You're right in what you say. I'm also hearing suspicion about the Orthodox as well because they had to be in on the hiding of the true story of Christ. People do understand the Orthodox were around back then and do not believe Christ married MMagdalene etc....

I read the book and enjoyed it (and was attacked on this board for saying so). Also read Angels & Demons which was even more anti-Catholic. I didn't buy either book. They say that 1 in 3 American adults have read it so I'm sure you can find a friend who would let you borrow it. I won't pay for the movie either. I'll wait to rent it when it comes out on DVD.

The USCCB is releasing "Jesus Decoded." http://jesusdecoded.com/tvspecial5.php
I plan on buying the DVD to show and the bulletins to give out.

Even though it's being released by the USCCB, some here may not want to endorse the DVD. The experts mention how much they enjoyed the book.

I read the book. I also read Holy Blood Holy Grail (you have to remember that I was really into the New Age movement, and so things like that interested me at one point). It's not very good as fiction goes. It's not written very well (from the standpoint of a fiction reader). It's premise is the exact premise of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so I'm really surprised the case suing him didn't win.

All in all, I thought it was trash. I won't give him, or Ron Howard any of my money to see the movie.

Gracie

I read it: trash. I'm not Catholic, so I have no axe to grind. The book was a cheesy rip-off of the much, much better "Foucault's Pendulum."

Any Christian who holds stedfast to the Nicean Council is hurt deeply by such trash. However it does have a particular anti-catholic and anti-clerical stance unique to bashing the church of Rome.

I read it but that was when it first came out so I have fprgotten much of it. I liked it. I knew it was fiction.

I did read the book and thought it was pretty good. It's not great fiction, but it kept me interested. As I recall (I read it quite a while ago) each chapter had kind of a cliff hangar ending which kept me wondering what would happen next. Unlike many astute readers of fiction I did not see the end coming.

On the down side, I thought the way he ended it was very weak. All this conspiracy theory stuff going on through the book and then it ends with a lack lustre well-maybe-it-didn't-really-happen-the-way-I-said-it-did.

I will not see the movie. Not because I'm trying to make any kind of a statement, but once you know the ending what's the point. It's not as if there is any great cinematography or special effects in the book that should be done bigger and better on the movie screen.

Greg

Someone asked me how I could criticize "The DaVinci Code" when I hadn't even read it. I responded that most believers in "The DaVinci Code" haven't actually read the Bible which they're so quick to criticize. If they get to criticize the Bible without having read it, why can't I criticize "The DaVinci Code" without having read it?

And Ron Howard actually ENCOURAGED people to judge his movie of the book without having seen it, saying that simply knowing the basics of the plot is sufficient knowledge to determine whether or not you will like it. He strikes me as an eminently fair man.

I read it. It had a ton of obvious flaws - like stating that there are a certain number of cups (12) in DaVinci's painting "The Last Supper" and making all kinds of speculations based on that. However, when you look at the painting you see that it has more cups (13).

It is rather hard to suspend your disbelief long enough to enjoy it and it makes some blasphemous claims (Jesus wasn't really God). It's also insulting to the intelligence, Encyclopedia Brown could debunk it without even trying. Any eight to ten year old could see through the hyper-obvious methods of "hiding the truth" that "the Catholic church uses".

It has a good pace - about like a Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys novel - although those have better research. It is, of course, your decision, but there are better pulp fiction novels out there.

I have no interest in the movie, personally. Some of my family does, so I may end up watching it with them - certainly not in a theater.

I read it, it was not very good. It's "code" stuff was a remote 2,000,000th in terms of code books. Its plot was even further down the line. And its characters were non-existent. In my opinion. If you want anti-Catholic books that are good and have lots of truly cool code stuff in them, read the Baroque Trilogy by Neil Stephenson or The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

Good point. Though the DaVinci Code is much too weak to criticize the Bible, it instead just recycles all of the silly anti-Catholic arguments out there.

The Davinci Code quotes the Bible a total of zero times. That kinda shows how much biblical knowledge Dan Brown really knew of course he couldn't get basic facts about the gnostic gospels or the Dead Sea Scrolls right so he doesn't know those religious text accuratly either.

I read it 2 years ago, saw it yesterday. I remember about 1/2 of it. Took awhile to get going, way too many dark scenes in the beginning. I think it would help to have read it first as much of the details get lost in the movie. I can say as I have said all along, it is obvious fiction and although one character brings up a claim that he thinks the crucifixion was a hoax that isn't the story line at all. People I went with (Catholic) missed that line as it was just tossed out in a busy scene. I give it a C. Wait for the DVD. The "making of" would be of interest.

I think its fair to say you can decide whether or not you are going to like the story/film based upon purely a basic gist of the plot.

But in terms of putting together a rock solid defensible argument against all points that are contrary to Truth, one must study the plot, the characters, the events and the setting in detail in order to uncover inconsistencies, to highlight subtle untruths and to then sensibly decide which of these are worth arguing about and which of these should simply be left alone by virtue of the fact that they are no threat and to argue the point would be to give the book/film more limelight than it warrants.

My position is that for those amongst the general populus who don't wish to engage in any argument of the material with anyone, but simply wish to refrain from wasting time/money on something that they have a reasonable idea they will find upsetting or without any merit whatsoever, its clearly fine for those people not to read the book or see the film. I think for anyone who wants to seriously combat the supporters of the preposterous theories outlined in this book, they SHOULD watch the film or read the book or both. It is my personal belief that anyone who fits this bill and fails to do their due diligence as far as reviewing the material is concerned actually does the rest of the Catholic community a disservice. The people that I have seen indulge in this wilful ignorance clearly don't realise how much they hurt our credibility.

Additionally, as I may have said elsewhere in the forum - the fact that someone criticises the Bible whilst lacking a good knowledge of its contents is hardly something that justifies the same ill-prepared approach in an apologetic or academic arena.

Actually, that's not strictly true. Remember the fake "keystone" that Silas finds in Saint-Sulpice, referring him to a verse from the Book of Job?

That particular scene sticks with me, since he immediately finds a Bible on the altar, so he can look up the verse. There are only a few flaws in that scene:

1) Never have I seen a Bible on the altar of a Catholic church. A Sacramentary, yes, but never a Bible.

2) We are in France, but the Bible on this altar happens to be in English. In fact, not only is it an English Bible, but:

3) It's the King James Version.

So our crack-shot albino monastic brother of a lay order finds an English Protestant Bible on a French Catholic altar. Why not top it off with breakfast at Millyways?

I have heard the quote from Job is not entirely accurate so the one time he quotes from the Bible it is an inaccuate parsing of the King James Version. So I won't count it.
WE can agree on that Brown doesn't use his arguments from the Bible because he knows nothing about the Bible and since most people know a rudimentary knowledge of it he would be schooled but mainstream christians. So he goes for the esocteric gnostic gospels which he butcher by the way and hopes no one will catch on he knows nothing about the gnostic gosples either.

I read it before i got interested in the Catholic Church

I'd agree he knows precious little of the Bible (or has not even the rhetorical skill to twist it to his own ends, as so many more talented heretics have done), and even less of the Church. I must question your grapevine, however: I have both DVC and the KJV in front of me right now, and the quote is verbatim.

I read it from a movie review (can't remember which one) that they quote JOB inaccurately. This could be the case where the screenwriter tweaked the verse to make it more sexy or more fitting to the conspiracy or whatever. Dan Brown might have gotten it right considering he quotes of all one verse in the Bible that has nothing to do with his central theme in the move "Jesus Divinity or asbscense of it" I am not impressed with his scriputre knowledge.