Da Vinci Might Have Been a Nut

I recently finished reading "The Da Vinci Code". I have to say, it's a great read and I would highly recommend it to those who have the discernment to take it at face value for what it is, a fictional novel.

The author, Dan Brown is a smart man. It is sadly comical that this book has stirred up more controversy than I imagine Darwin's "The Origin of Species" must have some 150 years ago. Unfortunately, in today's world we have the means to spread information, accurate or not, like wildfire. Dan Brown is now a wealthier man because he wrote a novel about something that gets people's attention. The movie, critics say, stinks, and if it weren't for all of the hoopla it probably would have been a flop! The author of the book and the writers/directors/producers of the movie knew exactly what they were doing and we've played right into their hands.

I'm not writing this to convince anyone of anything--we must all evaluate our own hearts--but if you are questioning what you've always known I would encourage you, no matter what your beliefs, to pray for clarity. Educate yourself on what the book says and you will probably be surprised to find as much information that contradicts "The Da Vinci Code" as you will information that supports its claims.

After I finished the book, I had questions about what the author says are "Facts". On page 1 he says that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate". Are they really? By whose standards?

One example: Regarding "The Last Supper" painting by Da Vinci; Brown proposes that the person seated to Jesus' right is not The Apostle John but actually Mary Magdalene. He points out the feminine characteristics and the color of the dress which is exactly opposite to the color of Jesus' garments, subliminally suggesting that Jesus and Mary M were lovers. First of all, I have to ask, was Da Vinci there? No, of course he wasn't. He painted HIS own idea of what the last supper might have been like and the symbolism he uses is of his own fabrication. Even if he did suspect that Jesus had a lover or a wife, was he right? If you look at the painting, you will see that many of the disciples look somewhat feminine and knowing what we know about Da Vinci, well, umm, I'll let you make your own assumptions. Historians KNOW that Da Vinci was a flamboyant homosexual, an eccentric, and is known for painting artwork depicting Christian themes, not as an expression of what he believed but to fund his lavish lifestyle! And here we are, putting Christian beliefs and Biblical truths on the line because of him?! Come on!

I saw a phrase on a church sign the other day that made me smile, "No codes, just truth". Before you question your faith or anyone else's, get the REAL facts. Be prepared to defend the truths you hold dear and don't ever, EVER, let the words that ONE small man has written convince you of anything without gaining more insight on the subject, regardless of the topic. As dh always says, "Be skeptical!".

It's pretty simple. I can't say what Dan Brown's motives are but most people write novels to make money, hmmmm.......