The Davinci Code [Archive]

AntiochusIII

03-31-2006, 15:16

Hmm...I read it quite a long time ago.

It wasn't that bad per se, as many of us here seem to think he's the antichrist of literature. Just ignore the fanboys--like the anime fanboys I'm familiar with (as I myself is borderline one :laugh4: ), they will tout for what they like as equal to nothing less than The Three Musketeers--and realize that it is the epitome of pop fiction. That's what it is.

All the Priory of Zion (Sion?) and Templar things are just rather shallow, and the book wasn't as good as my friend touted it to be--he called it better than Harry Potter, in which many of you here would agree, but I raised an eyebrow. Oh well, I have never been a fan of thrillers. They, to me, are pathetic scheming little pop fictions--methinks I stopped reading books for a month out of disgust after reading one particularly bad one. :inquisitive:

How come? Tom Clancy is really good.(at least Red October is )Clancy is fun and all (Red October is one of his best), but he's still no Dumas or Voltaire, IMO.

Oh yeah, have I seen you around the Taleworlds forum somehow? ~:)

Kommodus

03-31-2006, 15:26

Well, I haven't read the book, so my opinion is a bit ignorant. Nevertheless, going by what I've heard, I'd say that if people were to understand the book as historical fiction, it probably wouldn't be that bad.

Unfortunately, the book seems to claim that the historical facts in it are true, without containing the usual disclaimer. Even worse, many of its readers actually believe this claim. Dan Brown needs to learn a lesson about the gullibility of people (then again, maybe he has already learned it, and his intention was to deceive).

It's important, when writing a work of fiction, to make sure people know it's fiction. To some it might be obvious, but to the historically un-educated, it's not.

Banquo's Ghost

03-31-2006, 16:07

Well, I haven't read the book, so my opinion is a bit ignorant. Nevertheless, going by what I've heard, I'd say that if people were to understand the book as historical fiction, it probably wouldn't be that bad.

It's bad because it's badly written, not because of its storyline. In fact, the idea he came up with has some merit as the basis for a fictional thriller, but Brown uses formulaic and preposterous plotting which cheats the reader by being lazy rather than creative.

Unfortunately, the book seems to claim that the historical facts in it are true, without containing the usual disclaimer. Even worse, many of its readers actually believe this claim. Dan Brown needs to learn a lesson about the gullibility of people (then again, maybe he has already learned it, and his intention was to deceive).

It's important, when writing a work of fiction, to make sure people know it's fiction. To some it might be obvious, but to the historically un-educated, it's not.

In fact, Mr Brown has learned the lesson about people's gullibility very well. 40 million plus sales well. He has a disclaimer, but one that leaves just enough doubt for the stupid to think there may be a shred of truth therein. The uneducated and uncritical is exactly where the money is these days, be it publishing or TV or whatever media.

That's the sad thing - his success means that we will suffer an unending stream of mediocre writers proferring their 'might be true if you squint' pseudo-histories. As you rightly note, this corrosion of ideas means that many people start taking fiction as fact.

Geoffrey S

03-31-2006, 16:24

It reads like Brown sought out as many conspiracy theories he could, stuck them all together and called the result a book. Not only are the contents utter nonsense and an insult to the reader's intelligence, it's also very badly written.

So no, I didn't like the book.

Keba

03-31-2006, 16:54

I've read it.

It's not bad, but it's not very good either. A quite entertaining brainless read for a boring week during vacation.

As for Clancy ... he's fun, but he has waay to many characters for me to remember them all, and every one of them is important. :dizzy2:

Monarch

03-31-2006, 17:02

I actualyl found it to be a great read. Of course, the theories in side are a laod of crap but Dan Brown writes great plots though imo. He's not so good at actually writing, which is why I think the film has a chance to be better than the book.

If you read it as a novel it's good, if you read it is an essay it's crap. do the former and have yourself a good read.

Watchman

03-31-2006, 19:12

It is my understanding a very central theme is the whole business with Jesus and Magdalene having kids, and the oh-so-sacred bloodline surviving to this day.

As I hate such "special bloodline" ideas on general principle and categorically, could hardly care less what JC and MM might've done in private and am adverse to stupid conspiracy crap in the first place nevermind the populist sort, I have distinct trouble being one bit interested in even picking up the book.

Goalie

04-01-2006, 00:40

I think that the book is based on some fact but very little of it. It is a fiction book after all. I find it funny that a lot of people are taking it seriously and writing books about it not being true.

Watchman

04-01-2006, 00:45

I can immediately think of two reasons.

First, they want to shoot it down ASAP before some nutty paranoid idiot Am... eh, forget that... gets stupid ideas.

Two, they like money too. :balloon2:

Duke of Gloucester

04-01-2006, 14:08

It's not bad, but it's not very good either. A quite entertaining brainless read for a boring week during vacation.

Exactly.

edyzmedieval

04-01-2006, 17:40

Oh yeah, have I seen you around the Taleworlds forum somehow? ~:)

Yeah Antiochus, that's me. I love Mount&Blade. ~:)

When I read a book, I want to read Clive Cussler. And I'll die happy if I meet that man. :2thumbsup:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-02-2006, 00:00

As for Clancy ... he's fun, but he has waay to many characters for me to remember them all, and every one of them is important. :dizzy2:

The only problem I have with Clancy is the amazing amount...of...well..."foreplay", I'll call it, before the novel really starts. He could easily cut 150-300 pages out of his books that no one would miss.

Redleg

05-02-2006, 00:30

The only problem I have with Clancy is the amazing amount...of...well..."foreplay", I'll call it, before the novel really starts. He could easily cut 150-300 pages out of his books that no one would miss.

Tom Clancy's initial books were good to decent. Hunt for Red October and Red Storm Rising were both good fiction books with above average plots that were well put together to capture the reader's interest in the storyline.

Most of his recent books are just page fillers to keep the fans happy and his publisher sending the checks. His plot lines have become tired from being repeated often.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-02-2006, 00:33

That complaint was mostly about "The Sum of All Fears" actually. :laugh4:

Cardinal of the Kremlin was a fairly good book though.

Redleg

05-02-2006, 00:48

That complaint was mostly about "The Sum of All Fears" actually. :laugh4:

Cardinal of the Kremlin was a fairly good book though.

I have attempted to read the last three novels - but after reading the first few pages (lucky for me I read the first 5 pages before I buy the book, and shop at a book store that allows this) I quickly came to the conclusion that Clancy is no longer truely writing, but is just throwing words onto the page.

Avicenna

05-02-2006, 08:22

There's hardly a good book out there that isn't better than Harry Potter.

Anyway, as before, it's just a story, no need to take it seriously. Believe it or not, I still think it's a good read.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-02-2006, 20:56

There's hardly a good book out there that isn't better than Harry Potter.

:laugh4:

Wait, were you actually serious? :inquisitive:

Csargo

05-02-2006, 22:33

I started reading The DaVinci Code it isnt bad so far but I havent gotten into it really yet. I read a good by Stephen King The Eyes of the Dragon pretty good I finished it last night stayed up from like 11 til 3 in the morning finishing it up pretty good book.

The Wizard

05-02-2006, 23:57

The book is of course propagandistic, arrogantly toned and needlessly hurtful.

To Opus Dei, the wonderful new-spangled foot-soldiers of the Pope, I mean. ~;)

Incongruous

05-03-2006, 08:14

Tom Clancy is such a funny guy.

The Hero a forty something hercules or some mucular hunk scientist trained in the art of Super Saiyan BS. His plot lines are just... well I mean deos he have only like three or something?
It just seem s silly, its like having Rincewind from Discworld save t5he world from ex-KGB fascist or soming and actually taking it seriuosly.

Degtyarev14.5

05-04-2006, 10:41

In one word:

Formulaic.

A.

Redleg

05-04-2006, 18:11

Most fiction writers now adays are very formulatic with their books. Once they find a basic plot and a genra that they can sell, they normally stick with it.

There are some expections - but they are not the norm.

Enoch

05-08-2006, 10:52

A Ron’s rod. When is this crap going to end? So much to read and this is what you can show? Of all the good literature out there, the mould infested piece of, where is toilet paper when you need some, brownish refuse with clear reference to someone’s last name. To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members. To break healed wounds, to reopen the tomb of Him that lies not there just to say there are old bones there, the God was merely a man who died; is scorn in a believer’s ears. This just shows how the angel of sin rules this world and gives wicked men power and riches. Soon there will be a reckoning, the righteous is the ones that will inherit this world not the wicked.

As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

Aenlic

05-08-2006, 12:44

A poorly written work of fiction upsetting some people's belief in another even more poorly written work of fiction. I don't see what the big deal is.

Brenus

05-08-2006, 23:19

“A poorly written work of fiction upsetting some people's belief in another even more poorly written work of fiction. I don't see what the big deal is.” And? Because this poorly written book, a completely stupid plot, a non sense with no end, I started to read about the Gnostic. And THAT is interesting… Most of what the author is saying in the Gnosis. As an atheist, it is good to see how the Church built its power, what Irene cut and paste, what they rejected, etc. So, at least, this book raised my interest, as collateral interest.:2thumbsup:

“To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members” Read the Gnosis, and you will see that (some) devout early Christians believed it. And for them it was the proof that God really made an alliance with Man.:laugh4:

Because, at the end of the day, as the English say, what importance if Christ had a daughter? None. Will it change the doctrine? No.

Enoch

05-09-2006, 09:27

The gnosis is often hidden in provocative texts; as in mine.
A famous sequence of numbers will reveal the message.

Brenus

05-09-2006, 17:55

Where is Joseph’s… ? Who wrote the Gospels? How is it possible that some are so similar and some show huge discrepancies? Did John, Matthew and others ever existed?:dizzy2:

Sigurd

05-10-2006, 16:30

The gnosis is often hidden in provocative texts; as in mine.
A famous sequence of numbers will reveal the message.
In light of this thread I suspect you encoded a message using the fibonacci numbers (1,1,2,3,5,8,13 etc...) and I suspect you put the words in Italic to further help us on our way.
Let’s see…

A Ron’s rod. When is this crap going to end? So much to read and this is what you can show? Of all the good literature out there, the mould infested piece of, where is toilet paper when you need some, brownish refuse with clear reference to someone’s last name. To drag the beautiful Magdalen’s reputation as a devoted disciple down and insinuate marriage and sexual behaviour with the GOD of all mankind, shows gross disrespect for Christianity and its devoted members. To break healed wounds, to reopen the tomb of Him that lies not there just to say there are old bones there, the God was merely a man who died; is scorn in a believer’s ears. This just shows how the angel of sin rules this world and gives wicked men power and riches. Soon there will be a reckoning, the righteous is the ones that will inherit this world not the wicked.

Aaron’s rod is going to show where Magdalene’s tomb is

Am I correct?

The Blind King of Bohemia

05-11-2006, 09:09

From 14 to 29 Christs life is unrecorded, he could have done anything in that time such as marry and have children. Surely common sense would say so.

hoom

05-11-2006, 12:22

I've read The Templar Revelation, a small part of the start of The Davinci code before getting bored & am currently struggling through The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail.
This kinda leaves me with a wierd outlook on it I think.

So far The Templar Revelation has been the most interesting.
It gets lost for a long time in the middle struggling to try to link the Templars with all the later phonies trying to claim direct descent from them & thus prove that the Priory of Scion actually exists & is legit.

But it has some very interesting stuff about early christianity that makes a lot of sense to me of things that had previously been entirely perplexing.
Particularly the strange tendency of catholics to effectively worship Mary which always seemed to be idolatry to me.

There seem to be a few main claims (though they do not actually state them as a clear theory):
The Priory of Sion is really old & has legitimate direct lineage to at least the Templars. (bollocks)
John the Baptist was a missionary for the cult of Isis & Jesus was his junior/apprentice.
Jesus went rogue in Jerusalem, played out the egyptian godhood marriage, death & resurrection thang with his priestess Magdalene & most of his teachings were actually out of the Isis cult rather than 'jewish done right like god wanted'.
Magdalene went to Southern France afterwards, bringing some treasure/relic with her.
The locals took to the teachings of Magdalene & Templars, Rosicrucians, Cathars & various other eastern nominally Christian groups continued the tradition but hid it behind somewhat odd but externally christian practice. This seems to include worship of the goddess rather than god/jesus & a reverence for John the Baptist as legit over Jesus the fake/rogue usurper.

Brenus

05-11-2006, 18:15

“Particularly the strange tendency of catholics to effectively worship Mary which always seemed to be idolatry to me”. Funny you say that because in France, the Cult of Marie was launch massively in the 19th Century, but not by the Church but by Napoleon the Third. Reason: Women were hardliners during the past revolutions in France (1789, 1830 and 1848). So Napoleon wanted to emphasised the Mother in Mary, and to convinced women to stay indoor and stopping to built barricades and throwing stones to the soldiers… So, we don’t speak of Religion but politic, even it is often mixed.:laugh4:

I agree with some people here. I still don’t understand what the author wanted to say or to demonstrate:inquisitive:

Aenlic

05-11-2006, 19:52

Remember when reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail that the modern Priory of Sion was an elaborate hoax concocted by Pierre Plantard with the help of Gerard de Sede and Philippe de Cherisey. All of them, at one time or another admitted that the Dossiers Secrets which make up most of the source for the modern Priory were planted by them in the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris in the late 1960's as part of the hoax. One of the authors of the book, Henry Lincoln (real name Henry Soskin, an actor) has also admitted to knowing all of this prior to writing the book.

That said, much of the rest of the book is very interesting, as long as you eliminate anything having to do with Plantard, the dossiers secrets and the modern Prioy of Sion. There is certainly enough mystery to go around.

How did a handful of knights supposedly dedicated to protecting pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem become powerful enough to have their headquarters on the grounds of the destroyed Temple of Solomon when other, larger and older, knightly military organizations existed? How did that same handful of knights transform themselves into the most powerful organization in all of Europe - the Templars? If you can cut through all of the BS, that alone is an incredible story.

Why is Rosslyn Chapel so chock full of obvious esoteric symbolism? What is the connection between the Freemasons and the Templars, if any? After all, it is certainly true that the papal decree dissolving and outlawing the Templars was never promulgated in Scotland. The Templars were only persecuted in France, for the most part. At the time, the Templars were powerful throughout Europe. The arrest and persecution of those Templars in France certainly couldn't have included all or even most of the Templars. Where did they go?

The cult of the Magdalene has a lot of interesting history. So does the Languedoc region of France. The people there certainly believe that the Magdalene came ashore there. It ties in interestingly with the Nag Hammadi manuscripts of the Gnostics. The so-called Gospel of Mary presents some interesting considerations regarding Mary. How does that change interpretations of her possible coming to France? What is the relation between the Gnostics and Mary, between Mary and the later advent of the Cathars in the Languedoc? Remember, at the time of the Cathars, the Gnostic manuscripts of Nag Hammadi were utterly unknown.

As far as Jesus and Mary being married. It certainly seems credible. Even those who take the Gospels as literal truth could see that if they applied their literal truth to ALL of the Gospels, and not just bits and pieces. If Jesus was, in fact, subject to Jewish law as claimed in the Gospels, then he was required, as a rabbi, to marry. Some early Christians, before Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, certainly believed that Jesus was married. Hippolytus and Origen both write about the Song of Solomon being a prophecy of Jesus' marriage to Mary.

Lots of interesting stuff to investigate. Just be sure to toss out the modern Priory of Sion crap invented by Plantard, de Sede and de Cherisey. Sadly, it is that stuff which provides fuel for the "true believers" to toss out all of the good facts with the bad.

The Blind King of Bohemia

05-12-2006, 11:19

Rosslyn Chapel is indeed a strange place and was extrememly interesting but it saddened and annoyed me to see all of these sad american tourists there ruining the atmosphere and buying books in the scores. Still the symbolism there is very unique and certainly worth seeing

hoom

05-12-2006, 15:23

Remember when reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail that the modern Priory of Sion was an elaborate hoax concocted by Pierre Plantard with the help of Gerard de Sede and Philippe de Cherisey.
Yah thats definitely the impression that I got from The Templar Revelation & what I've read so far in Holy Blood on that aspect has had the distinct flavour of complicity in a hoax.

Rosacrux redux

05-12-2006, 16:05

Having just finished writing a monography about the Templars, I think I'll try and answer those questions Aenlic asked... I've read 11 (!) books on the subject, ranging from really serious and thorough scientific work to sensationalist crap, so I am familiar with most stuff

How did a handful of knights supposedly dedicated to protecting pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem become powerful enough to have their headquarters on the grounds of the destroyed Temple of Solomon when other, larger and older, knightly military organizations existed?

The Templars were the first military order. The hospitalers have formed around 1100-2 but they did not become a military order until the mid 30s (their militarization was profoundly influenced by the Templars - those started off as a military order)

How did that same handful of knights transform themselves into the most powerful organization in all of Europe - the Templars? If you can cut through all of the BS, that alone is an incredible story.

That "handful of knights" included a nephew (Andre de Mondbard) and a very good friend and patron (Hughes Count of Champaigne) of Saint Bernard, the most influental and powerful figure of the catholic church in the 1100s. Also, they got full support by the kingdom of Jerusalm for extremely obvious reasons. The rise of the Templars bears no mystery at all. They were a force of history, in a much needed time. The Cistercians started even more humbly and became even more rich, powerful and influental. Why does nobody connect them with grails and other similar crap?

Why is Rosslyn Chapel so chock full of obvious esoteric symbolism?

the RC was build two centuries after the dissolvment of the Templars, by the forefather of all Masons. He did want to establish a connection with the Templars, and so he proceeded to do so.

What is the connection between the Freemasons and the Templars, if any?

None at all. The masons have always tried to establish a long tradition for themselves, just to show that "they were always there". So they invented (see also above) the whole connection with the Templars, based on rather shaky ground. Connecting with the templars allowed them to connect with the supposed tradition of the (rather imaginary, at least in the context of the masons) masons of the temple of Solomon and the Egyptian masons of the pyramids before them. A huge joke, I might say, only too many people find it to hold water...

After all, it is certainly true that the papal decree dissolving and outlawing the Templars was never promulgated in Scotland. The Templars were only persecuted in France, for the most part. At the time, the Templars were powerful throughout Europe. The arrest and persecution of those Templars in France certainly couldn't have included all or even most of the Templars. Where did they go?

The templars were persecuted throughout Europe, not only France. We have archives and documents from Cyprus to Portugal and from Sicily to England. They (a few of them) were burnt only in France, that is true, but all European templars save a handful here and there were arrested or came later willingly to throw themselves at the mercy of the church. Like 95% didn't even serve a day in prison. And they even got some really fat pensions afterwards, when De Molay was ashes, Philip, Clement and the prelates had their greedy hands on the Templar possesions and the whole fuss was history. There are plentiful accounts on former templars and their whereabouts after the dissolution of the order. Most faired typical lives, nothing extravagant, some returned to their houses, some got a fat enough pension to make a new fortune, some got hired by Muslims (!!!) some joined the Hospitalers, some entered monasteries throughout Europe. Nothing supporting the wild, imaginative Templar resettlement to Scotland and - even more imaginative - the "new world".

I am not going to comment on the M. Magdalene story. There are certain aspects of the story that are true, but most of it is just the vivid imagination of some people who absolutely have to invent some sort of matriarchy where it never existed. Oh, whatever. Laguedoc is an interesting story as well, but those throwing in the Cathars should really read the history of the Cathars and their connection with the Balkan (mostly Bulgarian) Bogomils.
Also there are dozens of "secret gospels" and less than a handful mention aspects of the story of magdalene.

Aenlic

05-12-2006, 20:39

I didn't ask them as questions, my friend. I asked them rhetorically, to make a point about many other interesting aspects to the story without needing to give credence to the hoax perpetrated by Plantard et. al. which muddied the waters. I didn't mean to imply mystery, just interest.

As to your specific points. The number of Templars who came forward for clemency, were arrested, or were known to have fled does not come anywhere close to matching the known numbers of Templars in the very precise and, for the time, amazingly accurate financial records kept by the Templars themselves. The whole thing was mostly due to Philip's greed. And yet, after he "got his hands on" the Templar possessions, his debts didn't decrease in the least. There is no record that he ever acquired the Templar treasury. A treasury known to have been larger than that of any royal house in Europe. The Templars kept meticulous financial records. They began what amounted to the first international banking system. And the vast majority of that wealth is gone. No one acquired it. Philip certainly didn't. Where did it go? The pensions of some doesn't even make a dent in the monies we're talking about here.

The Templars didn't just quietly disappear and cease to exist as an organization. The idea that they did is ludicrous. The Nazi party didn't cease to exist after WWII, either - except in official name. Read up on the Odessa organization and what happened in South America after WWII. At one point, Uruguay was controlled by ex-Nazi Germans in all but name. Large, incredibly powerful organizations don't just cease to exist because someone outlaws them, a trial is held and a few of them are tried while the rest go free. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, the Masons tried to link themselves to the Templars. So did the Rosicrucians, the fin de siecle occultists, and many more. That doesn't detract from the fact that only 200 years after the official end of the Templars, an organization appeared with remarkable symbolic similarities in the one place in Europe in which the papal decree outlawing the Templars wasn't promulgated. And, by the way, Freemasons and Masons aren't the same thing. :smile: And in Portugal, where the Templars were found innocent by an ecclesiastical court, they merely changed their name under the auspices of King Dinis and continued on as the Order of Christ.

As for Mary and Jesus, you ignored my point about early Christian writers accepting the Jesus being married as fact. If you want to argue about it, argue it with Hippolytus and Origen and more. It wasn't until Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century took great exception to the concept that it became unacceptable to write about Jesus as married. It wasn't just the Nag Hammadi Gnostic manuscripts which talk about Jesus being married. It was early leaders of the Roman church like Hippolytus and Origen also. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts are contemporary with those two, which brings the later anti-female writings of Justin and Clement into question more than the writings of Hippolytus and Origen.

There are theological ties between the Cathars and Bogomils, certainly. It was Christian writers who tried to tie them together completely because of similarities of belief. Both had certain Gnostic similarities. So did the Manichaeans and Paulicians before them. Your point? Does the fact that Cathars were influenced by the earlier Bogomils who were influenced by the earlier Paulicians who were influenced by Manichaeists who were influenced by the even earlier Mandaeanists who were almost certainly Gnostics have anything to do with arguing my point? The connection seems rather to support my point, doesn't it? The connection between Cathars and Gnosticism? :grin:

I find those who dismiss things too easily just as credulous as those who believe things too easily. It's nice that you've read 11 books on the subject. I suspect we've both read them. When you read books dismissing questions, take close heed to the agenda of the writer; just as you would to the agenda of someone asking the questions.

AntiochusIII

05-18-2006, 00:11

I agree with some people here. I still don’t understand what the author wanted to say or to demonstrate:inquisitive:Controversy = money. Dan Brown is a career genre writer, this is his job; even I cannot deny that the Da Vinci Code is his masterpiece, not literary but commercially. His appeals to controversy and religion is simply...impressive. The outrage provoked (from the dumbasses of society), the interests that followed the outrage, the flow of sales that followed the interests, the expanding "merchandise" including "refuting" books and the movie--though of course the "refutations" aren't his books. The book itself, like I said, is just an ordinary thriller. Nothing particularly special--not bad, in fact, I enjoyed it a little before all the hype gets a little to saturated.

In other words, I honestly doubt Mr. Brown buy the crap about Jesus and Da Vinci and Newton and all that, and that he tries to say something to Christians in particular. Or maybe he does, but his message got a lil' skewed; who knows? Though it is nice to know that his work sparks interest in actual fact-finding in many people to verify his ludicrously out-of-the-world plot tool.

By the way, what's with all the fascination about the Templars? What's so spectacular about a bunch of knights gathered together when they were in desperate need (after the First Crusade) and got really rich by clever experimentation until the King of France got greedy about them, anyway, that so many are captured in imagination with them? You'd think they're the King Arthurs considering all the interests and the conspiracy theories about them... :inquisitive:

Watchman

05-18-2006, 08:28

I'd guess the original locale of their headquarters to be one. Another would be that I seem to recall reading them actually traipsing around the Middle East a whole lot (when the diplomatic situation allowed anyway) looking after assorted biblical esoterica. One could be their diplomatic relations to the Assasins (who are apparently a household name in assorted "ancient conspiracy" effigies; not that all the Crusader Kingdoms didn't have some sort of working relationship with the sect, mind you...).

But personally I'm half willing to guess it's just that they have a particularly cool-sounding name, and met such a dramatic end. The other major Orders petered out in such banal fashions as to be a real let-down for anyone looking for drama.

Aenlic

05-18-2006, 12:30

I agree with Watchman. It has a lot to do with the Templars just ending suddenly (for the most part), at the height of their power and wealth, when other military orders just sort of faded into oblivion. Add in the mystique caused by their controversial confessions and the coincidental death of both the Pope and Philip the Fair within a year after De Molay supposedly cursed them to die as he was burning on heretic's pyre and you have the stuff of legend. Such a legend that the date of their initial arrests in France, Friday 13th, has become a traditional superstition of being an unlucky day. Their story has it all - wealth, power, fame, a strange beginning, a tragic end, warfare, mystery and excitement. An accomplished storyteller would have difficulty just inventing a better tale; and yet, most of it is true with lots of peripheral mystery and supposition that serves to further inspire the imagination.

The Blind King of Bohemia

05-19-2006, 18:06

I did enjoy though reading about some of the Templars replies while under torture about Jesus and about the cross. Although it could be seen as blasphemous and could easily been changed to a more erratic answer, it was the way they spoke under intense pain with a cool head that is definetly interesting in their baphomet beliefs and how christ apparently stole alot of John the Baptists teachings

A few examples of Templar replies when asked about christ:

"Set not much faith in this for it is too young" [spoken when showed a cross] The same man then said believe in a higher god as christ was nothing but a false prophet

Another stated that when induced into the order he was told "You believe wrongly because (Christ) is indeed a false prophet. Believe in god in heaven and not in him"

Another said: "Do not believe that the man Jesus whom the Jews crucified in Outremer is God and that he can save you"

These could have easily been tampered with but if the papal authorities did they would have made it more incriminating and damning to the accused. If this is truth it must show that a number of Templars did not concur with Catholic orthodoxy of the period

Aenlic

05-19-2006, 21:01

I've seen some interesting interpretations of the meaning of Baphomet, which several Templars admitted to "worshipping" under torture. Baphomet was believed by the church to be a demon or idol of some kind. However, some scholars now believe that Baphomet was a mispronunciation or mistranslation of Mohammed, or perhaps a mistranslation of the Arabic for "father of wisdom" which is abufihamat. Either might be reasonable, considering the many years of contact and influence the Templars had in the Holy Land with Islam.

An even more interesting theory applies an ancient Jewish cypher system called Atbash. Using the Atbash cypher, Baphomet becomes "sophia" which means wisdom in Greek. What makes this interesting is that Sophia was worshipped by some Gnostics as a personification of knowledge and wisdom, and her earthly incarnation was... Mary Magdalene. Sophia also plays a very important part in some Kabbalistic sects of Judaism. This again could have ties to the Templars stay in the Holy Land, which was also the center of the followers of the Jewish Kabbalah. It all just heightens the aura of mystery around the Templars.

For my part, I find the idea of the Templars as having incorporated much of the teachings of Judaism and Islam into their inner rites as credible. So of the many interpretations, I find the mistranslation of abufihamat into Baphomet to be the most credible.

Watchman

05-19-2006, 22:57

I've heard that for their part the Assasins took their doctrine in some very unorthodox directions. Christians have been pretty good at doing the same even without the amount of weird crap the Templars must've picked up over the years (and pulled out of their arses through sheer egomania, for that matter - I can well imagine what being HQ'd at the Temple alone would've done to the heads of some...).

Aenlic

05-20-2006, 05:54

Minor thread derailment is about to occur...

A Flying Spaghetti Monster sig! Love it. I have a T-shirt with the pic of the FSM and the trees and the mountain and the midget. I also have one around here somewhere of the iconic pipe-smoking J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, "founder" of the Church of the Subgenius.

ZombieFriedNuts

05-21-2006, 14:11

I decided to read the book to see what all the fuss was about, I thought it was quite good if you read it as the fiction that it is.

I also watched the film, utter cack.

The Blind King of Bohemia

05-21-2006, 15:11

I decided to read the book to see what all the fuss was about, I thought it was quite good if you read it as the fiction that it is.

I also watched the film, utter cack.

The film was not helped by the actors, the female lead and tom hanks were awful but Bettany and McKellan were great. The flashbacks especially the siege of Jerusalem were top notch

ZombieFriedNuts

05-21-2006, 20:24

The historical flashbacks were the only bits I did like of it.

O and is the templar extermination why the number 13 is unlucky or is it just Friday 13th

The Blind King of Bohemia

05-21-2006, 20:35

The historical flashbacks were the only bits I did like of it.

O and is the templar extermination why the number 13 is unlucky or is it just Friday 13th

Apparently according to some texts, and that isn't just Dan Brown. The number 13 has been seen as unlucky through other cultures. I read somewhere such as in Norse mythology. Others believe it could stem from 13 people being at the last supper. Yet it was only in the 19th century that a feeling of ill luck surrounded friday the 13th

Steppe Merc

05-21-2006, 20:41

It a fictional book. It has some historical facts, but more distortions and not true things. But it is an excellent book. Angels and Demons is good too.

Kralizec

05-21-2006, 21:12

In fact, A&D is better.

I read (NOT in Browns books) that the whole aversion to friday the 13th came specificly from the Templar persecutions. Can anybody confirm/dismiss this?

Aenlic

05-22-2006, 01:58

What I've read on the matter suggests that the Friday 13th superstition is directly related to the arrests of the Templars in France on Friday, October 13th, 1307. But there is some support for it having to do with the Norse gods numbering 12 at a feast in Valhalla when Loki, number 13 and uninvited, came in with the end result being the death of Balder, the god of joy.

In looking further I found this about.com article which seems to cover just about everything, http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/friday_the_13th_4.htm

Brenus

05-22-2006, 20:48

Whatever the real roots, Friday the 13th was really a bad day for the Templar.

Aenlic

05-23-2006, 01:03

Have to agree there. Going from an organization more powerful and rich than any country in Europe to nothing in the blink of an eye must've left many of them looking like shell-shocked refugees in a bombed out WWII city.

edyzmedieval

05-23-2006, 15:47

It's a commercial masterpiece. It got to the public because of the religion fact. Simple as that.

Although, the Templar Mystery must be read though. :book:

AwesomeArcher

05-25-2006, 18:10

I read the book, it was pretty good. I liked the action. I also read one of Dan Brown's other books Angels and Demons. I think that was better than the Davinci Code. Has anyone seen the movie yet. I plan to see it sometime this weekend, it has already made a load of money both in the U.S. and Worldwide.

Aenlic

05-25-2006, 20:01

I went to see it today. It won't rank on my list of great movies; but it was certainly entertaining. It remained mostly faithful to the book except for minor detail near the end dealing with Sophie's family. It might seem a bit confusing to those who haven't read the book, or who don't know the details of books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail; but at this point, many millions have read the book.

Ian McKellan is wonderful. There is some nice humor in there as well. Tom Hanks actually seems credible as Langston, which surprised me. I'd much rather have seen one of the original people up for the part of Sophie, Sophie Marceau, get the role; but that's just because I'm a big fan of Marceau. Jean Reno is wonderful as the French police detective, too.

The book was entertaining and so was the movie. Are either masterpieces of literature or film? No. But it was worth the price of admission.

AwesomeArcher

05-27-2006, 04:28

I saw the movie just a few hours ago, i would give it 4 1/2 stars. It follows the books really well and the actors fit the book pretty well. I would recommmend seeing it. I dont really see what all the fuss is about the whole movie. My friend is a catholic and he said that his pastor put a message in their bulliton saying that they should not see the movie. I think they are missing the whole meaning of the world fiction. I go to church every week (Luthran) and i had no trouble watching the movie, it is just a well written, thought out, and clever fiction book/movie.

naut

05-28-2006, 12:37

IMHO, it is almost as BS as the Harry Potter series. Except that the Harry Potter series was fun to some degree.

It was a great FICTION book, and that is what most people don't understand. If they need proof its FICTION, they can take their gullible *** to any library and see where it is shelved!

Sure its a therom. In the same way that by me saying, that the world is actually a giant Paw-Paw and the reality we have is just a holograph displayed from a electronic paving-stone, is also a therom.

And I think I should lend Dan Brown $10 to get some writing lessons, his literrary skills are almost as bad as Tim Winton's, and don't get me started on him!.

Yey Ranting! :furious3: :juggle2:

EDIT: Very clever Aenlic, I love the fact I spelt "literrary" wrong!

Aenlic

05-28-2006, 14:07

Oh, the irony. The irony is killing me! :laugh4:

edyzmedieval

05-28-2006, 21:22

I started reading the Templar Revelation, and I have to say, it's really breathtaking. It captives me, for some unknown reason. :inquisitive:

Reading. :book:

edyzmedieval

05-28-2006, 21:22

I started reading the Templar Revelation, and I have to say, it's really breathtaking. It captives me, for some unknown reason. :inquisitive:

Reading. :book:

Enoch

05-29-2006, 11:43

Aaron’s rod is going to show where Magdalene’s tomb is

Am I correct?
You are...

I was just having a little fun.

AwesomeArcher

05-29-2006, 15:10

IMHO, it is almost as BS as the Harry Potter series. Except that the Harry Potter series was fun to some degree.

It was a great FICTION book, and that is what most people don't understand. If they need proof its FICTION, they can take their gullible *** to any library and see where it is shelved!

Sure its a therom. In the same way that by me saying, that the world is actually a giant Paw-Paw and the reality we have is just a holograph displayed from a electronic paving-stone, is also a therom.

And I think I should lend Dan Brown $10 to get some writing lessons, his literrary skills are almost as bad as Tim Winton's, and don't get me started on him!.

Yey Ranting! :furious3: :juggle2:

Apparently the millions of people who have bought the book and watched the movie dont think he needs writing lessons.

ZombieFriedNuts

05-31-2006, 00:26

It was the controversy that made people bye the book

AwesomeArcher

05-31-2006, 03:55

It was the controversy that made people bye the book

Yes, i agree that the controversy played a big part, but it takes good writing skills to create that kind of controversy.

Keba

05-31-2006, 05:56

Aenlic

05-31-2006, 08:53

Yeah, I mean look at the Bible. Terrible writing. But people believe it, in spite of reason and lack of evidence; because they're told it's true. Proof positive that people will believe just about anything if you package it right.:dizzy2:

naut

05-31-2006, 08:53

Its popular culture. It doesn't mean it is automatically good if bought by the millions of systematic drones in our society who follow popular culture no matter what. It is similar to modern art, to make modern art all you need to do is **** on a canvas, and hey presto you've made a masterpiece.

And I am saying this in regard to the Da Vinci Code, not the Bible

Aenlic

05-31-2006, 09:16

Why? The Da Vinci Code phenomenon is no more an artifact of popular culture and gullibility than the Bible. How is it so different for one writer to take a bunch of fiction and mix in a little fact and sell it to the credulous masses than for a group of religious prelates to do it? In many ways, making an anthology of a bunch of unproven stories, leaving some out and changing others, then presenting the result to the popular culture as "the word of God" and therefore the absolute truth is very little different than what Dan Brown did. And both Dan Brown and the church got rich doing it, at the expense of the gullible, believe-anything-they're-told, unwashed and unthinking masses.

I find the modern result rather amusing. Especially when I see religious believers, especially priests and bishops and such, on TV denouncing the Da Vinci Code as badly written fiction and unproven conjecture made to sell to the masses because it directly contradicts another badly written work of fiction and unproven conjecture made to sell to the masses. And they do it with straight faces, apparently completely unaware of the irony. :smile:

Monk

05-31-2006, 09:18

~:wave:

Greetings forum goers. i'd like to take this opportunity to post a friendly reminder in this thread to stay on the topic of the op's intent. This isn't directed at anyone, just think of it as a little deterence. :bow:

Aenlic

05-31-2006, 09:45

What are everyone's thoughts on the Davinci Code. I know it stirred up a lot of questions in me. It was a very intriguing book.

The original post.

Everything so far looks on topic to me. :laugh4:

naut

05-31-2006, 09:48

:laugh4: No Aenlic, I was replying to Keba's post. And you posted just as / just before I posted. So I thought it would be appropriate that I state that I was refering to what was being said before, not to what you said.

An interesting theory/train of thought none-the-less.

:focus: It is MHO that the Da Vinci Code is ... for the lack of a good English word ... entsetzlich, and literature is all based on opinion. So people can view it in anyway they wish.

Aenlic

05-31-2006, 09:52

Ah, I understand Rythmic! My apologies.

I need to work on my miserable German language skills. My ancestors from Schornsheim would be appalled. What is the closest English language equivalent to entsetzlich? Ist es idiomatisch?

Ah, I figured it out. Terrible? Well, I found the book entertaining. It isn't up to the standards of literary perfection perhaps. For that I go to authors like Neil Gaiman or Kim Stanley Robinson; but it was entertaining enough to keep me reading. Of course, I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail when it came out in the early 1980's; so I was already familiar with the premise of the book. As fiction goes, it is about the average, I'd say. But then, I absolutely hated some works that are supposed to be classics, like Madame Bovary and Les Miserables; so I'm no expert on good literature.

naut

05-31-2006, 10:41

No need to apologise.

Nein. Es ist nicht idiomatisch. Es bedeutet "Appalling", "Horrible" und "Abysmal". Aber ist die beste Bedeutung "Bloodcurdling".

I am glad you found it entertaining, as that is what a fiction book is for. To entertain the reader. Unfortunatly I was not entertained by it. In regards to other literature, yes some of it is entirely BS and boring. But then again some is good. And it all is in relation to opinion.

Oh yes, and looking back I realised what was so ironic! :laugh4:

Rosacrux redux

05-31-2006, 10:58

Nein. Es ist nicht idiomatisch. Es bedeutet "Appalling", "Horrible" und "Abysmal". Aber ist die beste Bedeutung "Bloodcurdling".

Genau!

I would agree with those stating that a best-seller is not automatically "good" nor its author can be regarded as even decent because of its sales. D.B. is a smart guy, with a decent background in apocryphal stuff, very decent at PRing his work, with a good intuition for controversy, but frankly as a writer he is ...well... schrecklich :laugh4:

The book is rather silly, and I didn't even bother to watch the film, although I should thank both DB and the filmmakers, for they provided my to-be-published (coming Monday) monography about the Knights Templar with lots and lots of free publicity.

Too bad most people who'll buy the book motivated by DVC shall be dissapointed, because I only devote 7 pages to the "mysteries" surrounding the Order... the rest is just plain history :book:

Aenlic

05-31-2006, 12:39

History is always good. At the very least, some might be motivated to learn more about the Templars and end up learning some actual facts! The way I see it, if only 1 out of 100 people actually come away from the book or movie with an itch to learn more and end up discovering how to separate the fact from the fantasy, then we're better off than we'd be without the interest. Some scenes from the movie certainly seem to at least arouse some interest. There's a wonderful overhead shot down to the Temple Church in London, showing the wonderful statue of two knights on a horse. Maybe it will tempt people find out why that is?

Rosacrux redux

05-31-2006, 13:31

Then they should read my book! I say all about it! ~D

Actually, they'd better check out some decent books about the templar, and not the sensationalist crap and uber-hyped apocryphal bull ...they should check out Malcolm Barber's work, for instance! Aside from the primary sources I managed to get my hands on, his "the new knighthood" and "trial of the templars" were my best sources while writing my own little book.

AwesomeArcher

06-01-2006, 02:52

I think evidence tells a different tale ... you do not need good writing skills to make a popular controversy that will be literally swallowed by the common masses uh ... I'd better stop now. :sweatdrop:

But than couldn't anybody write a book that sells millions of copies? That is my last comment on whether Dan Brown is good writer or not, as it is purly opinion and you can think what ever you wish as rythemic said I agree with you on your other point rythemic modern art is junk (again just my opinion), sorry if off topic.

AntiochusIII

06-01-2006, 08:01

But than couldn't anybody write a book that sells millions of copies? That is my last comment on whether Dan Brown is good writer or not, as it is purly opinion and you can think what ever you wish as rythemic said I agree with you on your other point rythemic modern art is junk (again just my opinion), sorry if off topic.Argumentum ad populum et ad numerum.

That's all I have to say. ~:)

naut

06-01-2006, 08:23

Argumentum ad populum et ad numerum.

That's all I have to say. ~:)

"Proof to populace and to total."

Um, what does it mean?

Aenlic

06-01-2006, 14:20

Argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad numerum are logical fallacies used in arguments.

Argumentum ad populem, argument or appeal to the public, also known as the "30 million Elvis fans" fallacy, attempts to prove an argument by claiming that the assertion is true because most of the public agrees with it. It is basically a claim that the majority opinion is always the correct opinion, which is obviously wrong.

Argumentum ad numerum, argument or appeal to numbers, is basically the same thing. Both logical fallacies are essentially identical - an appeal to a claim of fact based on majority opinion; although ad populem tends to be made in more general terms such as "everyone says it's true" therefore it must be true.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Justiciar

06-01-2006, 20:55

Just found this on YouTube. :laugh4:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_P8Ek9ygNrU&search=Dead%20Ringers

naut

06-04-2006, 07:03

IrishArmenian

06-11-2006, 23:27

I read it, because I felt bad for judging it. At the most, a semi-fun story. Bad writing, mostly fabrications, and to say the Catholic Church is anti-women is absurd at best, and I have three words to prove it: The Virgin Mary. She is almost worshipped. I thought that a good writer could have made it a fun book, but sadly, not true.

Puzz3D

07-11-2006, 20:38

The DaVinci Code is only the second mystery novel I've read as far as I can remember. The other one was Mystic River by Dennis Lehane. I think Mystic River is the better novel. Dan Brown does a lot of handholding of the reader as though he doesn't want to loose anyone. It's definitely written for people below my level of reading comprehension which is no doubt intentional to capture the widest possible audience. I didn't have to expend any effort figuring it out since the author explains everything; sometimes more than once. He must tell you that Sophie is a cryptographer about twenty times which was starting to get to me. Some of the characters were very convoluted, and sometimes the logic of their thinking didn't make sense. I suppose convoluted characters and red herrings that aren't what they seem is what makes a mystery story. However, it all gets wrapped up far too easily as far as I'm concerned. Just the same, I did like the symbolic ending.

The puzzles, the weaving together of the historical claims and existant physical sites, and the linking of symbolism is intriguing and clever, and cause for further investigation. When you do investigate you find that a lot of things are obscure, and it's often difficult to get a truthful grasp of the historical events and cross influences. At the same time you can see how easily fallacies can be propagated and become accepted as actual events.

Regardless of whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, she did go everywhere with him. Sometime after Jesus died, Peter the apostle was outraged at her because she claimed to have information given to her by Jesus that he hadn't told the 12 men. She may well have left the group at that point. It's possible she went to Ephesus in Asia Minor and died there.

The gnostics believe that Jesus and Sophia were the lowest Aeon pair eminated by God, and that the world was created in its imperfect state by a demigurge that she eminated after becoming separated from Jesus her male counterpart. Jesus then found Sophia and brought her back into the pleroma, and then came to Earth to show men the way back to spirituality via gnosis.

St. Paul wrote of pneumatics which were people who could achieve gnosis. "I long to see you, so that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charisma." (Romans 1:11-12); pneumatic is the gnostic term for the class of people who were governed by their spiritual side and thus saved. (wikipedia) "As for himself, in 1 Corinthians, Paul considers he is a Steward of the mysteries of God, which was also the technical term for a priest in the Egyptian version of the mystery religions where the central figure is the god Serapis. Paul also claims to know someone who ascended as far as the third heaven, a principle which in mystery religions represented the degree of initiation achieved (for example, in the Mithras version there were 7 heavens, one for each of the 5 known planets, the sun, and the moon)." "He grew up in Tarsus, which was a centre (and possibly the origin, as suggested by Plutarch) of the Mithras version of Mystery Religions." (wikipedia)

"The terms Paul uses for perfected Christianity, such as (in the standard translation) Mature and to the level of maturity and the perfect man, actually use the Greek word Teleioi, which means initiated, a principle also used in the hellenic mystery religions. In particular, in 1 Corinthians, we speak wisdom amongst the perfected also translates we speak of Sophia amongst the initiated (Sophia being a spiritual entity to the gnostics as well as the usual Greek word for "wisdom"), something which the gnostic Valentinians quoted as proof that Paul initiated Christians into the gnostic ideas of Sophia." (wikipedia)

St. Paul writings are also one of the sources of the minimization of women's role in the church. However, the latest issue of St. Anthony's magazine has an article that disputes the authenticity of the passage in which Paul says, women should be silent in church and do what their husbands tell them to do, which they say most historians now consider to be an interpolation inserted by someone else. So, Dan Brown is on the mark about the supression of the sacred feminine in christianity (although motherhood is held in high regard), but it also extends to Judaism so it must have an older tradition than the New Testament. Contrary to what Dan Brown states, Jehovah is not a male/female dualistic god. Jehovah is a warrior god which may have been based on Baal (The Israelites were captive in Babylon from 586 BC to 539 BC.) and wholly patriarchal, and the name Jehovah is a translation of YHWH from the Masoretic Text which was made between the seventh and tenth centuries CE. "Most modern scholars believe that when the Masoretes added vowel points to the consonantal Hebrew text, they had not placed the correct vowel points of God's name above and below the consonants of YHWH." (wikipedia)

Sensei Warrior

07-15-2006, 01:18

I will say this. I read The DaVinci Code, and I liked it. It was a very reasonably, well made fictional work, geared to pop-culture. I didn't particularly enjoy the hand holding, but that is to be expected from work that is designed to garner the widest audience possible.

I did not know much about the Templars before reading the book. The book however did encourage me to find out more about them. Thus, I found out about the different theories Dan Brown wove together to make his book.

Being at least a little more knowledgeable about the subject, I think if I read the book for the first time, knowing what I know now, then I might not think the book was good as I originally did. Does that make sense?

I think the book was an acceptable read. Like going to the movies or watching TV. As long as you walk into it knowing the book is going to try to entertain you at the most base possible level (like TV) then it will. I think sometimes people expect to much out of book because it is the same media that gives you Shakespeare or War and Peace or whatever books people are thinking are intellectual classics now-a-days.