Da Vinci Decoded

Let me begin by saying that fiction is fiction and I well understand that. I have not yet read the Da Vinci Code. I will probably read it via the library at some time. I understand it is a great read. The problem I have is that many will look at this book as factual. If you are a reasonable person with a well developed intellect you will see this story as a story. But there are some out there who don't check historical fact. Many will take all that Dan Brown wrote good history and based on good research. Time will tell but I know some will examine the facts and come know the real historical Christ. Others will turn away. Another group will use it as an excuse not to believe in the first place.

Check out this site for some good factual information:

Christian History - The Da Vinci Code Special Section

Example from above:

Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out - Christianity Today Magazine: "But was there really no such thing as 'orthodoxy' before the fourth century? Is it really the case that Gnosticism was harshly suppressed without being given a fair trial?

First, there is no strong evidence to suggest that gnostic Christians vied with the orthodox from the beginning. Even what is probably the earliest gnostic document, the Gospel of Thomas, seems to have come from a period after the New Testament books were already recognized as authoritative and widely circulated.

The Gospel of Thomas, in fact, draws on most of these documents, adding some new ideas about Jesus and about the faith. All other major gnostic texts—like the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Mary, and so on—are clearly written in the second and third centuries.

Church Fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian addressed Gnosticism in the second century in works titled Against Heresies and The Prescription Against Heretics. And the Muratorian Canon (a list of New Testament writings from late second century) says this: 'There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church. For it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.' In other words, it is historically false to say that the councils of the fourth and fifth centuries invented or first defined 'heresy.'

Revisionist historians like Pagels also argue that there was no core belief system, later called 'orthodoxy,' in the first century. This is a strange claim, because anyone who has read the letters of John, for example, knows that discussions about orthodoxy and heresy were heating up in the New Testament period. Paul's letters, too, show distinctions being made between truth and error. By the time we get to the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), there is a strong sense of what is and is not sound doctrine, particularly in terms of salvation and the person of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the early church viewed the Old Testament as both authoritative and inspired, as 2 Timothy 3:16 shows. This is an important point in regard to Gnosticism. The earliest churches had already recognized the Hebrew Scriptures as canon, a set of authoritative and divinely inspired texts. Notice how much of the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament books—all written to edify churches across the ancient world. Gnosticism fundamentally rejected Jewish theology about the goodness of creation, and especially the idea that all the nations could be blessed through Abraham and his faith. When the church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, it implicitly rejected Gnosticism before it had a chance to get started. Thus we are already at a watershed moment in the development of early Christianity, one that could not allow Gnosticism to ever be regarded as a legitimate development of the Christian faith."

Check out more real history. It is usually more interesting than a goofy conspiracy theory!!!