« Disciple of the Code: "I consider my hardbound-copy a priceless possession." |
| From "mad-as-hell crusaders" to "debunking missionaries"? »
Christopher Blosser of "The Ratzinger Fan Club" site and the "Against the Grain" blog has put together an exhaustive and excellent page of anti-Code articles, interviews, and resources. Definitely worth many visits!
Posted by Carl E. Olson on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 09:21 AM | Permalink
Where is the Hoax? Even the author himself said its a FICTIONAL book. And it's a great book too. Do you people really believe that Dan Brown had gone around France and England looking for this stuff? Dan made up these characters and this plot, thats why it is in the fiction section. If it was a hoax than...ah...why is it that the only ones who fell for it (even though there was nothing to fall for) were you people, the bible-huggers. It makes no sence why anyone would go threw the trouble of prooving that this book is wrong, why not just try and look for Clifford the big red dog? Here is what you are trying to proove, "This fictional book is not true!". Im sorry but that makes you sound like complete nieve fools that would fall for anything, what does that say about the bible? You get fictional mixed up with non-fiction then the other way around your saying the bible is not true, well then your really in a bind. Ok well bless you all.
Zach Hay |
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 10:16 PM
If a book came out which questioned the Islamic faith with such vigor, the popularity of the author would be one of disgust from muslims, jews, christians, and any other religion as well as from athiests!
Tina Burr |
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 01:38 AM
The TDVC debunkers may not be able to distinguish fiction from non-fiction, but at least they know the difference between "threw" and "through", between "your" and "you're", between "than" and "then".
(end of lame attempt to be funny; the Coded Craziness will drive us crazy if we don't have a sense of humor!)
Cristina A. Montes |
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 04:14 AM
Zach, I suggest that you don't limit your reading to Dan Brown; that way your literacy skills might improve.
Mr Brown is a former english teacher who has said that he would like to return to the classroom. That's a scary thought. I'm almost inclined to believe that he will do less damage if he sticks to writing bad novels.
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 08:41 AM
Ah, but does he make MP3's available?
Nice page! Another one:
#1 in Google for
Da Vinci Code Critics
Dan Brown Critics
Yes! I gotta finish this before the movie comes out.
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Zach: "Do you people really believe that Dan Brown had gone around France and England looking for this stuff?"
As a matter of fact, Yes he has:
In an interview for WCVB-TV's "Chronicle" with Mary Richardson, Dan Brown says: "When I started researching Da Vinci Code I really was skeptical, and I expected on some level to disprove all of this history that's unearthed in the books. But after three trips to Paris, and a lot of interviews, I became a believer."
Um, just what did he become a believer in?
BTW, Dan Brown would do far less damage teaching at a small college. His anti-Catholic novels and movies reach millions.
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 11:59 PM
Phil, I clicked on the site. It's also great! I'm proud to say that the painting that accompanies the section on "Fiction about Opus Dei" (I forgot if that was the actual heading) was painted by a Filipino artist. He used a picture of St. Josemaria Escriva as a model for a priest in another painting. Some members of the Work here approached that artist and commissioned him to do a painting for post cards and a commemorative postage stamp for St. Josemaria Escriva's birth centennary. The postage stamp appears with the painting and the words "Magpakabanal sa gawain", Tagalog for "Be holy through work."
Cristina A. Montes |
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 06:43 AM
Phil, I was writing tongue in cheek when I suggested that Dan Brown might do less damage as a novelist. It struck me as ironical that he should teach english to others when, based on the evidence of his own writing, the phrase "physician heal thyself" comes to mind.
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 07:00 AM
Zach: "If it was a hoax than...ah...why is it that the only ones who fell for it (even though there was nothing to fall for) were you people, the bible-huggers."
tradition-huggers and tradition-thumpers, thank you. :-)
Zach: "It makes no sence why anyone would go threw the trouble of prooving that this book is wrong, why not just try and look for Clifford the big red dog?"
We're working on it. BTW, you can learn from Clifford yourself :-)
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 10:37 AM
I tried learning from Clifford. It was fun!!!
Cristina A. Montes |
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 05:42 AM
It's almost as if you people either can't read, or don't know what the meaning of the word "fiction" is. Maybe y'all ought to open a dictionary, too, once in a while, besides your Bible. Anyway, since you are doing your best to convince us,fiction lovers, that this ain't no fiction, I have one thing to say "if the shoe fits, wear it".
And while you are at it, maybe you can explain to me how is it possible that the Church gets to decide what parts of the Bible Christendom can see and what it cannot. I mean I thought that all of the Gospels were the Word, so why should some of them stay secret? And who is to say what should be secret and what should be public? Every body has, by now, heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and want to know what they are, but that information is not available due to Church censorship. That, my friend, is the reason why the world no longer trusts the Catholic Church. After all this time, don't you think it's time to stop blaming y'all's problems on the likes of Dan Brown and other small fish in the pond and take responsibility for the problems you've created for yourself. All this secrecy has made you look like you've got something to hide, and the world is wondering what that is.
Monday, May 01, 2006 at 05:34 PM
AnneMarie: "or don't know what the meaning of the word 'fiction' is"
The problem is Dan Brown wrote his novel as if it is based on historical fact. Read the "FACT" page on page 1 of the novel. Another problem is, many people believe the novel is accurate in its presentation of history and other subjects, as does Dan Brown himself ("I became a believer..."). The response to his factual mistakes is The Da Vinci Hoax by Olson/Miesel.
AnneMarie: "And while you are at it, maybe you can explain to me how is it possible that the Church gets to decide what parts of the Bible Christendom can see and what it cannot."
The logic is: Jesus founded the Catholic Church as His representative, His body on earth. So that Church has the authority from Jesus to make decisions on such things as the canon. "He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16; Matthew 18:18; 28:18-20). The formal decision on the canon did not occur at the Council of Nicaea as Dan Brown says, but slightly later at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome in the late 4th century, early 5th. However, the Gospels and most of the New Testament was accepted and recognized as inspired and canonical by the Church at large (the bishops, saints, and early Fathers) long before that.
AnneMarie: "I mean I thought that all of the Gospels were the Word, so why should some of them stay secret?"
None of them are secret. Since Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted as canonical and first century documents written by apostles, or close associates of apostles, those Gospels made it into the canon, and were accepted as such quite early. The so-called secret Gospels were not secret, they were well known to the Church Fathers who referred to them, quoted them, rejected them, and gave their reasons why they were rejected. Since they are heretical "gnostic" texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary, etc), they were not as frequently copied as the canonical New Testament, which is why copies of them are scarce. However, some of them turned up at Nag Hammadi. The Church did not hide them, they were not secret, most of them were well known to the early bishops and Fathers, but they were rejected as Scripture since they were much later documents (2nd, 3rd, 4th century AD or later) with gnostic, unorthodox teachings. See the first 4 chapters of The Da Vinci Hoax for details. Or find The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
AnneMarie: "Every body has, by now, heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and want to know what they are, but that information is not available due to Church censorship."
Wrong. You want to learn about them? Go to an encyclopedia. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain pre-Christian Jewish writings, so they are not "the earliest Christian documents" as Dan Brown mistakenly says. They were not censored by the Church in any way, they were discussed by various scholars how they should be approached and interpreted, etc which caused some delay in their publication (if I understand right). And they were discovered in 1947, not "the 1950s" as Dan Brown mistakenly says. There is no conpiracy by the Church or anyone else about them.
AnneMarie: "After all this time, don't you think it's time to stop blaming y'all's problems on the likes of Dan Brown"
Not blaming all problems on Dan Brown, but he's certainly not helping anything with all the misinformation on the Church, history, and other subjects contained in his novel, and people believing those errors. Buy The Da Vinc Hoax (Olson/Miesel), The Da Vinci Deception (Shea/Sri), or Decoding Da Vinci (Welborn) in bulk, and hand out to everyone you know. Thank you. :-)
Monday, May 01, 2006 at 06:47 PM
Thank you for your well-researched website! And please retain your bias. I just finished the novel this afternoon, and I'm having trouble stomaching the sheer volume of the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic content. Thank you for all the work you've put in.
Monday, May 01, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Phil. Thank you for your detailed and patient response to AnneMarie. I hope it gave her, and others like her, pause for thought.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 03:41 AM
GOTT MIT UNS ?
Monday, May 29, 2006 at 01:41 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.