FABLES and

Verifiable

Da Vinci Code (DVC)

FABLES

FACTS>

Links to more material

Below are somewhat brief (which i have trouble being) refutations and commentaries regarding the DVC's fables. For some, more material is offered (with some redundancy), by clicking on the FABLE links in the left hand columns. Though over 25 fallacies are exposed here it is by no means a complete list (I had to stop somewhere). Source links are provided throughout as well as at the end (such providence does not mean i affirm everything else that a site may offer, but they are overall sound sources with substantiated facts).

Thanks be to God for He (alone) is good.

1Thes. 5:21 Prove all things;
1Tim. 1:4 Neither give heed to fables
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

TOC

FABLE #1

Is it true that the Christian faith is the result of the rewriting of Biblical gospels and suppression of others by Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Institution in the 4th century?

DVC: “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated [properly assembled] by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.”

FACTS>

Luke 1:1 (A.D. 57 – all such dates conservative + approx.) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Among other things, all the Biblical gospels, which were based upon eye-witness accounts, were written and were in circulation – along with all of the New Testament (N.T.) books – within approx. 60 years after Jesus death and resurrection, as both internal and external evidences show, and which is substantially earlier than Browns nebulous “Gnostic” sources. And unlike the latter, the Biblical gospels and N.T. books were and are consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, which are their evident foundation. And unlike Browns late and sparse sources (see Fable #6), the books of the Bible are abundantly testified to by thousands of manuscripts, including whole or partial manuscripts which predate the 4^th century Council of Nicea by up to 200 years, and are estimated to have been written much earlier than that. In addition, The Biblical books enjoyed wide acceptance among early churches, and the writings of numerous early church leaders testify to the fact that the New Testament existed in the 1^st and 2^nd century – long before 4^th century Constantine and the Nicean Council. The canon of Scripture was basically settled long before 4th - century Constantine and the Council of Nicea, and in addition, the 66 books of Bible owe their selection, promulgation and endurance not to autocratic imposition, Constantinian (who did not even do the selection or control it) or otherwise, but to God and the consensus of multitudes who by Him realized that their evident power, purity and probity was beyond the effluence of mere men, rather such words of Life were wholly inspired (or “breathed”) of the Spirit of God. Such Holy Writ stood and stands in sharp contrast to the Gnostic counterfeits in all virtuous attributes and evidences. Gnosticism is not “wisdom that is from above”(Ja. 3:17) and the historical effect of it's incohesive and insubstantial teachings and it's imaginary Christ - phantom has been that of spiritual impotence and obscurity, attractive to those seeking darkness and deception rather than true light and truth. See HERE for additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE # 2

Is the belief in Jesus Divinity the result of Constantine's autocratic intervention and church formulation at the Council of Nicea?

DVC:“Constantine upgraded Jesus' status” and “rewrote” history by commissioning and financing “a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike.”

FACTS>2

1Peter 1:20 (A.D. 66) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1John 4:22 (A.D. 87) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This is easily proved to be patent nonsense in every point. Long, long (like going back to JESUS' time on earth itself) before Constantine and the Roman Catholic Institution came to be, believers in Jesus Christ realized that He was no mere man, but God “manifested in the flesh” (1Tim.3:16). This is clearly evident in the gospel of John – which is the gospel from which we have the oldest fragment (125 A.D.; written by 90 A.D.) – as well as the other N.T. books which came before it (and in the O. T. as well: Is. 9:6; Mic. 5:2, etc.), all of which antedate Constantine and the Council of Nicea (www.wikipeida.org) by over 200 years!

The Biblical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, also not only testify to the same, by also speak very clearly of Jesus human traits, and do so more abundantly than the metaphysical gnostic “gospels” Brown seeks to supplant them with. In fact it is because the Biblical gospels reveal Jesus humanity so clearly that Nicea primarily met, as there were many who only taught of the human aspect of Jesus (which relegation is a tendency of man, as Jesus' Divinity and holiness is a challenge to their immorality and sovereignty).

Moreover, contrary to both Islamic and Gnostic imaginations, one cannot simply change the New Testament to place within it Jesus literal physical death and resurrection or Divine Sonship (which both Muslims and Gnostics deny) as basically everything in them is directly or indirectly linked to such! EVERY ONE of the Biblical manuscripts which antedate both Nicea and the Quran (and contain the relevant portions), declare the physical death and resurrection and Divine Sonship of Christ as do current Bibles! Not even one Biblical manuscript says what later works purport in denying such (among other things). In Scripture Jesus is called the Son of God over 50 times, and the Divine title of God is applied as well, with His very works testifying to the same. In the Scriptures unique titles, attributes and glory which belong to God alone are given to the Lord Jesus, revealing that the LORD who Isaiah saw in His glory was in fact Jesus Christ, the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3). Therefore saith He, “he that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on him that sent Me. And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me” (cf. John. 12:34b-45; Isaiah 6:1—10). Praise ye the Lord!

And contrary to Browns ignorant assertions, we have abundant historical confirmation that this Biblical truth (of Jesus' Divinity) was believed long before any 4^th century Council, as is seen in the writings of early church leaders:

Ignatius of Antioch (circa 100 AD): “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you" (Letter to the Smyraeans) “Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time”

Hippolytus (mid to late 2^nd century): “For Christ is the God over all” (Refutation of All Heresies 10.34).

Iranaeus (between 120-202 A.D.) “In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King.”

Justin Martyr (150 AD) “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63).

Rather than bowing to the historical records – and above all to the Lord of history – Mr. Brown has made lies his refuge and crowned deception his king! See HERE for additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE #3

DVC: “the Emperor led the bishops to declare Jesus as the Son of God by a vote.” "A relatively close vote at that."

FACTS>3

John_20:31 (80 A.D.) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Council of Nicaea could hardly "invent" the divinity of Jesus, seeing it was already held as evident truth long before Constantine, because the person of Christ and the gospels and writings of the 1^st century apostles revealed it, as is evidenced by historical records. Thus Nicea – based upon the testimony of Scripture and not upon pressure by Constantine (who did not even attend it) – affirmed that Jesus is Lord, possessing the same eternal, uncreated nature as the Father, and declared Arianism heretical. AS FOR BROWN'S “CLOSE VOTE”, JESUS DIVINITY WAS AFFIRMED BY A VOTE OF 298 TO 2 (2 abstained). Hardly a cliff hanger. Brown is caught lying through his teeth again! See HERE for additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE #4

The divinity of Jesus was first raised and established at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, “ prior to that time, no one—not even Jesus’ followers—believed Jesus was anything more than a “mortal prophet.” 

FACTS>

Matthew_16:15 (A.D. 45) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Brown's zeal to replace the Biblical Jesus with one more to his liking brings him to not only make wholly unsubstantiated claims but exceeding rash ones as well. Here we are told that no one believed Jesus was anything more than a mortal prophet. Considering Brown expects us to believe nonsense about Mary Madelene being Pope, and at the end has his proxy “parishioner” (Langdon) bowing down to her in worship, it is expected that he would reject Jesus to be the immortal Son of God seeing Scripture clearly reveals such. It is Brown's assertions that must fall before the abundant evidences which testify of truth–believing souls declaring Jesus to be, as Thomas did, “My Lord and my God” (Jn. 20:28)! Not only do Biblical manuscripts record this but writings from early church leaders also do. Even the record of a non-Christian sources such as pagan Roman historian Pliny testify to the fact that early Christians worshiped Jesus. See HERE for additional substantiation. TOC

FABLE #5

“The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's... confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda...”

FACTS>5

2Cor._4:4:1 (A.D. 62): Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

The Da Vinci code is consistently false in it's attacks against Scripture and history thereof. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) were discovered in 1947 (excavated till 1956), and represent the principal finds of surviving Biblical manuscripts (mss) written before AD 100. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran, which actually works to confirm the integrity of the Scriptures and to show the spurious nature of Brown's scattered sources. Consider that careful comparison of the nearly complete book of Isaiah with the text from which the King James Bible was translated (the 11^th century A.D. Masoretic text) found a nearly 95% word for word agreement, with the remaining 5% being mostly minor copyist errors or spelling changes. This accuracy was found despite there being over 1,000 years for changes to be made in this manuscripts they had! In addition, DSS evidence indicates that the same scrolls that were found were in a room where imperfect ones would evidently be put, which faulty mss could account for any real, though minor, changes (Jewish scribes were typically very scrupulous in transcribing).

Meanwhile the Qumran discoveries work to confirm the historicity of the Jewish faith which is the foundation of the New Testament, and refutes Gnosticism (as incohesive as it is). These, along with other overwhelming evidences, bury Dan Brown's idea that the God of Christianity was a 4^th century formulation!

TOC

FABLE #6

“The Gnostic Nag Hammadi gospels are as old as the gospels in the New Testament.

FACTS>6

Acts 1:1 (A.D. 52) The former treatise [Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

It becomes more and more evident that Brown's scholars must belong to the Flat Earth Society, as he is “flat” wrong here (again). The Nag Hammadi gospels are neither as old as the Biblical gospels nor anywhere as well substantiated! Based upon internal and external evidence (comparison of fragments and quotations, historical correlations, examination of textual families, etc.) the Biblical Gospels are dated to the first century. Thousands of actual manuscripts exist today, many of which date prior to 200 A.D., including a fragment (writing materials of Biblical age did not last long) of the gospel of Mark. There are also fragments of other New Testament books such as Acts, which are dated to have been written around 50 A.D., and a fragment of the gospel of John dated at 125 A.D. or earlier. Nearly complete copies of both Luke and John exist which are dated from between A.D. 175 and 225.
In contrast, the manuscripts of the Gnostic Nag Hammadi library, which gospels were written 100 to 200 years apart, and discovered hundreds of miles apart, and were copied between A.D. 350-400, with most Gnostic literature being written between the late 2nd to the 5th century. No evidence exists to show that any of these books were written before A.D. 150. TOC

FABLE #7

80 Gnostic “gospels” voted out by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 because of political reasons.

FACTS>7

1Cor. 2:15:(A.D. 59) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,

Heb. 5:14 (A.D. 64) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

While there are only 45 titles in the Gnostic Nag Hammadi Library, and not all of them are “gospels” (or in their case, attempted syncretistic pagan/Christian accounts of Jesus life), the real issue is why would Brown's preferences, along with other (not thousands!) so obviously spurious books, be placed with books which met the Heavenly standard of Divine inspiration? Even in the secular realm not every book becomes a classic, and we do not attribute that to conspiracies. With New Testament Scripture, not only did books have to meet holy and powerful criteria (see below), but ages of unconstrained devotion and testimony by those who trust and obey it provide the kind of transcendent affirmation that a church council could not, though such serves to confirm the 66 (not 73) books of their selection.

As in the prior and confirmed selection of the Jewish canon, the selection of books in the New Testament canon were not based upon politics, but on whether they met the high and holy “quality” that set them apart from other books. Originals always have imitations, and but in almost all cases* it was easily apparent by spiritually mature men to discern the difference.

The formal criteria for inclusion in the canon of Scripture was that a book had to be written close to the time of Jesus, and had to be authored either by one of the apostles or a companion of one, and consistent with the substantiated understanding of the Christian faith. Plus it had to be widely received by the churches. http://www.probe.org/content/view/127/169/.

Brown's Gnostics sources, as well as multitude others, failed these necessary tests. And in their case they would fail every single one!

*see http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle4.htm

TOC

FABLE #8

“The Dead Sea Scrolls are also early Christian texts.”

“These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which I mentioned earlier,” Teabing said. “The earliest Christian records.”

FACTS>8

Exodus 17:14 [A.D. 1490] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

The conclusion of the blind guides Brown follows is rejected by actual scholars, as the DSS (wikipedia.org), are NOT early Christian texts, with scarce, minutely possible exceptions such as one fragment of one complete word! The DSS do not even mention Christianity nor the names of anyone associated with its beginnings, and were written before the coming of Christ (though they did look forward to the coming of the Messiah).

“About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah (Abegg et al 2002). About 25% are traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts such as the Community Rule.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls).

A much disputed possible Christian text is that of a fragment (7Q5) in which the only complete word in Greek is "και" = "and" Though hardly anyone considers that it may be part of Mark 6:52-53, this still would not validate Brown's assertion, and instead, as the fragment is dated at between sometime AD 30 and 60, it would help confirm that Mark was written by then.

TOC

FABLE #9

"Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version was deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in history."

FACTS>9

2Pet. 2:2:1 (A.D. 68) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Having dispensed with the fallacy of Constantine's version (unless perhaps Constantine really lived in the first century B.C. and wrote parts of the O.T., plus the gospels, plus the rest of the New Testament!), let us find out about “heretics.” The word heretic literally means sect, or division, and is used in such places as the first century Biblical letter 1 Corinthians (11:19), where it refers to necessary divisions between spiritual and carnal believers, while Galatians (5:20) shows it to be a fruit of the flesh. Titus 3:10 therefore enjoins, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.” 2 Peter 2:1 also warns of such.

Early church leaders Irenaeus and Tertullian (both 2nd century AD) had already used the term heretical in regards to Gnosticism and similar unsubstantiated doctrines in the second century, such as in documents titled 'Against Heresies' and 'The Prescription Against Heretics.' The Muratorian Canon, a list with most of the New Testament books from the late second century, warns against heresy.

Thus “heretic” is used far earlier than Nicea, and their use of it would come from the Bible in which it applies to division, and to those who depart from established truth. But the key thing here is that the truth about Christ and aspects thereof had already been recorded in Scripture long before Constantine, while Browns scholars are shown to have PhD's in nonsense.

TOC

FABLE #10

“..any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible (p. 244).

FACTS>10

Luke 22:44 (A.D. 57) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

John 4:6 (A.D. 80) Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well:

One really must wonder if Brown has ever actually ready the Bible? The Biblical gospels make Jesus humanity abundantly clear, yet not at the expense of His Divinity, which is a overall sublime yet sure revelation in the synoptics.

In addition, while the Bible abundantly describes Jesus earthly aspects, it is actually Brown's metaphysical, incohesive, and scarcely substantiated Gnosticism that does not. Rather, consistent with it's wishful metaphysicality it portrays Jesus more like a phantom, who did not actually suffer on the cross (etc.)! All of which is blasphemous, heretical and nonsensical. What is now “a matter of historical record” is that the DVC is a collection of willfully contrived fabrications. Like Judas, Brown must count earthly silver more valuable than God and his own eternal soul.

TOC

FABLE #11

Brown claims that it is "a matter of historical record" that JESUS was married to Mary Magdalene and that she had 5 children!

DVC: “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse” (246).

FACTS>11

Luke 9:58 (A.D. 57) And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Brown's fantasy of a married Jesus only exists on his own (and others like him) island of . The four Gospels in the Bible (unlike Brown's spurious sources) were written when people who were eye witnesses of Christ were still alive and records their testimony, and is diligent in recording the important (and sometimes minor), events of Christ's ministry, and marriage certainly would be one of them! Yet there is nothing that says or intimates anything of a married Jesus, rather the words and narrative of His life makes it clear that He was not (though there would be no sin in that if it was God's will). The only family humanly related to Jesus on earth were those of his earthly mother, and thus she is the only women whom He provided future personal earthly care for upon His death (Jn. 19:26). Meanwhile, the only marriage that the Lord Jesus had any connection with is one in which He and His disciples were invited guests (John. 2:1, 2). This wedding was for someone else, and was where Jesus performed His first miracle (2:11). It is only sometime later that the Lord cast 7 demons out of Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), and who became one of the followers of Jesus, not His wife.

Neither does any of the other Gnostic literature prove that Jesus was married. In part of Dan Brown's “spin cycle” he says that the Aramaic word for "companion" (used in regards to Mary in the Gnostic gospel) literally meant "spouse." Not only is this translation denied by various Aramaic scholars, but even more critically, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip (in which this was found) was not even written in Aramaic, rather it was written in Egyptian Coptic, which may have been a translation from Greek!

Even in the Coptic translation found at Nag Hammadi, a Greek loan word (koinonos) lies behind the term translated “companion.” Darrell Bock observes that this is “not the typical . . . term for ‘wife’“ in Greek.{28} Indeed, koinonos is most often used in the New Testament to refer to a “partner.” Luke uses the term to describe James and John as Peter’s business partners (Luke 5:10). Michael Gleghorn ©2006 Probe Ministries www.probe.org/content/view/127/169/

TOC

FABLE #12

DVC states that Jesus “used to kiss [Mary] often..”

FACTS>12

1 Thessalonians 5:26 (A.D. 53) Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

Like Judas, Brown would betray the Biblical Jesus with a kiss, albeit a proxy one, for though though it would be no sin for Jesus to be married, such frequent public kissing on the lips would be improper, and Brown's statement here is actually part of a larger and unmentionable slander. However, nowhere is there any such thing a Brown imagines. Brown must resort to the pseudo gospel of Phillip, and has it saying that Jesus kissed Mary often on the mouth, but even when that manuscript is examined the word for "mouth" is not there! Old manuscripts often are missing words due to the age of the material (yet unlike the little - desired Gnostic sources, for the Biblical gospels an abundance of manuscripts exist which enables cross referencing), and although Brown's source is a meretricious one from the beginning, if the missing word were to be accurately rendered scribes would footnote a normal, non-sexual cultural point of contact and not “mouth” (Gn. 33:4; Lk. 15:30;). Brown thus is guilty here of eisegesis (not exegesis), that of an unwarranted reading into the text what one desires. No where in Scripture is kissing someone else with the lips even stated (it seldom goes into bedrooms), and which is part of holy sexual desire between man and wife (cf. SOS 4:3, 11; 5:13;). Though non-intimate kissing was a cultural practice in Jewish culture (as it is in many others), yet in contrast to Brown's imagination, nowhere in the Bible do we see that Jesus kissed anyone, and even the other Gnostic "gospels" do not have Him kissing Mary. What we do see is that He Himself was kissed twice in the Bible, and both in public: in Luke 7:38 by an unidentified women, who wept and kissed His feet in gratitude because her many sins were forgiven, and in Mark. 14:45 by Judas Iscariot (cf. Acts 20:37), as he betrayed the Lord, who went on to died for us and rose again that we may be forgiven! Brown denies the Biblical Jesus and the holiness He so abundantly manifested, and which is contrary to the impropriety the DVC promotes. And in the absence of any true records he must use a fake and late pseudo-gospel, to which he must interpolate words in seeking to make his case, while none of the other Gnostic sources even say what Brown fantasizes!

This absence of evidence (and contrary proofs) would also go for children, that of Brown's claim that Mary Magdalene had a daughter named Sarah but which finds no ancient source. Rather this was made up by a modern women writer named Margaret Starbird, who, showing an Eve-like tendency, based this fallacy upon “a strong intuition.” (The Beloved’, 1999).

TOC

FABLE #13

DVC: “Jesus was a Jew, and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.”

FACTS>13

Matthew 19:12 (A.D. 45) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Biblical and historical ignorance continued. Though celibate singleness is the exception, God evidently did require celibacy from people such as Jeremiah, "Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place" (15:2). It may also be inferred that Elijah and Daniel and others were also celibate. And as in the case of Jeremiah, which celibacy was enjoined for a special purpose, how much more fitting it was for Jesus, whose mission to save people physically and spiritually and enable salvation for the world required self-less dedication day and night, culminating with His death for our sins at the young age of (approx) 33. Surely not only would caring for a wife and children much hinder His world–saving mission (and be impossible to hide), but it also would be unfair to them.

In addition, celibacy was an option in Jesus time. Here Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria describes the Essenes (thought by many to be the collators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) as those who “repudiate marriage . . . for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife” (Philo, Hypothetica, 11.14-17).

And rather than suffering the universal commendation Brown assumes, Jewish historian Philo describes the esteem of such dedicated celibacy: “This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase . . . the honors which they confer on them” (Ibid., 44) Josephus says likewise. (see much more on this, and about Mary Magdelene at www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusmarried.htm,

However it should be said that neither the Lord's celibacy nor the words of celibate Paul in 1 Cor. 7 justifies the Roman Catholic law that requires an unmarried, celibate clergy (except for married eastern church priest converts). It is never to be presumed that all clergy will have the gift of celibacy Paul speaks of, while the 2^nd requirement that is laid down for ordination of Pastors is that they be “the husband of one wife” (1Tim. 3:2)! What Rome does (or anyone) and what the Bible teaches are not to be assumed to be the same. To know the Truth we are to reverently “search the Scriptures” (Jn. 5:39) with the heart to obey (Acts 17:11).

TOC

FABLE #14

Brown paints Mary Magdalene in at the last supper

FACTS>14

Mathew 26:18 (A.D. 45) And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. 20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

As ludicrous as it is, Dan Brown sees what is necessary to sell books, and here he “paints” Mary Magdalene into the Last Supper, replacing not the traitor Judas, but John, who was closest to Jesus at the last supper! Such a fantasy hardly needs refutation, but the plain facts are that Jesus ate the passover with His 12 (not 13) apostles, and in the gospels all 12 are clearly named, and no one named Mary is not among them. At the last supper it was actually John who was asked by Peter to inquire about the identity of the traitor the Lord spoke of (Jn. 13:21-25). In addition, all the apostles are identified as males, and the Lord never had any female apostles. Anything else would be a radical departure from both the Old Testament as well as the the rest of the New Testament, wherein only males are ordained to be clergy (Ex. 28; Lv. 1; 1Tim. 3; Titus 1). Though the actual earliest and authentic records of the last supper are what we must go by, as far as Browns desired source is concerned, in Da Vinci's painting there are only the 12 disciples of the Lord, and the feminine looking man on Jesus' right is young John the beloved, looking feminine after what often was the custom by many artists (some of which were homosexual) in Da Vinci's time and environment.

Unlike Brown's professional prevaricators British royal historian Leigh Teabing, and Harvard professor Robert Langdon, here is the statement of Denise Budd of Columbia University, who has an real PhD:

“As far as the Magdalene (being seated next to Jesus), clearly there is no dispute. That figure is St John. He is Christ’s favorite, and is always shown by his side… in earlier Florentine examples of that scene, the figure of John is always by Christ’s side, he is always beardless, and he’s always beautiful… A perfect example of this “feminine” characterization of John is in Raphael’s ‘Crucifixion’ in the London National Gallery, painted around 1500.” http://www.davincispeaks.net/chapter-3.htm

TOC

FABLE #15

DVC's Langdon blas-phemously claims that YHWH comes from the name Jehovah, which he insists is an androgynous union between “the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah”

FACTS>15

Exodus 6:3 (1490 B.C) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Having invented history, Brown attempts his hand at engineering etymology which he likewise mangles. Biblical Hebrew did not contain verbs, but later (and possibly original Biblical) scribes placed some vowels points for verbs. While the source for the name Jehovah has two main theories,* one of which would allow for the English rendering of Jehovah, the letter “J” or the translation Jehovah (the eternally existent One) is not known to occur until at least the 13^th century.

Brown goes on to invent a pre-Hebraic language from which he says “Havah” (for Eve) comes, but which in fact is the Hebrew name (chavva^h, pronounced "havah") which means “mother of all living” (translated Eve in English). Aside from containing two of the same Hebrew letters (which commonality has little consequence), the Hebrew behind the word Jehovah has no etymological connection to the name Eve.

The problem with Brown's theory is not only with his etymology enterprising – and even then the source of a word can be quite different from what it later denotes – but it is where Brown seeks to go on his etymological express. The real blasphemy comes in when Brown makes the God of the Bible some sort of androgynous union, which in turn is linked to his desire to see ritualistic sex in the Temple! [see next fable].

Such a thing is plainly and utterly contrary to the kind of holiness the God of the Bible commanded of Israel and were blessed for keeping, as they were called to not do after after the manner of the heathen (Jer. 10:2), and were judged when they did – all of which the Bible abundantly attests to (Lv. 18 – 20; Dt. 7). “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” (Lv. 18:24, 25; cf. 2Kng. 21:2).

In making the living and true of the Bible after an image more to his own liking, Brown has done just what every soul should avoid, that of taking the name of the Lord in vain, using His authority to validate his wholly unwarranted, wishful and profane fables! (And for this he will be judged by God, unless he repents).

*http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/seminary/resources/JHVH.pdf

*http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/seminary/resources/Whitfield.pdf

http://www.answers.com/topic/yahweh-2

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

See also www.davincihoax.com, and http://davincicodeerrors.com/Sacred_Feminine.html http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm. Info on Masoretes (www.wikipeida.org)

TOC

FABLE #16

DVC: Brown desirably - and incredibly - claims that early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex” in the Jewish Temple, and that YHWH was worshipped along with a female consort named Shekinah.

FACTS>16

Exodus 20:26: Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Ex. 28:42: And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Lev. 18:26: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Jer. 10:2 :Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,..

Micah 1:2b ...let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple.

Mr. Brown's inferences here that the Jewish faith sanctioned any kind of ritual sex are another of his unholy deceptions that have absolutely no basis in fact. He does not even try to falsely reference a source and there is no real one to be found. Anyone familiar with the God–ordained precise rules of behavior in the Temple knows that nakedness itself was strictly prohibited and violation of such prohibitions was a capital offense. The Temple of the Lord was holy, and those that violated it were to be slain, as were those that blaspheme God such as Brown regularly and impudently does!

It was this kind of thing which was a practice of pagan religions, and which Brown would blasphemously join the Biblical God and Christ to! Only in Israel's spiritual backsliding in direct disobedience to God was any such a thing done in the Temple:

1Sam. 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lord's people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Dt. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [male temple prostitute] of the sons of Israel.

One should read the book of Lamentations to realize the consequences of such continued idolatry and profanity.

Brown's attempt to use Shekinah is just as blasphemous. Shekinah refers to the manifest glory of God such as was seen in the Old Testament Temple (not the Mormon one!), and not that of some female consort (there were not even any female priests). Finding a name that is similar, Brown states that that name, Sheshach is “mentioned repeatedly in the Book of Jeremiah” yet this is a person's proper name and has nothing to do with Shekinah. Neither is it mentioned repeatedly but only twice is it found (Jer. 25:26, 51:41). Having sought to turn the glory of God into shame, shame shall be visited upon Brown – unless he repents: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 122).

TOC

FABLE #17

Brown taught that use of ritual, religious fornication was a means to attain knowledge of the divine. And that the Catholic church made sex into a shameful things, because it threatened their position as intercessors.

FACTS>17

Isaiah 59:1, 2 (700 B.C.) “Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear”

Outside to Rome's unBiblical deviations, Brown's imagination here is more Gnostical nonsense. Rather than bringing souls into communion with Almighty God, Brown instead actually promotes fornication, which is sin, and which separates – not unites – men from God and blessed communion with Him! Again, long, long before Roman Catholicism, the LORD declared that fornication was sin (Lev. 18; Dt. 22), and that fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God, but shall “have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (1Cor. 6:10; Rev. 21:8).

And it was because of sin that atonement was provided (which sacrifices pagan also copied), and for which the Temple was built. But Christ having come and giving Himself for our sins (as prophesied 700 years prior in Is. 53) as the perfect propitiation [perfect and final sacrifice] for our sins, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but all who come to Jesus Christ and receive the Lord are forgiven of all trespasses (Heb. 10; Col. 1:13). Praise ye the Lord!

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1Jn. 4:10, 14). Praise the Lord!

As for sex, the Scripture declares that sex within marriage is not shameful nor unclean, but “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers [those who have sexual relations before or outside of marriage] God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The only wise God, who made everything good, and enabled sexual relations, also gave us holy, just and good laws for the practices thereof. And just as a womens nakedness is not for public consumption, but only for the man who has earned the right by marriage to behold, so sexual relations are only right within the context of marriage. Among other reasons, such a highly intimate act requires the ultimate in vulnerability, which requires trust, which requires commitment, and only within the lifetime commitment called marriage is that kind of security promised and sexual intimacy approved and blessed by the Creator. And as God has designed this to normally result in bringing more lives into the world (though that is not the only reason for it), so the love and solidity of marriage is necessary there as well. The failure of many to make or keep that commitment in no way negates the fact that marriage is ordained of God, and only sexual relations between husband (man) and wife (female) is sanctioned [homo-sexual relations] are never given the provision of marriage, but are condemned).

TOC

FABLE #18

Langdon’s confident explanation: “the sacred feminine was demonized and made unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of ‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race.”(p. 238)

FACTS>18

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col. 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

1Pet. 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

No, the Bible does not “demonize” women, which is what Brown's erotic faith can do to both men and women, but makes her – as well as the man “sacred” -- not gods but creations of the true and li