Religious certainty always lead to war, he argues. In the Da Vinci tale we have it proved before our eyes, through the foil of a conspiracy to hide the truth from most people. At the climax of this extraordinary yarn, Sophie is given the choice to tell all, and thus liberate the entire human race from bondage. All she has to do is choose the right timing. "You have the power to reveal or conceal," she is told. Dear girl, what a responsibility.

Still, there could be a problem. What if the whole thing were not true? Could she perform miracles if the story doesn't add up? With the freedom of the human race in the balance, this could bring a lot of pressure. Here to the rescue, we have the third, necessary ingredient of good, banal humanism. Langdon reassures Sophie that it does not really matter. "As long as you believe it," then it has the power of truth. Examples? She had in fact helped a druggie off his habit, and had healed Robert's claustrophobia. Never mind that it may or may not have been connected to her sacred lineage. In the film, she humorously tries and fails to walk on water. Then she quips, "Maybe I'll do better with the wine." Ho-ho-ho.

What we are left with in the end is the miserable Euro-centric philosophy of self-realization. It does not matter whether such a far-fetched story might be true or false. Nor does it matter for the liberation of the human race. Because the sacred feminine will triumph, as long as the right people believe it.

Uh-oh. I see a problem. Without knowing it, are we not back to "religious" certainty? A secular religious conviction, to be sure. But why is this kind of certainty any different from the dangerous views denounced by Dawkins? As numerous postmodernist scholars have argued, there's more violence in that meta-narrative than anyone had imagined. Maybe we should take a second look at the claims of the Bible, with its wonderful open-air message of church and state separation, and the divine Jesus Christ as Lord of them both.

William Edgar

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Seeing the issue from both sides
We get e-mails...

A reader recently wrote in with these comments:

"Listen folks, The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction. Let me repeat that, F I C T I O N. Get a life. Quit getting distracted by this and other nonsense issues, and focus instead on issues that really matter."

J.N., Michigan

The same day, we received the following:

"Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene is acknowledged by a number of people around the world. There is Christian sect living in Syria that claims descent from Jesus (and her). Ahmadi sect of Islam claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene got married and moved to Kashmir (there is a grave in Kashmir that is claimed to be that of Jesus).

N.K., United Kingdom


Interesting how these two viewpoints seem to differ in regard to the facts surrounding the book. Now, I've written previously why I think that this is an important issue to deal with. But the reasons I gave were rather philosophical in nature. Now, we have some hard numbers provided by recent pollsters to help us gauge whether this is a worthy issue or not.

Pollster George Barna completed a survey of Americans this month on how the book has impacted their religious views. The results are interesting. Barna says that most people had some set of preexisting beliefs and the book didn't change those views. He writes "Among the 45 million who have read The Da Vinci Code , only 5% - which represents about two million adults - said that they changed any of the beliefs or religious perspectives because of the book''s content." (1)

5% doesn't sound like a lot until you look at the immense popularity of the book. 45 million people read it. That means that two million modified their belief system from the "work of fiction". Two Million! Barna continues, "any book that alters one or more theological views among two million people is not to be dismissed lightly. That's more people than will change any of their beliefs as a result of exposure to the teaching offered at all of the nation's Christian churches combined during a typical week."(2)

I noticed that the person believing in the Jesus/Magdalene union was from Britain. There the results are even more scary. The London Telegraph reports that "two thirds of Britons who have read Dan Brown's thriller believe that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, a claim rejected as baseless by historians and Bible scholars".(3)

So, let me ask - are the convictions of two million people worth it all? Is the eternal destiny of those who are stumbled by this book and movie worth all this effort? I think so. Tell me if you do.




References
1. Barna, George "Da Vinci Code Confirms Rather Than Changes People's Religious Views"
May 15, 2006 The Barna Group, Ltd. Ventura, CA Accessed 5/20/2006
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=238

2. Ibid

3. Petre, Jonathan "Most Da Vinci Code Readers Believe Jesus Fathered a Child" London Telegraph UK
17 May, 2006. Telegraph Company Ltd. London, UK Accessed 5/18/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/17/nvinci17.xml

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

As Long As You Believe It

The suspense is great. If there were ever a book worthy of being called a "page-turner" The Da Vinci Code would qualify. And contrary to many of the critical reviews, I really liked the movie. The tension and intrigue kept me glued for the nearly two and one half hours from beginning to end. Of course the story is based on the crazy idea that the Roman Catholic Church has been engaged in a cover-up for over two thousand years: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they produced an offspring whose heirs are still alive, and only Opus Dei knows the truth, and would unveil it when the right time comes. We are introduced not to the "greatest story ever told," but to the "greatest cover-up" ever perpetrated, to use the lines from the eccentric Teabing. From a murder in the Louvre to stops in France, to London, then the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland and back to the Louvre's Pyramid, we're treated to a great travelogue, interspersed with all the disclosed scandalous material, plenty to fill the long book and long movie. By now, most people know the doctrinal expose: Jesus was merely a man, a good feminist at that, the Council of Nicea voted on Jesus' divinity (the flashback in the film to 325 A.D. shows a chaotic meeting with shouts and waving hands), alternate Gospels were kept out of the New Testament, the "sacred feminine" is the bane of the institutional church, the Merovingians are Jesus' descendants...


OK, this is bad history, even troubling history. Many have lost their faith simply by reading the book. Those without faith are confirmed in their skepticism. Yet, there is something far more pernicious in the story than this. What could that be? The call to return to bland, Western humanism! How is it articulated? First, the obvious. Institutions are bad, people are good (except the bad ones). Religion is a human desire, not a divine visitation. Men are from Mars, women from Venus. All that stuff.


Second, The Da Vinci Code gets even more preachy about the tired claims of humanism. Teabing furiously proclaims that for thousands of years the Church and its believers perpetrated wars, murders, violence. Richard Dawkins must be envious of the persuasive clarity of this message. Religious certainty always lead to war, he argues. In the Da Vinci tale we have it proved before our eyes, through the foil of a conspiracy to hide the truth from most people. At the climax of this extraordinary yarn, Sophie is given the choice to tell all, and thus liberate the entire human race from bondage. All she has to do is choose the right timing. "You have the power to reveal or conceal," she is told. Dear girl, what a responsibility.


Still, there could be a problem. What if the whole thing were not true? Could she perform miracles if the story doesn't add up? With the freedom of the human race in the balance, this could bring a lot of pressure. Here to the rescue, we have the third, necessary ingredient of good, banal humanism. Langdon reassures Sophie that it does not really matter. "As long as you believe it," then it has the power of truth. Examples? She had in fact helped a druggie off his habit, and had healed Robert's claustrophobia. Never mind that it may or may not have been connected to her sacred lineage. In the film, she humorously tries and fails to walk on water. Then she quips, "Maybe I'll do better with the wine." Ho-ho-ho.


What we are left with in the end is the miserable Euro-centric philosophy of self-realization. It does not matter whether such a far-fetched story might be true or false. Nor does it matter for the liberation of the human race. Because the sacred feminine will triumph, as long as the right people believe it.


Uh-oh. I see a problem. Without knowing it, are we not back to "religious" certainty? A secular religious conviction, to be sure. But why is this kind of certainty any different from the dangerous views denounced by Dawkins? As numerous postmodernist scholars have argued, there’s more violence in that meta-narrative than anyone had imagined. Maybe we should take a second look at the claims of the Bible, with its wonderful open-air message of church and state separation, and the divine Jesus Christ as Lord of them both.

William Edgar

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Looking at filtering history through Leonardo
When watching The Da Vinci Code, many people have noticed that the translation from book to film made many pieces of the story suffer. However, the movie does have one visually interesting sequence: when Teabing displays the Last Supper painting and uses computer imagery to enhance his points about how Leonardo was trying to encode the truth in his mural.

We all know that Teabing states the person to Jesus' left in the painting is a woman - supposedly Mary Magdalene. Teabing says that we have been so pre-programmed to see all men that we miss this fact. He goes on to further expound how the two are clothed complimentary and even states that Peter is threatening Mary with a knife!

Now, all of this is nonsense as anyone fluent in the Arts will tell you. However, you don't need to do a lot of research to see why using Leonardo's painting as supporting evidence for Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene is illogical. All you need is common sense. The fact is that even if the descriptions that characterize The Last Supper are true, it still is of no historical value to understand what events actually happened. Leonardo began painting the mural in 1495 - almost a millennium and a half after the actual events happened. He wasn't there! This is not a snapshot of what happened at the last supper.

Leonardo was hired to paint this scene and he was trying to do so in the style and approach of his day. But he was limited in his own knowledge. For example, look again at the table. What's all the leavened bread doing at a Passover meal? Observant Jews even today would never allow such an offense. Leonardo even got the type of table they would dine at wrong, since Jews of the first century would recline on pillows and eat surrounding a table and not sit in chairs.

The point of all this is to say we can get so enamored by a well spun tale that we sometimes forget to engage our common sense. If the Last Supper was painted 1400 years after the real last supper, then how is it convincing proof of Jesus being married?

Monday, May 22, 2006

Musings: How the movie moves away from the book.

I attended a Saturday afternoon showing of The Da Vinci Code and was keenly interested in how much it attempted to stay faithful to the book. Even reviewer David Ansen of NEWSWEEK said "Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman struggle mightily to cram as much as possible of Dan Brown's labyrinthine thriller into a 2-hour-28-minute running time, resulting in a movie both overstuffed and underwhelming." The script seems to at times sacrifice good movie making techniques to make sure that they are faithful to the written version.


This is why it was interesting to me to see the various intentional changes in the movie version. Some corrections have been made (Teabing states that 50,000 women were put to death during the European witch hunts over three centuries, not the 5 million that is stated in the book) and Langdon is presented as a skeptic to the Priory and the Grail legends instead of an in-the-know scholar.


The most intriguing change that I found was the almost complete absence of the whole sacred feminine topic that played such a key part in the book. Langdon is seen at the opening of the film signing a book with that title, so I will assume that the character believes it exists. However, there is no mention of the hieros gamos, or any ancient Christian or Jewish worship of a divine feminine. The most glaring omission is the fact that Sophie was estranged from her grandfather not because he caught her going through his papers, but because she stumbled onto a ritualistic sex ceremony. We kind of see that near the end in a desaturated and fuzzy flashback, but it's only for a second and never explained.


My first thought on this is "since when is Hollywood afraid of sexual content?" But then it may be that such a scene would be too much for the sensibilities of the average American movie-goer. Sure, everyone likes to believe a conspiracy was cooked up by the Catholic Church. And of course it is easy to ridicule those Christians who believe "a fairytale about Jesus being God". But if the alternative to Christianity is a religion where temple prostitution is the norm and intimacy is shared among a group - well, that just won't sell in Peoria as they say.

Friday, May 19, 2006

On Film

We all know expressions such as, "seeing is believing," or "pictures don't lie." This comes from the impression that somehow seeing it is closer to reality than talking about it. When you think, though, this cannot be true. Even when we gaze on a sunset, we do so with eyeglasses which translate what we see through our assumptions. A sunset may be beautiful to some. It may terrify some, signaling the end of daytime. Perhaps it speaks about the glory of the Creator to some, or the oddities of evolution to others. Well, film is exactly the same. Though it consists of moving pictures, it always articulates a point of view. Even documentaries are composed and structured to bring out certain views, whether consciously or not.

Does that mean all we are left with is the relativistic notion that each filmmaker is an island, portraying one point of view among millions? No, because revelation surrounds us, so that our views are always somehow in reaction to God's truth, whether in conformity to it or in antipathy to it. Take the Western. This classic American film genre has gone through many phases. The standard ingredients in the earlier Westerns include the wide open spaces, the rugged cowboy, a confrontation of good and evil (lawmen and outlaws), an so on. However different the story, something about White America is articulated in this type of film: freedom from constraint, individual heroism, taming a wild country. There may be a dark side, such as the justification for revenge. Often, Westerns portray a male-oriented culture, where women are secondary.

Films work through all kinds of visual conventions. Think of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, one of the great films of all times. The Paramount studios had created a technique called Vista Vision in an attempt at enlarging the screen, partly in response to television's narrow scope. The hero, Scottie Ferguson, played by James Stewart, is a wandering man, in search of meaning. He follows a woman around, and falls in love with her. When she dies, he goes on a quest to replace her by re-creating her into a new woman. He not only fails in the effort but manages to cause the death of this second woman. There are numerous scenes of Scottie in his car, or lurking in corners, spying on the woman. We have here a combination of travelogue, compulsive psychology, suspense, and a general feeling of impotence. The music plays a large role in contributing to the narrative. There is a certain amount of despair in this film, surely mirroring the anxiety created by the situation after World War II. The Soviet Union was expanding, China moved to communism, labor strikes, gender issues, and the birth of rock 'n' roll were all contributors to this angst. Scottie, a policeman, leaves the force to become a victim of a plot by a powerful businessman to control him. James Stewart is now the "vulnerable male." [1]


Without exaggerating the point, may we say that despite the victory of the allies in the war, America in the 1950s was losing control. The country was headed toward the upheavals of the 1960s, and the shame of Vietnam. Scottie is lost and confused, though partly responsible for the despair. There is not much redemption in this film. Nor did many find much redemption in the decline of the American powerhouse, though many attempts at a come-back were made: a nostalgia cult about the old days, talk of "values," cuddly rebels like Elvis Presley, and so forth. Christians need to see these elements and decide what the narrative of certain films like Vertigo signify for a biblical worldview.

A film tells a story. It uses hundreds of devices to construct the narrative. The Da Vinci Code film will be no different. We encourage its viewers to go and see it, and then to discuss its significance by detecting the visual and auditory components that construct the story. And then, they should compare and contrast this story to the biblical account of reality.

William Edgar

[1] As suggested by Robert Kolker in Film, Form and Culture (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002), p. 141.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

The Da Vinci Code Movie
As of the time of this message the long-awaited film based on Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code, is appearing in theaters throughout the world. Friday, May 19th will mark the release date in the United States.

The Da Vinci Code book has brought questions to the forefront such as; "Was Jesus married?" and "Are the lost books of the Bible real?". The soon-to-be-released film will likely again raise these important questions, and require accurate and immediate clarification. We will continue to be a bright shining light, illuminating the Truth About Da Vinci.

Take a moment to go through the site, www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com. Go see the movie. And then come back and let us know what you think!

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Greetings from William Edgar, Ph.D.
This is Bill Edgar. Thanks for checking in. I am looking forward to providing my first post by tomorrow morning, Friday, May 19th. Till then.... WE

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Why Discuss A Work of Fiction?

The upcoming launch of The Da Vinci Code movie based on Dan Brown's best-selling book has gotten the Christian community buzzing. Web sites are popping up everywhere. New books are being written. Sermons are being prepared. Everywhere, Christians are getting ready to do intellectual battle against the claims made in the film about the origins of their faith. All of this attention has causedsome to ask if we've overreacted. One person put it this way:


------------------Email Message-----------------------

From: L.S.

Sent: Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 1:13 AM

To: TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com

Subject: The definition of fiction


What part of "Fiction" do you not understand? Fiction means not true. Has Dan Brown atually made a public statement that he believes the doctrines described in The Da Vinci Code to be true? He hasn't. Why are you giving him so much free press? ...It is amazing that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is getting such a reaction, even from scholars like you.

------------------------------------------------------


This is a legitimate question, although the writer is wrong in stating Dan Brown hasn't given public statements that he believes these theories. He actually has. That being said, The Da Vinci Code is listed as a work of fiction - something that's not true. Given that it's a fictional account, why is everyone spending so much time and effort debunking its assertions?


Well, the short answer is being fictional doesn't matter. It will still have influence on the way people think about issues. We have numerous examples of this, from the sales jump of Resees Pieces after E.T. came out to the effects of works such as The Green Mile and Cider House Rules on the death penalty and abortion. Because of this, advertisers pay large sums of money to have their products featured in a new release and used by the protagonists.


So, we should prepare ourselves. We need to inform ourselves of the facts, so that we may discuss them intelligently when the question arises. We should know how to answer critics and those who may be swayed by the movie's storytelling power. Even before the movie was released, the Canadian newspaper, The National Post recently reported that 17% of Canadians and 13% of Americans believed the premises of the book. It shows all the more reason why Christians must be able to "make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence".


To read more, click here

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

New Quiz

We've just launched another item on TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com - the Da Vinci Code Trivia Quiz. This is a fun way to test your knowledge about the book's claims and also learn a little more about art, history and theology. The quiz can be found here. You can take it then forward the link to your friends and family to see how their scores compare to yours.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Hot Tip!
TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com has created a free Microsoft PowerPoint presentation for churches and groups to use in their study of the book and film. Highlighting the main assertions of Dan Brown's best seller, this teaching tool offers succinct answers to questions such as "Was Jesus Married", "What is the Sacred Feminine", "Is Jesus God" and more. For those of you who lead a Sunday School class or a small group, you may print out the presentation to use in your group time. You can find the presentation along with a growing list of free resources here:
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/resources/ministry-materials.html

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

We Get E-mail...
The site and the movie continue to create a buzz, and we're seeing more e-mail communications as a result. Here is an email we have received:


------------------Email Message-----------------------

From: R.B.
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:01 PM
To: TheTruthAboutDaVinci.com
Subject: Two sides to every story


I'd like to see the movie and make my mind up for myself. There are two sides to every story and Mr. Brown deserves the opportunity to make his case.

------------------------------------------------------


Well, I agree with the writer; to a point. I don't think anyone on this site has ever said people should boycott the movie or not buy the book. In fact, my guess is that with the star power of Tom Hanks and the directing skill of Ron Howard the movie will be a hit - seen by millions. Just the book's popularity alone makes it a good bet that it will have strong opening weekend numbers. (Heck, I bought and read the book myself over a year ago).

He should go see the movie and make up his own mind. Of course, since "there are two sides to every story" we felt that it was important to give the side that doesn't have a multimillion dollar advertising budget or the star power that the movie does. Not only that, but since Dan Brown has gone on record saying that he believes the conspiracy theories he presents in the book are true, it's even more important to supply a counterbalanced perspective.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Musings..
As we approach the release of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, I can't help but think about the whirlwind amount of pre-release attention it is getting. Maybe it's because the book sold over 40 million copies worldwide. Maybe it was the recent copyright lawsuit that Dan Brown won.

Whatever the case, this surely looks to be a global phenomenon and it makes it even more important to know what we're talking about when friends and family see the move and talk about it at the water cooler or over Sunday brunch. At thetruthaboutdavinci.com, we're busier than ever writing and gathering more and more resources to help you do just that. Make sure you come back often and check out the site so that you can get what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story."

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Welcome!
This blog is the outgrowth of the www.TheTruthAboutDaVinci.comWeb site.

Many people have asked questions or raised points of discussion on Dan Brown's book and its recent movie release. Therefore, this blog was created to take the discussion farther - to capture certain thoughts and answer some of the questions we've received at the site.

Check back soon for Discussion Points

 

Historical Term
Nag Hammadi papyri, The - Collection of more than forty Gnostic documents, unearthed in the mid-1940s near Nag Hammadi in U...

[more terms]

Newsletter Signup



Latest News
10/31 Questions and Answers From Our Experts >>
Archives
Current
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May

Contact | Site Map | Search
 

Da Vinci Code Truth

  : This website is a response to Sony Pictures movie "The Da Vinci Code"
  based on Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code