Bradshaw 1

Jimmy Bradshaw

Dr. Sellers Crain

TH 672, Christology, Mid-Term Paper

12 October 2006

Deceptions of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code

Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code has become a phenomenal best seller. Dan

Brown wants the reader to believe that the book reveals various secrets hidden by the

Roman Catholic Church. Brown centers many of the clues of deception of the Catholic

Church upon the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci. In the book, Brown poses the

question about the Mona Lisa, “Do you know why she is smiling” (Brown 109)? A

better question for the reader becomes, “Why is Dan Brown smiling? Brown is smiling

all the way to the bank. As of May 2006, the book, The Da Vinci Code has sold over

60.5 million copies (“The Da Vinci Code, “Wikipedia). In addition, the movie based

upon the book has a worldwide gross exceeding three quarters of a billion dollars

(Boxofficemojo.com). Brown has turned blasphemy into a worldwide best-selling book

and into a blockbuster movie.

The purpose of my paper is not to provide a literary critique of the Novel, The Da

Vinci Code. My report will expose the vast errors contained in the book concerning

Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. Some might say, “Why bother arguing about a book

that is admittedly a novel of fiction?” Clearly, the reason for challenging the book

becomes factually representing the true Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. Brown

skillfully weaves a suspense novel with appearances of facts attempting to skew fantasy
 Bradshaw 2

and reality. The danger of the book lies with an uneducated reader on the history of

the Bible and the Church. Although Brown admits that the book is a work of fiction, he

shrewdly states, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals

in this novel are accurate” (1).

By Brown stating, “All … documents… are accurate” he confuses the average

reader into believing a series of lies. First, accuracy has a different meaning than

precision.

Accuracy is the degree of veracity while precision is the degree of

reproducibility. The analogy used here to explain the difference between

accuracy and precision is the target comparison.

In this analogy, repeated measurements are compared to arrows

that are fired at a target. Accuracy describes the closeness of arrows to

the bullseye at the target center. Arrows that strike closer to the bullseye

are considered more accurate. The closer a system's measurements to

the accepted value, the more accurate the system is considered to be.

To continue the analogy, if a large number of arrows are fired, precision

would be the size of the arrow cluster. (When only one arrow is fired,

precision is the size of the cluster one would expect if this were repeated

many times under the same conditions.) When all arrows are grouped

tightly together, the cluster is considered precise since they all struck close

to the same spot, if not necessarily near the bullseye. The measurements

are precise, though not necessarily accurate.

 Bradshaw 3

However, it is not possible to reliably achieve accuracy in individual

measurements without precision — if the arrows are not grouped close to

one another, they cannot all be close to the bullseye. (Their average

position might be an accurate estimation of the bullseye, but the

individual arrows are inaccurate.) (“Accuracy,” Wikipedia)

Another view depicts precision as the error contained in the test sample. With less

precision, the uncertainty grows as to the true value represented. “A few other notes

on the subject: precision is the limit on accuracy; with the removal of mistakes and

systematic errors, precision equals accuracy” (“Accuracy,” Position). Therefore, one can

be accurate but have errors. The error grows as you have less precision, but the

accuracy may stay unchanged. One may ask the question, “Is The Da Vinci Code

accurate?” Depending upon your perspective you may answer, “Yes.” The Da Vinci

Code factually brings up Constantine, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi, etc., but

each time numerous errors flood the overall landscape. Brown’s use of the word

accurate projects enough ambiguity for defense, but allows wiggle room for error.

Many readers will mistake the word “accurate” to have the same meaning as “truth.”

However, truth contains no errors, omissions, or mistakes. Brown may consider his

book accurate, but the information contained inside is far from the truth.

Sadly, our society today gravitates better to a well-told lie than to the truth. Holy

Scripture confirms our willingness to believe a lie. “Who exchanged the truth of God for

the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed

forever” (NKJV, Romans 1:25). For some, even obvious fables are more compelling
 Bradshaw 4

than the teaching of the inspired word of God. “And they will turn their ears away from

the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:4). Many doubt the impact that

a work of fiction can promulgate upon our informed society. However, a recent survey

of Great Britain’s readers graphically demonstrates the danger of Dan Brown’s book.

The British survey, released by a group of prominent Catholics,

revealed that readers of Dan Brown's blockbuster novel are twice as likely

to believe Jesus Christ fathered children and four times as likely to think

the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.

“An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very

seriously indeed,” said Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Britain’s top

Catholic prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. “Our poll shows that

for many, many people “The Da Vinci Code” is not just entertainment.”

He heads a prominent collection of English Roman Catholic monks,

theologians, nuns and members of Opus Dei, who commissioned the

survey from pollster Opinion Research Business (ORB) and have sought to

promote Catholic beliefs amid the film’s release.

ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that

60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene — a possibility

raised by the book — compared with just 30 percent of those who had not

read the book….

In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out

a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with

 Bradshaw 5

just four percent of non-readers. (“Da Vinci” undermines)

My paper will not deal with the truthfulness of Brown’s portrayal of Leonardo Da

Vinci’s art and religion. Actually, we will only address errors pertaining to Jesus,

Christianity, and the Bible. I hope that my paper will shed light to those who upon

reading begin to doubt their faith in the Bible. Error exposed always leads to the truth.

Brown’s The Da Vinci Code makes a series of false accusations that: one, the Bible

came from man, not from God; two, all religion is based upon fabrication; three,

paganism is superior to Christianity; four, the Holy Grail is the bloodline of Jesus; and

five, Jesus is not Deity.

Is the Bible from man or from God?

For centuries, many have accepted the Holy Bible as the inspired word of God.

During the last two hundred years, there has been an increased attack upon the

authenticity of the Bible. Brown contends that Emperor Constantine produced the

Bible. “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor

Constantine the Great” (Brown 251). Brown tries to discredit the Bible so that he can

utilize other documents and thereby deem those documents more factual. In essence,

Brown contends that the Bible did not come from God. “The Bible is a product of man,

my dear, not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as

a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless

translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the

book“(Brown 250-251).

Brown presents the entire compilation of the Bible as fraud. Further, Brown
 Bradshaw 6

interjects specific details of his perceived fraud of the New Testament. “More than

eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament and yet only a relative few were

chosen for inclusion -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them” (Brown 251).

The Da Vinci Code conjectures the reason for the reduction of the gospel accounts

transpired out of a cover-up. Constantine perpetuated a fraud that Christ was more

than just a man. “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible which omitted

those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that

made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned”

(Brown 254). Apparently, Constantine failed to destroy these other gospels. On the

one hand, Constantine was powerful enough to alter the text of the Holy Scripture

without anyone objecting, but he was also inept in the ability to destroy all that he

intended. The Da Vinci Code produces a contradiction of Constantine being a brilliant

forceful man capable of mastering the greatest cover-up in the history of man, but

incapable of finding all the other ancient gospels.

“Fortunately for historians, “Teabing said, “some of the gospels that

Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea

Scrolls were found in the 1950’s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the

Judean desert. And of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag

Hammadi. In addition, to telling the true Grail story, these documents

speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms.” (Brown 254)

Brown brings up three topics that need addressing. First, what role, if any, did

Constantine play in the Bible of today? Secondly, how was the New Testament
 Bradshaw 7

compiled into the form that we now have? Thirdly, can we be certain that there are

only four authentic gospel accounts.

Did the Emperor Constantine compile the New Testament as Dan Brown

suggests? No one can deny the tremendous impact that Constantine exacted upon the

church of his day. Constantine perpetuated much of the apostasy that the early church

had accepted. Constantine as emperor proclaims Christianity as the state religion.

However, a detailed analysis into Constantine’s life brings questions as to his authentic

belief in Christianity.

The part Christianity played in Constantine’s thinking is difficult to

determine. During his early reign, it is doubtful that he accepted without

reservation the idea of Christ as the Son of God and Jehovah as the only

God. At least he outwardly supported the Christian religion and used its

value as a unifying force for he decided to stake his all on its support.

(Mattox 125)

Whether Constantine maintained any of his early pagan beliefs, history simply

cannot definitively answer. From all appearance, Constantine’s faith as a Christian grew

as he aged, culminating with his baptism shortly before he died (Mattox 132). However,

we can state emphatically that Constantine played no role whatsoever in the

compilation of the New Testament. Constantine did use power and generosity to

compel the meeting at Nicaea in 325 A.D. Constantine desired a meeting of the

bishops to prevent widespread division over the teaching of Arius. The dispute dealt

with the nature of Jesus. The Council of Nicaea did discuss other issues such as the
 Bradshaw 8

annual date to observe Easter. However, the Council of Nicaea never discussed the

canon of scripture.

“The selection of which books were included in the Bible – a process known as

canonization – began two hundred years before the Council of Nicaea convened in 325

A.D.” (Hardin 9). A trail of history provides tremendous detail for the path of

canonization of the New Testament. To understand the process of the compilation of

the New Testament a person needs to understand the meaning of the word canon.

The English word “canon” goes back to the Greek word kanon and then to

the Hebrew qaneh. Its basic meaning is “reed,” our English word “cane”

being derived from it. Since a reed was sometimes used as a measuring

rod, the word kanon came to mean a standard or rule. It was also used

to refer to a list or index and when so applied to the Bible denotes the list

of books which are received as Holy Scripture. Thus if one speaks of the

“canonical” writings, one is speaking of those books which are regarded as

having divine authority and which comprise our Bible. (Lightfoot 152)

We must understand that, “The canon is the rule, the measure, by which books are

accepted or rejected. If they are inspired, then they are canonical” (Smith).

Canonization of the New Testament began shortly after the writing of the last words of

the Bible. “This began even before 100 A.D., and even continued past the Council of

Nicaea in 325, although nearly every book in the New Testament was agreed to be

scripture by 190 A.D. That’s one hundred and thirty-five years before Constantine had

a shot at it” (Hardin 10).

 Bradshaw 9

Other ancient books fall short compared to the verifiable authenticity of the New

Testament Scriptures. The New Testament of today comes to us primarily through

ancient manuscripts. For further verification, we have ancient translations of the New

Testament. Finally, we have the quotations from the early “church fathers” that

extensively used New Testament scripture. “The number of our New Testament

manuscripts is vast, more than 5,300 in all. Not all of these, however, contain the

complete text of the New Testament” (Lightfoot 34). Obviously, some manuscripts are

more reliable than others are, but each demonstrates the importance the early church

placed upon these documents. All other ancient writings have only a fraction of the

volume of manuscripts left. These manuscripts of the New Testament are kept in a

variety of places today.

Some of them are on display in museums; others are kept safe for study

and research. The oldest of these fragments date from the early second

century. That’s just a few decades after the books of the New Testament

were written. For example, there is a piece of papyrus in the John

Rylands Library that is dated to 130 A.D. and contains part of the Gospel

of John. (Hardin 12-13)

By the second century A.D., many serious debates ensued as to which books

were canonical and which were not.

Gradually tests were applied to eliminate the uninspired and include all of

the inspired books in a definite form for use in the churches. The tests

include such questions as: (1) Does the book claim inspiration? 1
 Bradshaw 10

Clement for example, does not. (2) Is it written by an Apostle? (3) If not,

is its content in keeping with Apostolic teaching -- whether orally or in

books already written by Apostles? (4) Is it accepted by loyal churches

(i.e., loyal to Apostolic teaching) and read in their worship services? (5)

Last, but not least, does it have the “ring of genuineness”? (Mattox 104-

105)

To meet these requirements the book must have been written during the time of the

apostles, or in the 1st century A.D. This simple fact eliminates any possibility of a later

compilation of the New Testament by Constantine.

Liberal scholars have tried to relegate New Testament books to the

second-century A.D. (or later), and have suggested that these documents

are productions of unknown authors in order to repudiate them as primary

sources of historical information. It is interesting to note, however, that

even some radical theologians have conceded the strong evidence for the

early composition of the New Testament, For instance, John A.T.

Robinson, a liberal theologian of England, has acknowledged that all of

the New Testament books were written in the first century. He also has

admitted that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Lord

within two decades of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that

bear his name, and that John, the apostle, wrote the fourth Gospel.

(Jackson 440)

In retrospect, all of the recognized books of the New Testament exclusively meet
 Bradshaw 11

the canonization test and early date needed to be included as scripture. Men began to

compile lists of the New Testament books.

One of these early lists is known as the Muratorian Fragment. Since its

date has been unsuccessfully challenged, it remains an important second-

century witness to the canon. The Fragment derives its name from L. A.

Muratori, who first discovered the list and published it in the eighteenth

century. Part of this early list of New Testament books has been lost. The

Gospel of Luke if first mentioned by name, but it is referred to as the

”third” Gospel, indicating that Matthew and Mark were at the head of the

list. Then follow John, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, two letters of

John, and Revelation. The only books not included in the list are

Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and perhaps 3 John. (Lightfoot 157)

“In the third century Origen adds his witness on the New Testament Books” (Lightfoot

158). In his Homilies on Joshua, Origen lists the books he considered canonical.

In his Homilies on Joshua, … he compares the New Testament authors

with the trumpets of Christ. So too our Lord Jesus Christ…sent his

apostles as priests carrying well-wrought trumpets. First Matthew

sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, and Luke, and

John…. Peter moreover sounds with the two trumpets of his Epistles;

James also and Jude…and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his

Epistles and Revelation; and Luke while describing the deeds of the

apostles. Latest of all…[Paul] thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his

 Bradshaw 12

Epistles, threw down even to the very foundation the walls of Jericho.

(qtd. in Lightfoot 158)

Increasingly by the end of the second century, unanimity spread through the “church

fathers” as to the canon of scripture.

By the end of the second century, most of the 27 New Testament books in

our canon were firmly established. They were quoted by such apostolic

fathers as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Rome.

At the beginning of the third century, both Origen and Clement of

Alexandria quoted from the 27 books of the established canon. (Jividen

71)

The “church fathers” quoted regularly from the scriptures in their own writings.

Their writings display a belief that the 27 books of the New Testament were inspired of

God. “These ‘church fathers‘ such as Tertullian and Irenaeus, quote so heavily from the

Biblical books that we could reconstruct all of the New Testament -- except for about a

dozen verses ̶ from what they wrote” (Hardin 13).

Early translations further demonstrate the growing acceptance of the New

Testament canon. The noted scholar J. W. McGarvey made the following observations

about these early translations.

Consequently we find the existence of every book of the New Testament

except II Peter attested by translation as early as the middle of the

second century. They were translated because they were the

authoritative books of the churches, and they were authoritative because

 Bradshaw 13

the churches believed them to have come from the apostolic hands. Is it

possible that these churches could have been totally mistaken about such

facts when the interval had been so short. (qtd. in Smith)

While true 2 Peter was not included in some early translations, other translations do

include the second epistle of Peter.

Moreover, 2 Peter, which was found in neither the Old Latin nor the Old

Syriac versions, was found in both the Coptic Sahidic and Coptic Bohairic

versions of the New Testament -- showing that it was accepted by the

early Egyptian Christians. Even the councils of the Catholic Church, which

added the Apocrypha into the canon of the Old Testament, listed by only

the accepted twenty-seven books as canonical in the New Testament.

(Smith).

Over time, the canon of scripture recognized only the 27 books of the New

Testament as authentic. Constantine had absolutely no involvement in the selection of

the canon of scripture. In essence, the whole process simply placed a rubberstamp on

the God-inspired books. “It remained for later ‘Church Councils‘ only to ‘officially‘

recognize the canon of books that had already been formed and accepted by churches

throughout the empire. They did not ‘determine' which books would be accepted and

which rejected by the churches" (Mattox 105). The books that ultimately did not meet

the criteria of canon became known as “apocryphal.” “There were many books in

circulation from the beginning of the second century that various groups accepted,

which were not inspired. These are called apocryphal (i.e., “doubtful”)" (Mattox 105).
 Bradshaw 14

Why did some of these books remain on some list and continue to be disputed for so

long? Many of these disputed books were valued for the truth or historical content

found inside. Some of these books were never given the same weight as the truly

inspired books of the New Testament.

In an earlier period, anything that contained true teaching might be used

(for example, First Clement or the Didache); but later the line between

the apostolic and the post- (or sub-) apostolic had to be made clear. The

churches could testify to which books they had received. The contents of

the apostles’ writings had been authoritative from the beginning; what

was lacking was a definition of which books contained this teaching.

(Ferguson 53)

Further, the mainly Gnostic gospels that Brown mentions such as the Gospel of Thomas,

the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Philip were never considered a

candidate for canonization. First, these books were written too late to be contemporary

with the apostolic times.

But the books in the New Testament were written even earlier. Even

though we have none of the original manuscripts of the New Testament

books what we do have are the thousands of fragments of copies of the

New Testament books as well as quotes of early Christian scholars such as

Irenaeus and Tertullian that place the original writing of every New

Testament book before 100 A.D. (Hardin 19-20)

These books were also rejected because their content that did not agree with the
 Bradshaw 15

recognized canon.

Eusebius mentions a number of those rejected works. Among those he

names, are Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter,

Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel of Peter,

Thomas, and Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter and other

Apostles. Of these Eusebius says, “The type of phraseology differs from

apostolic style, and the opinion and tendency of their contents is widely

dissonant from true orthodoxy and clearly shows that they are forgeries

and heretics. (Mattox 106)

What about Brown’s claim that there were over eighty gospel accounts, and that

Constantine chose the few that emphasized Jesus’ deity? Again, Brown simply errs with

his facts. Men who compiled lists of the canon concluded that there were only four

gospel accounts. These men lived long before Constantine’s time and were never

influenced by the Roman emperor. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, Christians

agreed upon only four inspired gospels.

Two early Christian writers are men named Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Irenaeus, who was a Bishop of Lyon in what is now France, lived from

about 130 until 202 A.D. Tertullian was a Christian scholar who lived in

Carthage from about 160 to 220 A.D. both of them list books that were

considered Scripture by Christians in their area. Each of their lists include

[sic] only four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Hardin 10)

A number of other men made lists of books accepted as inspired of

 Bradshaw 16

God as well. These men include Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-220),

Hippolytus (c. 170-235, Origen (c. 185-253), and Eusebius of Caesarea (c.

265-339). They were leaders and bishops and elders of the churches in

their parts of the world….What’s more, all six of these men we have

mentioned – Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus,

Origen, and Eusebius – name four and only four gospels in their lists:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Hardin 11)

Irenaeus extolled upon the beauty of only four sacred gospel accounts.

It is not possible for the Gospels to be more in number than they are nor

again to be fewer. Since there are four regions of the world in which we

live, and four universal winds (and the church is scattered over all the

earth), and the gospel is the “pillar and support” [1 Tim. 3:15] of the

church and the spirit of life, it is fitting for the church to have four pillars,

blowing out everywhere immortality and revivifying human beings. From

these things it is evident that the Word, the Maker of the universe, who is

seated on the cherubim and holds all things together, after he was

revealed to human beings, gave to us the fourfold Gospel held together by

one Spirit. (qtd. in Ferguson 41)

Because of the strong consensus of only four gospels, Tatian produced the first

harmony of the gospels in the second century. “In A.D. 160, Tatian produced a

harmony of the four gospels in Syriac called the diatessaron” (Jividen 71).

In many ways, the Bible defends itself as being inspired.

 Bradshaw 17

The word ’inspired’ is used only one time in the New Testament and is a

translation of ’theopneustos’ (2 Timothy 3:16). The literal meaning is ’God

breathed.’ A number of passages, however, refer to the Holy Spirit’s the

source of inspiration (Acts 2:4; Hebrews 3:7; 2 Peter 1:21). The source of

inspiration is God; the instruments of inspiration are men chosen by God

to speak and write. (Jividen 29)

A paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16 could rightly be translated “scripture comes out of

God’s own mouth.” The Holy Spirit placed the divine words of God into the mouths of

the apostles and other writers to write New Testament. The New Testament strongly

advocates itself as scripture.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter stated that Paul had written to them “things

hard to understand which untaught and unstable people twist to their own

destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures” (3:16). Thus, Peter

placed the writings of Paul (Romans through Philemon, and possible

Hebrews) on the same level as Scripture – referring to them as canonical

alongside the Hebrew Bible. Paul, in Ephesians 2:19-20, places the

teachings of the apostles in the same category as those of the prophets,

making the writings of Matthew, John, and Peter canonical. Again, Paul,

in 1 Timothy 5:18, quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, citing

both as Scripture. This leaves only Mark, Acts, James, Jude and possible

Hebrews unsupported by internal canonization. Mark and Acts were

virtually undisputed in early Christian history, and Hebrews, James, and

 Bradshaw 18

Jude gained acceptance over time. (Smith)

Clearly, we can see that the apostles regarded the New Testament inspired of God.

Since the apostles were “guided in all truth” by the Holy Spirit, John 16:13, we should

heed their pleas for the all sufficiency of the word of God.

Predictive prophecy becomes another vital reason to believe in the authenticity of

the scriptures. The Old Testament foretells much of Jesus’ life, suffering, and death.

Perhaps no passage better graphically tells the story of Jesus’ life in prophecy better

than Isaiah 53.

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been

revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a

root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see

Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and

rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we

hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not

esteem Him. Surely, He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet

we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was

wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The

chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are

healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one,

to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He

was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He

was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is
 Bradshaw 19

silent, So He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from

judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from

the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was

stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked-- But with the rich at

His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His

mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.

When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He

shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His

hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His

knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their

iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He

shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto

death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin

of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:1-12)

The Old Testament even confirms the deity of Christ. “The voice of one that

crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a

highway for our God" (ASV, Isaiah 40:3). The New Testament fulfills this prophecy, see

Matthew 3:3. Further, Malachi portrays Jesus as Jehovah God. “Behold, I will send you

Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come" (ASV, Malachi

4:5). Again, the New Testament provides the fulfillment of the prophecy in Matthew

3:3.

Another example of Biblical prophecy comes from the book of Joel. "And it shall
 Bradshaw 20

come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your

daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see

visions“ (NKJV, Joel 2:28). The book of Acts records the immersion of the apostles with

the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The apostle Peter proclaims the

fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:17.

Perhaps the greatest examples of predictive prophecy come from the book of

Daniel. In Daniel chapter 2, the writer clearly describes the conquering kingdoms for

the next 500 years. Daniel vividly foretells of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian,

and Roman empires. In addition, Daniel speaks of another kingdom that will rise up

during the Roman Empire and that it would last forever. We know that the fifth

kingdom of Daniel becomes the church the Lord built. The church began according to

the New Testament in Acts 2. Most attempts to discredit the book of Daniel are

laughable. The primary objection by critics becomes dating the authorship of Daniel

near the time of Christ. However, only poor scholarship would allow one to place the

date of Daniel later that about 250 B.C. I firmly believe that the prophet wrote Daniel

during his lifetime c. 465 B.C. However, one can state without reservation that Daniel

wrote his book before 250 B.C. The Greek translation of the Old Testament named the

Septuagint (LXX) began around 250 B.C. The Septuagint translated all of the

recognized Old Testament books, including Daniel. Therefore, by 250 B.C. Old

Testament canon recognized the book of Daniel (Coffman 2-9).

No other book compares to the Holy Bible. The history, science, prophecy, and

geography prove divine guidance. The New Testament has greater credibility than any
 Bradshaw 21

other ancient document. The early “church fathers” demonstrated the unanimity of the

canonization process. Therefore, the Bible provides factual and reliable historical

information. We will not hesitate to use scripture to defend the truth about Jesus,

Christianity, and the Bible.

Are all religions based upon fabrication?

According to Brown, “every faith in the world is based on fabrication” (369). We

are not concerned about the fraudulent origins of other religions. We are determined to

defend the authenticity of Christianity. The Bible clearly states that only in Jesus will

you find salvation. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name

under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Therefore,

all other religions are fraudulent. The Da Vinci Code provides no credible evidence for

Christianity being a fabrication. The only fabrication revealed in Brown’s book becomes

the facts represented about Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible.

Brown fabricates a faulty definition of faith. “That is the definition of faith –

acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every

religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the early

Egyptians through modern Sunday school” (Brown 369). However, Brown’s poor

definition of faith fails to address the non-religious examples of faith. For example, we

do not see electricity, but when we flip a light switch on, we have faith that the

electricity will flow and light the bulb. The Biblical definition of faith holds true for any

application. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not

seen” (ESV, Hebrews 11:1). In essence, believing in something you cannot see
 Bradshaw 22

becomes an adequate paraphrase for faith. However, as Christians the evidence

presented to us convicts us. Similarly, we cannot see the wind, but we can see the

effects wrought by the wind.

True faith in God comes from a conviction based upon evidence. Just as one

sees the effects of the wind, we too can see the glorious effects of God. “Because what

may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the

creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the

things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without

excuse” (NKJV, Romans 1:19-20). We clearly see the presence of God every day we

walk outside and see the beauty and complexity of nature. Brown compares the Bible

to other religious documents of faith. “The Bible represents a fundamental guidepost

for millions of people on the planet, in much the same way the Koran, Torah, and Pali

Canon offer guidance to people of other religions” (Brown 370). However, no other

document remotely compares to the Holy Bible. Countless archaeological discoveries

prove over and over the impeccable accuracy of the Bible’s portrayal of approximately

4,000 years of history. The scientific illuminations in scripture have only a divine

explanation. The Bible contains numerous blurbs concerning Astronomy,

Oceanography, Physics, Medicine, and Biology (Thompson). In all of these blurbs, the

Bible portrays an understanding of scientific laws formulated thousands of years later.

Only divine prophecy can explain the uncanny accuracy of the Bible dealing with

science. True faith in God must come through His inspired word. We learn of the

invisible Almighty Creator by studying the word He has left with us. “So then faith
 Bradshaw 23

comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

We must ask ourselves, why would over 500 witnesses face imprisonment,

torture, and death for a fabricated story? Brown would have you believe that these

men and women would rather die than to admit a lie. If the story of Jesus as told in

the Gospels were false, surely at least one of these 500 would have confessed. We

know that over 500 witnesses saw a resurrected savior. These witnesses firmly believed

that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you,

which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are

saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you

believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also

received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that

He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the

Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After

that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the

greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After

that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He

was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Corinthians

15:1-8)

These early Christians were beaten, imprisoned, and martyred because they refused to

stop preaching Jesus. Why would anyone act so illogically? They faced hardships

because they desired a crown of life in Heaven as John would write, “Be faithful until
 Bradshaw 24

death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). These early Christians

did not perpetuate a fabrication, but exhibited true faith in God.

Unlike the Bible, Brown’s book contains numerous fabrications. Brown reveals

the motto of the Priory of Sion as “So Dark the Con of Man” (133). Brown immediately

explains to his readers what the Priory means by their motto. “The Priory believes that

Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal

paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that

demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever”

(Brown 133). How serious should we take the claim of the Priory? One could claim

that he is the rightful heir to the throne of England, but without documentation and

historical evidence, you would not be taken seriously. Shockingly, the Priory, which

Brown uses for proof throughout the book, is itself a fabrication.

To understand whether their claims are legitimate, we need to know more about

the Prior of Sion.

The Prieuré de Sion, usually rendered in English translation as Priory of

Sion (occasionally as 'Priory of Zion'), is an alleged thousand-year-old

cabal featured in various conspiracy theories, as well as being listed as a

factual ancient mystery religion in the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code

by Dan Brown. It has been characterized as anything from the most

influential secret society in Western history to a modern Rosicrucian-esque

ludibrium, but, ultimately, has been shown to be a hoax created in 1956

by Pierre Plantard, a pretender to the French throne. The evidence

 Bradshaw 25

presented in support of its historical existence has not been considered

authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics, and

universities, and the evidence was later discovered to have been forged

and then planted in various locations around France by Plantard and his

associates. (“Priory”)

Although, the Priory claims to be the most secret society known to man, we seem to

know a great deal about the purpose of the group.

The claims described the Priory of Sion as a secret society that was

founded in the 11th century, to protect and preserve a secret involving the

bloodline of Jesus Christ. The Priory allegedly created the medieval order

of Knights Templar as its military arm, and had a series of Grand Masters

which included such notable (and real) historical figures as Isaac Newton,

Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The existence of the thousand-year-

old Priory was supposedly "revealed" in the 1970s, via a series of

documentaries and books by pseudohistory writers Michael Baigent,

Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, such as in their 1982 book The Holy

Blood and the Holy Grail, which allegedly pieced together evidence from

documents which had been found in the French National Library, as well

as documents which were supposedly found in the late 1800s, hidden

inside a pillar of a small church in southern France. Further attention came

to the Priory when it was referred to as a factual society by the 2003

bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code. (“Priory”)

 Bradshaw 26

The Priory claims numerous Grand Masters throughout its existence. Two of these men

are prominently featured in Brown’s book. Brown proudly interweaves Leonardo Da

Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton into the plot of The Da Vinci Code. However, based upon

the tremendous historical knowledge of these two men, can we believe they would have

participated in a secret group like the Priory? “Sir Isaac Newton is best known for his

work on the laws of gravity and motion. But what is little known about him is his strong

belief in the truth of the Bible. In fact, his science was based on his Bible reading”

(Hardin 52). Sir Isaac Newton may have been the greatest theologian and apologist for

Christianity of his day. Further, a brief history of Da Vinci leads one to laugh at the idea

that he was a Grand Master of the Priory.

So whatever societies Newton and Da Vinci might have been in would not

have been goddess-worshipping Bible haters. Da Vinci would have

considered it intellectual suicide to admit the existence of anything greater

than man. Newton believed in only one God, and would not have been in

a society whose sole existence was to disprove the truth of the Bible.

(Hardin 52-53)

The evidence suggests that the list of the Grand Masters is a total fabrication.

We do not want to imply that there has never been a Priory of Sion. However,

the real Priory bears no resemblance to the one of conspiracy theories as revealed in

The Da Vinci Code. “The real Priory of Sion is an association that was founded in 1956,

in the French town of Annemasse, as the beginning of a massive hoax” (“Priory”).

Documentation exists for the entire fabrication of the “so-called” secret group.
 Bradshaw 27

The Priory of Sion did exist -- sort of -- but not in any form even remotely

resembling the fantastical claims of the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"

or Brown. (In one of his few unqualified claims to nonfiction, Brown

includes the sentence "The Priory of Sion -- a European secret society

founded in 1099 -- is a real organization" on a page labeled "Fact" placed

before the prologue of "The Da Vinci Code.") In reality, the Priory of Sion

was the invention, in the 1950s, of a man named Pierre Plantard who had

a history of fraud, embezzlement and membership in ultra-conservative,

quasi-mystical and virulently anti-Semitic Catholic groups. These tiny

extremist groups sought the reunification of Europe under the dual

leadership of an orthodox Roman Catholic Church and a divinely ordained

monarch, somewhat like the Holy Roman Emperor and preferably French.

(Miller)

The motive of Plantard became clear. “Plantard hoped that the Priory of Sion would

become an influential cryptopolitical irregular masonic lodge (similar to P2) dedicated to

the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which would promote Plantard's own claim to

the throne of France” (“Priory”). Through a series of French police investigations, we

know details of the fabrication of the Priory.

Plantard wanted to pass himself off as the descendant of the Merovingian

dynasty, a family of medieval French kings and, ultimately, of Jesus and

Mary Magdalene. (In reality, he was the son of a butler and a cook.)

With his accomplice, a genuine but dissolute aristocrat and expert forger,
 Bradshaw 28

Phillipe de Chérisey, he produced a set of fabricated parchments full of

encoded and suggestively prophetic verse alluding to this Merovingian

fantasy. With a restaurateur interested in drumming up tourist business

for his establishment (located in the priest's former villa), they

disseminated a story that the priest had discovered these parchments in

the church, inside a hollowed-out pillar of Visigoth origins. (The pillar was

later determined to be solid.) (Miller)

However, the fraud devised by Plantard eventually collapsed over time.

The parchments and a variety of other faked documents pertaining to the

Priory of Sion and the Merovingians -- including that list of past Grand

Masters, featuring Leonardo and Newton -- were planted in the

Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. This institution, alas, cannot be said to

run a tight ship, and there are apparently no records indicating who

exactly deposited the infamous "dossiers secrets" in their collection.

However, investigators eventually determined that the printing press used

to produce them was the same press used by Plantard to print his right-

wing newsletters and broadsides. (Miller)

Today, only the naïve who seek to discredit Christianity would claim that the Priory

dates back to the middle ages. We must conclude that Brown either lies or is guilty of

irresponsible scholarship.

Letters in existence dating from the 1960s written by Plantard, de

Cherisey and de Sede to each other confirm that the three were engaging
 Bradshaw 29

in an out-and-out confidence trick, describing schemes on how to combat

criticisms of their various allegations and how they would make-up new

allegations to try and keep the whole thing going. These letters (totalling

over 100) are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil,

who has also retained the original envelopes. Jean-Luc Chaumeil during

the 1970s was part of the Priory of Sion cabal, and wrote books and

articles about Plantard and the Priory of Sion before splitting from it

during the late 1970s and exposing Plantard's past in French books.

(“Priory”)

The Da Vinci Code proclaims a series of cons of the truth. The Da Vinci Code

distorts facts about the Council of Nicaea and the Emperor Constantine. As we have

shown, Constantine did not compile the New Testament. Recognition of the canon of

scripture materialized long before Constantine’s time. Some of the more blatant lies of

Brown concern the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi. “As a result, Brown makes

several dumb, careless mistakes that put the lie to his pretensions of extensive

research, such as having a ‘Grail expert’ describe the Dead Sea Scrolls as being ‘among

the earliest Christian records,’ when the documents are Jewish and do not mention

Jesus Christ at all” (Miller).

The Nag Hammadi Scrolls are a different story. Discovered in Egypt in

1945, they contain no books that are in either Old or New Testaments.

They are written mostly in Coptic, a language used by Christians in Egypt.

Many of the writings are about Jesus, some obviously Gnostic, some only
 Bradshaw 30

influenced by Gnosticism. Contrary to what Teabring calls “the earliest

Christian records,” the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi date only to

about 400 A.D. (Hardin 19)

One last blatant lie does not deal with Jesus, Christianity, or the Bible, but the

fabrication bodes too prominent in the plot to leave unchallenged. Once again, Brown

either lies or uses poor scholarship relaying the naming of the Mona Lisa.

According to Brown’s inventive fiction, the name “Mona Lisa” is actually

the combination of two Egyptian deities: the god “Amon” and the

goddess “Isis.” Brown asserts that the “ancient pictogram was once called

L’ISA.” According to Brown’s “facts” the name of Leonardo’s woman,

“Mona Lisa,” is an anagram of the divine union of make [sic] and female.”

(Kachelman, “Da Vinci” 4)

The truth about the naming of the Mona Lisa really discredits Browns truthfulness.

Brown’s attempts to state that his facts are accurate, but too often his facts just do not

hold water. “Leonardo did not name this painting. As far back as 1525, the painting is

referred to as “a portrait of a lady.” The name ‘Mona Lisa’ did not appear until 1550

and this is the only source that calls it the ‘Monna Lisa.’ In English the name was

shortened to ‘Mona Lisa’” (qtd. in Kachelman, “Da Vinci” 7).

Brown’s ridiculous assertions that the portrait is the combining of two

pagan deities is comical. The two names were first used in 1550 and in

Italian were spelled “Monna Lisa.” “Monna” is a contraction of “Madonna”

which is “Madame.” Thus, the title by which the portrait is known today
 Bradshaw 31

simply means “Madame Lisa.” When the truth is known about the real

naming of the portrait Brown’s assertions become laughable. (Kachelman,

“Da Vinci” 7)

Is Paganism Superior to Christianity?

Throughout Brown’s book, an underlying theme promulgates the vast superiority

of Paganism over Christianity. The Da Vinci Code emphatically represents Paganism as

more ancient than Christianity.

The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable.

Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis

nursing her miraculously conceived son Horos became the blueprint for

our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually

all the elements of the Catholic ritual – the miter, the altar, the doxology,

and communion, the act of God-eating – were taken directly from earlier

pagan mystery religions. (Brown 252)

True, some pagan rituals and religions do indeed predate the birth of Jesus.

However, nobody would dispute that Christianity comes from the more ancient Hebrew

religion. Brown contends that paganistic sexual rituals predate the Bible’s stated use for

the temple.

He gave her a moment. Admittedly, the concept of sex as a pathway to

God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon’s Jewish students always looked

flabbergasted when he first told them that the early Jewish tradition

involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that
 Bradshaw 32

the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also His

powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came

to the Temple to visit priestesses – or hierodules – with whom they made

love and experienced the divine through physical union. The Jewish

tetragrammaton YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact derived from

Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and

the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah. (Brown 336)

The lunacy of Brown attempting to promote Paganism over Christianity shatters

upon objective scrutiny. Brown presents absolutely no facts to back his preposterous

claims. Clearly, we have demonstrated the Bible’s superiority to Brown’s fanciful

theories. Only, Priests could enter the Holy Place of the Temple. Priests were males

coming from the lineage of Aaron, Moses’ brother, from the tribe of Levi. Only the High

Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies, and he could do so only once a year. “And

you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and put the hats on them. The

priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute. So you shall consecrate Aaron and his

sons” (Exodus 29:9). We must understand that the Tabernacle was the predecessor to

the Temple. The Tabernacle was a tent-like structure designed to be portable. The

Temple came about as a desire to have a permanent structure for the glory of God.

Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and

the earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in

which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called

the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle
 Bradshaw 33

which is called the Holiest of All, which had the golden censer and the ark

of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden

pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the

covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the

mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. Now when

these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first

part of the tabernacle, performing the services. But into the second part

the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he

offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance.

(Hebrews 9:1-7)

First, the tabernacle and later the temple became the dwelling place of God on

earth. Early in Hebrew history, the priest took their roles seriously. An early miscue

became a warning to future priests. The priests were to make a fire by taking a

burning coal from the altar and place it inside his censure (bowl), Leviticus 16:12.

However, Nadab and Abihu produced fire contrary to the way God commanded. “Then

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense

on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. So

fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord”

(Leviticus 10:1-2). Violation of even a small portion of the commandments of God

within the tabernacle resulted in death. Therefore, the thought of any pagan sexual

rituals inside the early temple becomes preposterous. Near the days of the capture and

exile to Babylon, the temple did indeed become defiled. The defilement of the temple
 Bradshaw 34

led to God’s glory leaving the temple and to the ultimate destruction of both Jerusalem

and the Temple during the days of Nebuchadnezzar. “Therefore, as I live,' says the

Lord God, 'surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable things

and with all your abominations, therefore I will also diminish you; My eye will not spare,

nor will I have any pity” (Ezekiel 5:11).

The notion that the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, comes from an androgynous

physical union has no factual basis. Brown uses the word Jehovah to tie linguistically

God’s name to masculine and feminine. However, modern scholarship agrees that

Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation of YHWH. Yahweh has become the consensus

of most as to the pronunciation of YHWH. However, we may never truly know how to

pronounce YHWH because the Jewish people treated the name of God so reverently

that they stopped speaking the word. Brown provides no documentation or support for

his ridiculous claim concerning the name of God. Much scholarship exists concerning

the Tetragrammaton, of which, we will not take the time to explore. However, any

open-minded reader will conclude that Brown contrived the meaning of God’s name.

Further, God is spirit, John 4:24. As spirit, there is no sexual component to the

characteristics of God. In heaven, all are spiritual beings and there will be no sexual

unions. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are

like angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

Furthermore, Brown contends that the concept of original sin denigrates

women. “It was man, not God, who created the concept of ‘original sin,’ whereby Eve

tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the
 Bradshaw 35

sacred giver of life, was now the enemy” (Brown 258). First, sin committed by both

Adam and Eve resulted in expulsion from the Garden of Eden for humanity. The Garden

was a heavenly paradise on earth. Sin introduced the concept of death.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was

pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of

its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they

were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves

coverings. (Genesis 3:6-7)

However, consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve were born by both, not just the

woman. The first sin led to a cursed earth, to a cursed childbirth for women, and to a

cursed serpent, Genesis 3:14-19. However, the greatness and love of the true God

immediately shined above all with the glorious declaration of the coming of the Messiah.

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her

Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). Brown’s

use of an apple serves well to correlate with Newton’s apple that spurred thoughts of

gravity. However, scripture nowhere describes the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and

Eve as an apple.

The Catholic Church and Calvinistic churches falsely proclaim the doctrine of

original sin. Nonetheless, children do not inherit the sin of Adam. Scripture has never

portrayed infants or children needing the forgiveness of sins. The “man-made” religious

institutions promote numerous dogmas inconsistent with the Bible. Scriptures speak of
 Bradshaw 36

each person bearing the responsibilities of his or her own sins. “The soul who sins shall

die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the

son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of

the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

The Da Vinci Code depicts Constantine as a villain who forever crushed the

concept of the “sacred feminine.” “The Priory believes that Constantine and his male

successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal

Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine,

obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever” (Brown 133). Brown ties the

creation of Adam and Eve as portrayed in the Bible to the downfall of the “sacred

feminine.” “Genesis tells us that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Woman became an

offshoot of man. And a sinful one at that. Genesis was the beginning of the end for

the goddess” (Brown 259). Brown offers no proof for his fanciful ideas. Constantine

did not invent the story of creation because Moses wrote the words in Genesis about

1,700 years before the birth of Constantine. According to Brown’s reasoning, Moses

bears the responsibility for the collapse of the “sacred feminine.” The absence of the

“sacred feminine” from the Old Testament speaks volumes. Brown misses the beauty

and importance given to woman from the beginning. God realized that man needed a

“helper comparable to him,” Genesis 2:20. Therefore, God made man an equal from his

very own side. God could have used any part of man to make woman, but specifically

chose a rib from the side of Adam. According to God’s plan, man and woman are to

walk side by side for life and become one flesh. “And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of
 Bradshaw 37

my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out

of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24).

Christianity strongly portrays women as equals to men, but with different roles.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male

nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The New Testament

depicts several women who play a significant role in early Christianity. The Holy

Scriptures exalts women such as Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Martha,

Mary, Salome, Dorcas, Lydia, Lois, Eunice, and many more. Contrary to Brown’s

proposition, Christianity praises Godly women. True, women have different roles than

men, but that in no way makes them inferior. Jesus humbled himself to become flesh

and blood, but Jesus did not become less of Deity by the process. “Let this mind be in

you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it

robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a

bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).

To prove his point, Brown highlights various atrocities of the Roman Catholic

Church. “Midwives also were killed for their heretical practice of using medical

knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth – a suffering, the Church claimed, that, was

God’s rightful punishment for Eve’s partaking of the Apple of knowledge, thus giving

birth to the idea of Original Sin” (Brown 134). History records the blatant apostasy of

the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible and the true New Testament Church would

never condone the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore,
 Bradshaw 38

Brown only succeeds in highlighting the deficiencies of the apostate Roman Catholic

Church.

However, the false teachings concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, squash the

perception that the Roman Catholic Church denigrated women. Mary becomes a focus

of prayer and strength just as deity. These conceptions of Mary by the Catholic Church

are inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible.

Yet another contradiction lies in the false statement that the Catholic

Church has tried to eliminate a “sacred feminine” from religion. There is

no modern religious body that had done more to turn a woman into a god

than the Catholic Church. In Catholicism, the Virgin Mary has become just

as important as Christ. She is prayed to as a deity. Her icons fill every

Catholic cathedral. In may places, when the two are placed together, her

statues are made larger even than those of Jesus. No, the Catholic

Church has not tried to remove a sacred feminine at all. The Da Vinci

Code ignores this completely. (Hardin 49)

In addition, The Da Vinci Code contends that Christians today worship on a

Pagan holy day. Further, Brown proclaims that Constantine changed the day of worship

from Saturday to Sunday.

“Originally,” Langdon said, “Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of

Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s

veneration day of the sun.” He paused grinning. To this day, most

churchgoers attend services on Sunday morning with no idea that they are
 Bradshaw 39

there on account of the pagan sun god’s weekly tribute – Sunday. (Brown

252)

Both the inspired scriptures and the early testimony of the “church fathers”

unanimously agree that Sunday has always been the day of worship for Christians. Paul

as an inspired apostle tarried at Troas for a week so that he could partake of the Lord’s

Supper. “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break

bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message

until midnight” (Acts 20:7 ) The first day of the week is Sunday. Later the inspired

apostle tells the Corinth church to give on Sundays because that is when they regularly

met together. “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside

and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come”

(ESV, 1 Corinthians 16:2). The importance of Sunday worship led to the saints calling

the day the Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Day is not the Christians equivalent of the Sabbath,

but the Lord’s Day requires the body of believers to gather for worship. When we

gather on the Lord’s Day, we are to sing, pray, teach, give, and partake of the Lord’s

Supper. Sunday was the day of the week that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ arose

from the dead (Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1). Sunday was the

day that the Church had its beginning in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Pentecost

occurred 50 days after the Sabbath of the Passover week, meaning that the Day of

Pentecost occurred on Sunday. The Apostle John referred to Sunday as the Lord’s Day

(Rev. 1:10).

In addition, we have the testimony of the “church fathers” that predate the time
 Bradshaw 40

of Constantine.

Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians (believed to be penned

around A.D. 110) how Christians “have come to the possession of a new

hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance

of the Lord’s Day” (1:62, emp. added; cf. Revelation 1:5). In chapter 67

of his First Apology (written around A.D. 150), Justin Martyr noted how

Christians would gather together “on the day called Sunday’ to read the

writings of the apostles and prophets, instruct, pray, give, and eat of

bread and wine (emp. added) (Lyons, “The Da Vinci Code”).

False association to a pagan god can result from any day chosen as a day of worship.

Furthermore, early non-inspired preachers repudiated any connection

between paganism and worshiping God on “the Lord’s day” (Sunday).

Around A.D. 200, Tertullian twice dealt with this matter (“Ad Nationes,”

1:13; “Apology,” 16). In his “Apology,” he indicated that Christians “devote

Sun-day to rejoicing for a “far different reason than Sun-worship” (XVI).

“Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly,” wrote

Justin Martyr (nearly two centuries before Constantine), because “Jesus

Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was

crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after

that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun,” he “appeared to His apostles

and disciples” (“First Apology,” 67). (Lyons, “The Da Vinci Code”)

The basis of Paganism results from fleshly and worldly desires. As one matures,
 Bradshaw 41

these fleshly desires generally dissipate. An older person would therefore become less

religious as a pagan. However, the basis for Christianity lies with the eternal. Brown

portrays women as humiliating objects of sexual rituals. Our bodies will cease to exist,

but our souls last forever. Will one be happier choosing a religious life focusing on the

permanent or focusing upon temporary fleshly indulgences?

Women once celebrated as an essential half of spiritual enlightenment,

had been banished from the temples of the world. There were no female

Orthodox Rabbis, Catholic Priest, nor Islamic clerks. The once hallowed

act of Hieros Gamos – the natural sexual union between man and woman

through which each became spiritually whole – had been recast as a

shameful act. Holy men who had once require sexual union with their

female counterparts to commune with God now feared their natural sexual

urges as the work of the devil, collaborating with his favorite accomplice

woman. (Brown 134-135).

How sad and decrepit a view on worshipping the living God. The covenant established

by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is truly magnificent. We no longer need a physical

building for a temple. “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord

of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).

Christians are now the temple of God. “Do you not know that you are the temple of

God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you” (1 Corinthians 3:16)? We no longer need

a flawed high priest to once a year access God. We certainly do not need a paganistic

orgy to commune with God. Jesus Christ shed His blood that we might have access at
 Bradshaw 42

all times. We can have true spirit to Spirit communion with God when we choose.

For those who are interested in the theory that Christianity was an

evolutionary development from these pagan religions, it should be pointed

out that:

1. Christianity is a religion based on historical fact. The pagans

had their myths, but the Christians had their facts. The

miracles and resurrection of Christ were first preached and

had their greatest influence in the very location where they

took place. The truth of Christianity does not rest upon its

philosophical aspects; but rather upon the death and

resurrection of Christ, and these facts were open to public

investigation.

2. The pagans had no concept of guilt in the Christian sense or

of God’s forgiving and cleansing sin through a divine

sacrifice. Since these ideas constitute the very heart of

Christianity, the pagan religions cannot be said to have

produced it.

3. Christians were not only conscious of a great difference

between themselves and others, but also stood against all

other religions with an uncompromising opposition. This

very exclusiveness was the cause of persecution. Since the

pagan ideals were readily accepted in Roman society, it is

 Bradshaw 43

not conceivable to think that Christianity was the offspring of

paganism and yet refused to recognize the relationship.

4. If Christianity was the offspring of Pagan religions, how does

one account for its strength under persecution and its final

victory over the pagan cults?

5. No Christian ever referred to paganism as the source of his

ideas. Christ crucified was to the pagans, foolishness, but to

the Christian the hope of glory. Between the atoning death

of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension on the one

hand and the pagan superstitious idolatry on the other, is a

gulf fixed that no man can cross. (Mattox 26)

The Holy Grail is the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene

The climax of The Da Vinci Code revolves around the contention that the Holy

Grail is the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Brown presents the marriage of

Jesus and Mary Magdalene as historical fact. “‘As I said earlier, the marriage of Jesus

and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record….’ ‘Moreover, Jesus as a married

man makes infinitely more sense that our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor’”

(Brown 265). In addition, Brown falsely represents the perception of most modern

historians accepting the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. “I shan’t bore you

with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union. That has been explored

ad nauseam by modern historians” (Brown 267). I wish that Brown would provide at

least some credible references supporting his opinion. However, no credible historians
 Bradshaw 44

profess that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Some pseudo-historians like

Brown, ignore the facts presented concerning the Priory do contrive fanciful tales of

imagination.

Brown places doubt that Jesus could have been single within the Jewish culture

that he lived. “If, Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would

have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of

bachelorhood” (Brown 265). Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the department of religious

studies at the University of North Carolina, disputes Brown’s flimsy theory. “It was not

unheard-of for a Jewish man of Jesus’ time to be either single or celibate, particularly if

he was part of the apocalyptic prophetic movement of the day, as Jesus most likely

was” (qtd. in Miller).

For some semblance of evidence, Brown turns to the uninspired New Testament

apocryphal.

“The Gospel of Philip is always a good place to start.” Sophie read the

passage: And the companion of the Saviour [sic] is Mary Magdalene.

Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on

her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed

disapproval. They said to him, “why do you love her more than all of us?”

The words surprised Sophie, and yet they hardly seemed conclusive. “It

say nothing of marriage.” “Au contraire.” Teabing smiled, pointing to the

first line. “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in

those days, literally meant spouse.” (Brown 266)

 Bradshaw 45

The character in the book, Sophie, rightfully reviews the words in the Gospel of Philip

skeptically. The truth concerning the Gospel of Philip does not argue for a marital

relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Some of Brown's mistakes are minor but telling. For example, his "Grail

expert," Leigh Teabing, smugly declares that "any Aramaic scholar will tell

you" that the word "companion" used in the noncanonical Gospel of Philip

in describing Mary Magdalene's relationship to Jesus, "in those days,

literally meant spouse.” But, as Ehrman explains, the Gospel of Philip is

written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and the word in question is borrowed from

yet another language, which is also not Aramaic, but Greek. And it does

not mean "spouse" or "lover," but "companion," and is "commonly used of

friends and associates." (qtd. in Miller)

Some might wonder about the suggestive language concerning Jesus kissing Mary on

the mouth.

The word “mouth,” however, is not in the text. Several words are

missing from the Coptic manuscript, including those that would designate

where He allegedly kissed her. Perhaps the missing word is hand, head,

cheek, or nose. When the woman of Luke 7 kissed Jesus’ feet, He

responded by telling Simon, “You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has

not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in” (7:45). Jesus’

statement implied that even though the woman wept at His feet, washed

them with her hair, anointed them with fragrant oil, and kissed them
 Bradshaw 46

repeatedly (7:36-39), she did not act erotically. On the contrary, she

honored Jesus with humble service and adoration, unlike Simon and the

others.

Finally, if Jesus did kiss Mary Magdalene, as The Gospel of Philip

alleges, it hardly would justify a case for marriage. This so-called “gospel”

mentions elsewhere that the followers of Christ “also kiss each other”

(Meyer, 2005b, p. 57). And, according to Scripture, Christians were in the

habit of greeting “one another with a holy kiss” since the church began

(Romans 16:16, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:20; 1 Thessalonians

5:26; see Miller, 2003). In short, kissing is not equivalent to marrying and

having children. (Lyons, “The Real Mary Magdalene”)

In addition, we must understand these apocryphal documents are grossly inferior

to the inspired canon of the New Testament. Only in scripture will you find the

complete truth about Mary Magdalene. Not one single scripture remotely intimates that

Mary Magdalene was more than a faithful disciple. Further, not one verse from the

apocryphal contends that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. However, the

apocryphal does not treat Mary Magdalene equally. “Yet Ehrman also concludes that

while some of the early Christian texts excluded form the New Testament honor Mary

Magdalene and Jesus’ women followers, others emphatically do not” (Miller).

As the book progresses, Brown seems to make increasingly bizarre

proclamations. Brown suggests that Jesus intended to build His church led by Mary

Magdalene. After, Sophie reads a portion of text from the Gospel of Mary, Brown makes
 Bradshaw 47

some erroneous extrapolations. “The woman they are speaking of,” Teabing explained

is Mary Magdalene. Peter is jealous of her” (Brown 268). Next, Brown takes a little

exaggeration, imagination, and outright falsehood to astonish his readers.

Sophie was trying to keep up. “This is Saint Peter. The rock on

which Jesus built His Church.”

“The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered

gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to

establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene.” (Brown 268)

Again, Brown distorts the actual truth. First, Brown interjects his bias for the

Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church contends that Peter was the rock

that Jesus built His church. Exactly what does the Bible say about the church that

Jesus built?

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh

and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." I

also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My

church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." I will give you the

keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall

have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall

have been loosed in heaven." (NASB, Matthew 16:16-19, emp. added)

Notice that Jesus does not say, “I will build the My church upon Peter.” Jesus says that

He will build His church upon the rock-solid faith exhibited by those like Peter. It is
 Bradshaw 48

Christ's church. For many the confusion comes from the meaning of Peter’s name.

According to Strong’s, the Greek word for Peter, “Petros,” means “a piece of a rock”

(57). The word rendered rock comes from the Greek word, “petra,” meaning “a rock,

cliff, ledge, or a large stone” (Thayer 507). Peter is a small pebble or stone, but his

faith was a large and strong as solid bedrock. The Catholic’s would contend that since

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, that we should look just at the Aramaic language for this

passage. Further, in Aramaic the equivalent name for Peter was Cephas. Cephas

encompasses all uses of rock, stone, etc. Therefore, the Catholics contend that there is

no distinction and that Peter is the rock spoken of by Christ. Good exegetics quickly

reveal the weakness of the Catholic’s theology. First, the book of Matthew was written

in the common Greek language of the day. Some have speculated that Matthew

originally wrote in Hebrew and then later translated the book into Greek. However,

there has never been found even one manuscript copy in the Hebrew. All evidence

points to Greek being the language God intended the book to be written. In the Greek,

there is a clear distinction. The writer could have clearly made the point if the rock was

to have been Peter. The writer could have simply said, “Peter you are the rock.” In

addition, even in the Greek the name Cephas could have been used instead of Peter.

Other passages such as John 1:42 used the Aramaic name of Cephas for Peter.

Secondly, how does the interpretation of this passage fit with other passages from the

Bible?

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow

citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having
 Bradshaw 49

been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ

Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being

joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also

are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (NKJV,

Ephesians 2:19-22)

We see from this passage that Jesus is the chief cornerstone or head of the Church.

The apostles equally shared the role of being the foundation for the church. However,

the church continues grow even this very day upon the faiths of those committed to

following a Christian life. All the apostles were chosen to be the early leaders of the

church, and were the foundation that the church grows upon today. “Now the wall of

the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of

the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14). One last note about Peter, he could only “bind” or

“loose” what had been heavenly authorized. The New American Standard Bible

accurately translates Matthew 16:19 to demonstrate that Peter could teach only what

had already been “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. Similarly, the 12 apostles were given

the same instructions, just a short time later. “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you

bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed

in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

Therefore, Mary Magdalene was not given leadership authority by Jesus because

she was not an apostle. Only the apostles were chosen to initially lead and establish

the Lord’s Church. Mary Magdalene is never listed as one of the chosen apostles.

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16 all list the same twelve men as
 Bradshaw 50

apostles. Surely, the inspired scriptures would have mentioned the special leadership

role of Mary Magdalene. However, Mary Magdalene is never given such a special

assignment.

What about the evidence that Brown mentions regarding the leadership status of

Mary Magdalene. Really, the evidence from Brown comes from the Gnostic Gospel of

Mary. Does the uninspired Gnostic Gospel, written nearly a century after Mary

Magdalene died, really give her a special leadership role within the church?

The idea of Mary Magdalene being the head of the Lord’s Church

originated in the Gnostic gospel [sic] of Mary. In the Gospel of Mary the

Lord’s words are NOT in regard to Mary founding the church but in regard

to finding salvation for souls. Brown has taken this one point and

fabricated it to teach something totally different. (Kachelman, “Da Vinci”

7)

The truth about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene demonstrates why it was not included in

the canon. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene contains information that most honest

readers would consider silly.

And the actual Gospel of Mary message that Jesus allegedly imparted –

which Brown omits from the Code – has nothing to do with church

leadership. It is about metaphysical ‘powers’ and the forms they take to

conquer the soul…As for the Gospel of Philip, it also says nothing about

Jesus ordaining Mary Magdalene to take over for him.” (qtd. in

Kachelman, “Da Vinci” 7)

 Bradshaw 51

Brown suggests that the church actively defamed the name of Mary Magdalene.

In the book, Sophie identifies Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Sophie is immediately

ridiculed for her prognosis. “Magdalene was no such thing. That unfortunate

misconception is the legacy of a smear campaign, launched by the early Church. The

Church needed to defame Mary Magdalene in order to cover up her dangerous secret --

here role as the Holy Grail” (Brown 264). Brown contends that there was an ongoing

conspiracy to cover-up the truth about Mary Magdalene. “The Church, in order to

defend itself against Magdalene’s power, perpetuated her image as a whore and buried

evidence of Christ’s marriage to her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ

had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet” (Brown 274). However, the Bible

always depicts Mary Magdalene in a positive manner.

Those who have heard only of the newly made-over Mary Magdalene

might be disappointed to find that the real Mary of Magdala does not fit

the modern-day, dramatized version. Mary Magdalene is mentioned a

total of 12 times in the New Testament—the oldest historical record

mentioning her name. All 12 occurrences appear in the gospel accounts,

wherein we learn the following:

•Jesus cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9).

•She was one of many who provided for Jesus out of her own means

(Luke 8:1-3).

•She witnessed the crucifixion of Christ (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40;

John 19:25).
 Bradshaw 52

•She was present at His burial (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47).

•She arrived at Jesus’ tomb on the Sunday following His crucifixion to

find His body missing (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-7;

John 20:1).

•She saw the risen Lord, spoke with Him, and later reported the

encounter to the apostles (Matthew 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-11; John

20:11-18).

Where are the passages about her physical relationship with Christ?

Where are the hints of erotic behavior? Where is the sexualized version of

Mary Magdalene? In truth, the new version of Mary Magdalene is a

figment of someone’s imagination. (Lyons, “The Real Mary Magdalene”)

So, why do some believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Admittedly, there is a

real connection to the Roman Catholic Church.

Historically she has been identified as the prostitute in Luke 7:50. This is

a false association and was presented by Pope Gregory the Great in 591

A.D. This error was later corrected by the Roman Catholic Church but

unfortunately it “stuck” (as evidenced by the role of Mary Magdalene in

the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar). (Kachelman, “Da Vinci” 4)

Pertaining to whether Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute the Bible and Brown

agree. However, nearly everything else Brown exaggerates or imagines concerning

Mary Magdalene.

“Mary Magdalene is here.” Teabing said point near the top of the
 Bradshaw 53

genealogy. Sophie was surprised. “She was of the House of Benjamin?”

“Indeed,” Teabing said. “Mary Magdalene was of royal descent.” “But I

was under the impression Magdalene was poor.” Teabing shook his head.

“Magdalene was recast as a whore in order to erase evidence of her

powerful family ties.” (Brown 269)

First, the Bible makes no implications that Mary Magdalene was poor. Actually, the Bible

shows that Mary Magdalene was one who financially supported Jesus’ ministry.

Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and

village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God.

And the twelve were with Him, and certain women who had been healed

of evil spirits and infirmities--Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had

come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and

Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.

(Luke 8:1-3)

Does Mary Magdalene descend from royal bloodlines as suggested by Brown? Brown

claims that Mary Magdalene descended from the bloodlines of the tribe of Benjamin.

However, the Bible never states which tribe Mary Magdalene descended. Further, even

if Mary Magdalene descended from the house of Benjamin, there was no royal bloodline

through Benjamin. True, the first king of Israel did come from the tribe of Benjamin, 1

Samuel 9:21. Saul would be the only king from the tribe of Benjamin to reign over all

of Israel. Because of Saul’s sins, God removed the kingdom from Saul’s lineage. “So

Samuel said to him, ‘The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has
 Bradshaw 54

given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you’” (1 Samuel 15:28). The

kingdom was given to David from the tribe of Judah. For a couple of years Saul’s son,

Ishbosheth reigns over all the tribes except Judah. Ishbosheth was assassinated in 2

Samuel 4. The throne would rest with David and the tribe of Judah forever.

Since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and

have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the Lord tells you that

He will make you a house. "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with

your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your

body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My

name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his

Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him

with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My

mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed

from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established

forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." "According

to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to

David. (2 Samuel 7:11-17)

The Messiah would ultimately come from the house of David of the tribe of Judah. We

know that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by being the Messiah and that He now reigns

over an eternal kingdom, Daniel 2:44. If Mary Magdalene came from the tribe of

Benjamin, she did not come from a lineage of royalty.

Popular tradition suggests that the Holy Grail was the cup used by Jesus at the
 Bradshaw 55

Last Supper. Further, a tradition follows that the cup was used to catch the blood

caused by the spear to Jesus upon the cross. The quest for the Holy Grail provides the

plot for many books and movies. During the Crusades, the Grail became a rallying cry

to persuade the soldiers to fight against the Muslims. However, Brown presents a much

different theory concerning the Holy Grail. The plot of The Da Vinci Code emphatically

contends that the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail.

Brown utilizes another portrait from Leonardo Da Vinci to provide evidence to his

Holy Grail theory. Brown claims the portrait of The Last Supper refutes the notion the

Holy Grail was a chalice because Da Vinci paints 13 glass cups. “A bit strange, don’t

you think considering that both the Bible and our standard Grail legend celebrate this

moment as the definitive arrival of the Holy Grail. Oddly, Da Vinci appears to have

forgotten to paint the Cup of Christ” (Brown 256). Brown does contend that the Holy

Grail indeed makes an appearance in the painting. “Sophie examined the figure to

Jesus’ immediate right, focusing in. As she studied the person’s face and body, a wave

of astonishment arose within her. The individual had flowing read hair, delicate folded

hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was without a doubt… female” (Brown 263). Brown

proclaims that this feminine figure drawn by Da Vinci was Mary Magdalene.

“Behold,” Teabing proclaimed, “the greatest cover-up in human history.

Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear Mary

Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal

bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage, and

the vine from which the sacred fruit sprang forth!” (Brown 270)
 Bradshaw 56

Therefore, The Da Vinci Code argues that the Holy Grail is not a chalice, but in essence

a lineage of the earthly ancestors of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

“So the entire Holy Grail legend is all about royal blood?” “Quite literally,”

Teabing said. “The word Sangreal derives from San Greal – or Holy Grail.

But in its most ancient form, the word Sangreal was divided in a different

spot.” Teabing wrote on a piece of scrip paper and handed it to her. She

read what he had written. Sang Real

Instantly, Sophie recognized the translation. Sang Real literally

meant Royal Blood. (Brown 271)

Further, Brown ties the Priory of Sion with Holy Grail. According to Brown, the Priory

worships and protects the bloodline of Jesus. “‘Yes,’ Teabing said: ‘And that Mary

Magdalene was the womb that carried His royal lineage. The Priory of Sion, to this day,

still worships Mary Magdalene as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose, and the Divine

Mother’” (Brown 275). Brown even explains where Mary Magdalene went following the

crucifixion of Christ.

“According to the Priory,” Teabing continued, “Mary Magdalene was

pregnant at the time of the crucifixion. For the safety of Christ’s unborn

child, she had no choice but to flee the Holy Land. With the help of Jesus’

trusted uncle Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene secretly traveled to

France, then known as Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish

community. It was here in France that she gave birth to a daughter. Her

name was Sarah.” (Brown 276)

 Bradshaw 57

We have conclusively shown Brown’s credibility problem concerning the Priory.

Browns, depiction of the Holy Grail and the Last Supper fall apart without a genuine

Priory. We have documented the fraudulent creation of the Priory. Forged documents

form the 1950’s lie at the foundation of the Priory.

Without the Priory of Sion to hold the Grail conspiracy theory together,

most of the provocative "evidence" Brown presents in "The Da Vinci Code"

crumbles. Take that supposedly ambiguous figure to the right of Jesus in

Leonardo's "Last Supper.” If there's no real reason to suspect Leonardo of

believing in a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus

Christ, why should we see that figure as a woman? Yes, the figure looks

somewhat feminine but, in addition to following established conventions in

representing the disciple John, Leonardo was quite fond of painting

androgynous-looking young men. His reason for doing this was the same

one that Michelangelo had for painting lots of muscular male nudes and

Botticelli had for depicting long-limbed, ivory-skinned lovelies. You don't

need a degree in symbology to figure that one out. (Miller)

Further, we should not take the portrait of The Last Supper by Da Vinci too

literal. From only a historical perspective, the painting falsely depicts the scene at the

Last Supper of Christ. In first century Jerusalem, those in attendance would not sit at a

table but would have reclined on their sides. Scripture accurately depicts the customary

eating style of the day. “Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples,

whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23).

 Bradshaw 58

In keeping with customs then prevailing not only in the Jewish world but

also among the Romans, the Persians and the Greeks, the disciples were

reclining at the table in the upper room. It was customary to stretch one’s

self out on a couch, the left arm supporting the body, leaving the right

hand free to use in eating. Situated next to Jesus at the table was the

disciple “who Jesus loved,” almost certainly, John, the author of the Lord’s

biography, “according to John.” (Woods 292)

Therefore, we cannot trust anything else in the painting by Da Vinci to be accurate.

The painting is simply an artist’s representation of the event. By the way, the disciple

who Jesus loved was not Mary Magdalene. All evidence points to the apostle John as

the one who Jesus loved. Scripture provides proof that the disciple in question was not

Mary Magdalene.

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early,

while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from

the tomb. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other

disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the

Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

(John 20:1-2)

So what was the Holy Grail? We have conclusively shown that the Holy Grail

could not be the lineage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Therefore, should we conclude

that the Grail is the chalice used at the Last Supper? The truth probably lies within the

documented history of the Grail. You would expect some mention of the Grail very
 Bradshaw 59

soon after the crucifixion of Christ. However, no mention of the Grail exists within the

New Testament. The last book of the New Testament was penned over 60 years after

the crucifixion and yet there is not one mention of the Grail in any of the New

Testament books. As we have seen, many of the “church fathers” wrote letters as early

as 100 A.D. In all of the letters from the “church fathers” spanning several centuries,

not one word pertains to the Holy Grail.

The above lack of early documentation of the Grail leads to two observations.

First, God never intended special prominence to be given to any object, including a cup

that may have been used at the Last Supper. If there were a Holy Grail men and

women, overtime would have worshipped such an object. Worship of objects becomes

quite simply idolatry. Many would have worshipped the Grail as an idol just as many

worshipped the brazen serpent of Moses. Eventually, King Hezekiah ordered the

destruction of the brazen serpent. “He removed the high places and broke the sacred

pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses

had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it

Nehushtan” (2 Kings 18:4). Second, for over 1,000 years no one knew of the Grail or of

its legend. So, when do we first read about the Grail?

The development of the Grail legend has been traced in detail by cultural

historians: It is a legend which first came together in the form of written

romances, deriving perhaps from some pre-Christian folklore hints, in the

later 12th and early 13th centuries. The early Grail romances centered on

Percival and were woven into the more general Arthurian fabric. The Grail
 Bradshaw 60

romances started in France and were translated into other European

vernaculars; only a handful of non-French romances added any essential

new elements. (“Holy Grail”)

Therefore, a truly objective conclusion based upon the facts leads one to believe that

the Grail never existed as portrayed. The romance writers used the legend of the Grail

in the 12th and 13th centuries to spur religious enthusiasm for continued fighting in the

crusades. The Grail became the rallying cry for the armies to continue fighting against

the Muslims.

Jesus is Not Deity

By far the most contemptuous lie advanced by The Da Vinci Code becomes the

denial of the Deity of Christ. The main theme of Brown’s book relates to the theory that

the Holy Grail is the lineage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. For Brown’s theory to have

any plausibility, he must relegate Jesus to a mere mortal. The Son of God would have

no reason to father children on earth because through creation He was the progenitor

of the human race. “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and

over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the

earth’" (Genesis 1:26, emp. added). The “Us” represents the Godhead. Brown in order

to justify his theory on the Holy Grail must make Jesus mortal. Brown acknowledges

that a non-divine Jesus undermines the Christian faith. “A child of Jesus would

undermine the critical notion of Christ’s divinity and therefore the Christian Church,

which declared itself the sole vessel through which humanity could access the divine
 Bradshaw 61

and gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven” (Brown 274). Similarly, the pendulum

swings in both directions. If Jesus is indeed Deity, then Jesus could not have fathered a

child while on earth.

Brown deceitfully contends that Constantine at the Council of Nicaea conceived

the concept of a Divine Jesus.

Teabing declared, “Until, that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His

followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man

nonetheless. A mortal.” “ Jesus’ establishment as the Son of God was

officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” “Hold on.

You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?” “A relatively close

vote at that,” Teabing added. (Brown 253)

We have previously shown that Brown distorted the meeting of the Council of Nicaea.

Now, we will attempt to discuss briefly the meeting and relevance to the Deity of Christ.

The Emperor Constantine aligned himself with Christianity thus gaining political strength

from the masses. Constantine feared the church would divide over the doctrine of

Arianism concerning the nature of Christ.

Constantine called this first general council to meet in Nicaea in Asia

Minor, June 19, 325. Its purpose was to settle the controversy over the

nature of Christ. Arius, a popular preacher of Alexandria contended that

Christ was not eternal and that His substance was not the same as that of

God the Father. Athanasius opposed Arius saying that the substance of

Christ was the same as the Father. Constantine thought the differences
 Bradshaw 62

were unimportant, too subtle for the average man and confusing to the

people of the Empire. (Mattox 142).

The main point of disagreement with the doctrine of Arius stemmed from whether Jesus

had a beginning. Arius did not contend that Jesus was just a man.

In a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius states his own position by

saying we teach, “that the Son is not begotten, nor in any way

unbegotten, even in part; and that he does not derive his subsistence

from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted

before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and

unchangeable, and that he existed not before he was begotten, or

created, or purposed, or established. For he was not unbegotten. We are

persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning.” (Mattox 129)

In essence, Arius believed that Jesus predated time, and was greater than man was but

created by God. The beginning of the dispute with Arius began from a sermon from

Alexander a bishop of Alexandria. Alexander did not believe that Jesus had a

beginning, i.e. that He was eternal. “Arius states that Alexander held ‘that the Son has

always been; that as the Father so is the Son; that the Son is unbegotten, without

having been begotten; that neither by thought not by any interval does God precede

the Son, God and the Son having always been and that the Son proceeds from God’”

(Mattox 129-130).

The Council of Nicaea convened with 318 bishops. After discussion, all but two

of the bishops signed the articles of faith set forth by the council. If Brown considers
 Bradshaw 63

that a close vote, I would hate to see what he considers a landslide. The final adopted

articles of faith of the council strongly resembled the teaching of Alexander.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible

and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only

begotten of the Father; he is begotten, that is to say, he is of the

substance of God, God of God, light of light, very God of very God,

begotten and not made, being of one substance with the Father; by who

all things both in heaven and on earth were made. Who for us men, and

for our salvation, came down from heaven, and took our nature, and

became man; suffered, and rose again the third day; he ascended into

heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe

in the Holy Ghost….The Holy catholic and apostolical church condemns all

that who say that there was a period in which the Son of God did not

exist; that before he was begotten he had no existence; that he was

called out of nothing into being; that he is of a different nature and of a

different substance from the Father; and that he is susceptible of variation

or change. (qtd. in Mattox)

The Council of Nicaea did not completely resolve the issue of Arianism. A series of

councils would swing back and forth over the hot topic from 325 to 381. Eventually the

doctrine of Arianism was defeated. “Strong men arose to oppose this doctrine because

it tended to lessen the divinity of Christ” (Mattox 142).

Before the Council of Nicaea, we have nearly 300 years of consensus regarding
 Bradshaw 64

the Deity of Christ.

The earliest teachers had taken for granted the divinity of Christ without

attempting to explain all that is involved in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Justin had said that Christ was simply an attribute of God – the “Reason”

or “wisdom” that had preceded from the Father by an act of His will.

Tertullian had taught the unity of essence in the three personalities of the

God-head. (Mattox 128).

What did other “church fathers” believe regarding the Divinity of Christ?

Around 100 A.D., Ignatius wrote several letters, now called the Epistles,

while on his way to Rome. Here is what he had to say about Jesus.

(Hardin 35)

“He was really crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really,

and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of

beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He also rose again

in three days. (qtd. in Hardin 35).

After he reached Rome, Ignatius was martyred for this belief. (Hardin 35)

Confirming the integrity of these early Christians, Francis Beare in his book, The Earliest

Records of Jesus, states the following:

Everything that has been recorded of the Jesus of history was recorded

for us by men to whom he was Christ the Lord; and we cannot expunge

their faith from the records without making the records themselves

virtually worthless. There is no Jesus known to history except him who is

 Bradshaw 65

depicted by his followers as the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour to the

World. (qtd. in Butt)

In addition, to the “church fathers” we have historical documentation of what

men said concerning Christianity.

Pliny the Younger, who became governor of a Roman province in Turkey

shortly after the end of the first century, regularly sent Christians to be

tortured and executed because of the confessions they made. In his

Letters, he records the substance of what many of them said. (Hardin 36)

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error

amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a

fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of

Christ as if to a god. (qtd. in Hardin 36)

The most noted historian of his day, Josephus, wrote some remarkable words

concerning Jesus.

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call

him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, -- a teacher of such

men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many

of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when

Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned

him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for

he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had

foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things concerning him;
 Bradshaw 66

and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

(Josephus, XVIII.III.3)

Many have questioned the authenticity of Josephus' authorship of the above. Really,

who wrote the passage makes little difference. “Whether Josephus wrote the whole

passage, or Christians added to it, it proves what they thought of Christ. They believed

He is God’s Son” (Hardin 37). Edwin Yamauchi summarizes the non-Christian written

evidence as follows:

Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we

would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus,

the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish

teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and

exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was

crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this

shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread

beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64

A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside – men and

women, slave and free – worshiped him as God by the beginning of the

second century. (qtd. in Butt)

Holy Scripture provides the best source concerning the Deity of Christ. From

cover to cover, the Bible agrees unanimously that the Messiah is Deity. The following

Old Testament prophecies all exalt the Deity of the Messiah.

"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a
 Bradshaw 67

Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute

judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be

saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will

be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD;

Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3)

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the

thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be

Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."

(Micah 5:2)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before

me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even

the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall

come, saith the LORD of hosts. Malachi 3:1 (KJV)

Based upon the Old Testament prophecies, if Jesus is the Messiah or Christ, then He

must be Deity.

In the New Testament, scripture, Jesus himself, and God the Father confirm the

Deity of Christ. No other passage better declares Jesus part of the Godhead better than

the prologue to John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made

through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1-3) It is

hard to imagine a more clear statement of the apostle, “the Word was God.” The Word
 Bradshaw 68

refers to Jesus Christ. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we

beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth”

(John 1:14). The apostle Paul states that Jesus has equality with God.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the

form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made

Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in

the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He

humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the

death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)

Further, Paul writes that Jesus completely encapsulates Deity. “Beware lest anyone

cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,

according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him

dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:8-9). The apostle Peter

made the great confession of faith that became the foundation of Christianity. “Simon

Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’" (Matthew

16:16). Later on Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter proclaims the guilt of the audience.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus,

whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Jesus himself never shied away from His Deity.

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I

put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son

of God!” Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you,
 Bradshaw 69

hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the

Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:63-64)

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father,

the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,

as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal

life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they

may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You

have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with

Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John

17:1-5)

“Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’” (John

8:58). With the last words by Jesus, He uses the same terminology that the Almighty

used to tell Moses His name at the fiery bush.

God the Father spoke from heaven three times to attest to the Deity of Jesus.

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water;

and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of

God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice

came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well

pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)

Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here;

if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for
 Bradshaw 70

Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright

cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud,

saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!"

(Matthew 17:4-5)

But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of

Man should be glorified. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of

wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it

produces much grain. He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates

his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves Me, let

him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone

serves Me, him My Father will honor. "Now My soul is troubled, and what

shall I say? ‘ Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came

to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven,

saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again" (John 12:23-28)

Brown insults our intelligence when he declares that Jesus would not be a fraud

if he were not the Son of God. “Nobody is saying that Jesus is a fraud or denying that

He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that,

Constantine took advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. And in

doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today” (Brown 254). How

dumb does Brown think Christians are? If Jesus is not Deity, our faith is built upon a

lie.

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered
 Bradshaw 71

and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered

and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood

has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also

say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and

the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:15-18)

Brown actually discredits his own argument by calling Jesus, Christ. We have previously

shown that the Christ according to Old Testament scripture is Deity. Further John the

Baptist was the forerunner of Christ. “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in

the wilderness of Judea, and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’

For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: ‘the voice of one crying

in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight'“(Matthew 3:1-

3). The New Testament passage shows that John the Baptist fulfills the prophecy made

by Isaiah. “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD;

Make straight in the desert A highway for our God’” (Isaiah 40:3). The word “LORD” in

all capital letters represents the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH. The Tetragrammaton

is used to represent the personal name of God. Therefore, John the Baptist prepared

the way for the Christ, God the Son.

If Jesus is not Deity, Christianity becomes idolatrous. Scriptures are clear that

we are to worship God or Deity only. Yet, the scriptures give Jesus a special glorified

status. God gave Jesus all authority on heaven and earth. In addition, we are baptized

into the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given
 Bradshaw 72

to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the

nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of

the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have

commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the

age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Clearly, Jesus accepting worship shows His Deity. “When they saw Him, they worshiped

Him; but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17).

The Da Vinci Code Errs Because the Facts Prove:

Our paper clearly shows that the book The Da Vinci Code errs in a number of

ways. Contrary to Brown’s suggestions, we have shown that the Bible is inspired of

God. We have proven that Constantine had no hand in the compilation of the canon of

scripture. The claims that Brown makes concerning the Dead Sea Scroll are simply

foolish because the scroll contains only Jewish documents. Further, the claims Brown

makes about the Nag Hammadi are simply false. We have shown that there is no other

document like the Holy Scriptures.

Our paper shows that Christianity is a faith built upon conviction. “It is unbelief,

not scholarship that leads people to say that the Jesus of the New Testament was

invented by his followers” (qtd. in Kachelman, “An Overview”). We show that in the

book Brown presents a definition of faith that does not hold up for non-religious

applications. Further, the Bible definition found in Hebrews 11:1 show that based upon

a conviction of evidence a Christian believes something that he or she does not see.

Truly, a Christian knows in their heart that there is a God. “For this reason I also suffer
 Bradshaw 73

these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am

persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2

Timothy 1:12).

Contrary to The Da Vinci Code, we revealed the superiority of Christianity over

Paganism. The true God of the Bible demonstrated His love for man by sending His

only begotten Son, Jesus to die upon a cruel cross that all might be saved. The

amazing grace shown by God, and the redemption offered to mankind places

Christianity above all other religions. Christianity emphasizes the spiritual and the

eternal, not the temporary and worldly. The Christian life surpasses all other religious

and non-religious lifestyles.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene never married and never produced an offspring.

Jesus’ kingdom does not reside on earth. Jesus’ mission was to die on the cross for the

remission of sins for the obedient. When Pontius Pilate questioned Him, Jesus

emphatically stated the nature of His kingdom.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of

this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to

the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to

Him, "Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a

king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the

world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the

truth hears My voice.” (John 18:36-37)

Finally, Jesus fully possesses the essence and nature of Deity. As part of the
 Bradshaw 74

Godhead, we have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We have

shown that the Father has given Jesus all authority in both heaven and earth, Matthew

28:18. After the resurrection, Jesus ascended to be with His Father in heaven. He now

reigns in Heaven on the right hand of God. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus

whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to

be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are

His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to

those who obey Him” (Acts 5:30-32).

“But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who

are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the

kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all

authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under

His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians

15:23-26)

How sad that the falsehoods from The Da Vinci Code will lead some astray. However,

the truth remains that only in one name comes salvation. “Nor is there salvation in any

other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be

saved" (Acts 4:12). One day Jesus will come again, please obey the gospel of Christ.

And to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is

revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking

vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not

obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with
 Bradshaw 75

everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory

of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and

to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among

you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10)

 Bradshaw 76

Works Cited

American Standard Version (ASV). Public Domain, 1901.

"Accuracy and precision." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 11 Oct 2006, 03:30 UTC.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 October 2006

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accuracy_and_precision&oldid=8074

8432>.

“Accuracy Versus Precision.” Position Measurement & Control, Issue 31. 2006. Space

Age Control, Inc., Palmdale, CA. 11 October 2006

<http://www.spaceagecontrol.com>.

Boxofficemojo.com. Ed. Brandon Gray. 2006. 11 October 2006

<http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=davincicode.htm>.

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. 2003. New York: Anchor Books, 2006.

Butt, Kyle. “The Historical Christ – Fact or Fiction?” ApologeticsPress.Org. Jan. 2000.

24 Oct. 2006 <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157>.

Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on Daniel. Abilene: ACU Press, 1989.

"The Da Vinci Code.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 10 October 2006, 20:30 UTC.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 11 Oct 2006.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Da_Vinci_Code&oldid=8068061

7>.

“’Da Vinci’ undermines faith, survey claims.” MSNBC.com. 16 May 2006. 27 Oct. 2006.

<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12815760/?GT1=8199>

English Standard Version (ESV). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

 Bradshaw 77

Hardin, Josh. Da Vinci Decoded: Separating Fact from Fiction in The Da Vinci Code.

Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2004.

"Holy Grail.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 27 Nov 2006, 06:12 UTC. Wikimedia

Foundation, Inc. 27 Nov 2006

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Grail&oldid=90383619>.

Jackson, Wayne. Acts: From Jerusalem to Rome. Stockton: Courier Publications,

2000.

Jividen, Jimmy. Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures. Nashville: Gospel Advocate

Company, 2005.

Josephus, Flavius. Josephus Complete Works. Trans. William Whitson. Grand Rapids:

Kregel Publications, 1981.

Kachelman, John L.. “The Da Vinci Code: Who is Mary Magdalene?” Judsonia Church

of Christ. Judsonia, AR

---. “An Overview of The Da Vinci Code.” Judsonia Church of Christ. Judsonia, AR

Lightfoot, Neil R.. How We Got the Bible. 3rd ed. New York: Baker Books, 2003.

Lyons, Eric. “The Da Vinci Code, the Sabbath, and Sunday.” ApologeticsPress.Org.

2006. 30 Aug. 2006. <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2982.

---. “The Real Mary Magdalene”. ApologeticsPress.Org. 2006. 9 Sept. 2006.

<http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3059>.

Mattox, F. W., and John McRay, rev.. The Eternal Kingdom: A History of the Church of

Christ. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing, 1961.

Miller, Laura. “The Da Vinci crock.” Salon.com. 29 Dec. 2004. 27 Oct. 2006.
 Bradshaw 78

<http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/print.html>.

New American Standard Bible (NASB). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

New King James Version (NKJV). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.

"Priory of Sion." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 22 Oct 2006, 18:39 UTC. Wikimedia

Foundation, Inc. 26 Oct 2006

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priory_of_Sion&oldid=83045125>.

Smith, Zack. “The Canon and Extra-Canonical Writings.” ApologeticsPress.Org. 2003.

24 Oct. 2006. <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1972>.

Strong, James. Strong’s Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand

Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc.

Thompson, Bert. “Scientific Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration.” Booneville, MS:

Barber Tracts.

Woods, Guy N.. A Commentary on The Gospel According to John. Nashville: Gospel

Advocate Company, 1989.