Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code movie was on television the other night. And again, I began hearing from others questioning the Bible and the divinity of Christ. Both the movie and the book dispute the divinity of Jesus, despite the fact that by Brown‘s own admission, it is fictional. Even though it is fictional, in the front of the book, Brown unfairly starts of with the word Fact: then, summarily begins a list of accusations that are all absolutely false. Brown’s insistence was that Jesus was married and He and Mary Magdalene had a child. The so called Holy Grail, the Last Supper painting and Jesus’ alleged marriage to Mary Magdalene and subsequent children are the main subjects of the book and the movie.
I have a question for Mr. Brown: If Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” has Mary Magdalene leaning on Jesus bosom, then where is the “beloved disciple” John? Why would Da Vinci leave out the disciple “that Jesus loved” out of the 12 disciples (John. 13:23, 19:26, 20:2)? The Bible clearly indicates that John was the one that was leaning on Jesus’ bosom at the Passover meal (John. 13:23) and so why would Da Vinci, who was a student of the Bible, leave one of the main two disciples out?
The novel’s argument is as follows. Constantine wanted Christianity to act as a unifying religion for the Roman Empire. He thought Christianity would appeal to pagans only if it featured a demigod similar to pagan heroes.  According to the Gnostic Gospels, Jesus was merely a human prophet, not a demigod. Therefore, to change Jesus’ image, Constantine destroyed the Gnostic Gospels and promoted the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which portray Jesus as divine or semi-divine.
The Da Vinci Code also portrays the Council of Nicaea’s decision to recognize the fully human and divine aspects of Christ as being a close vote, while the vote was absolutely overwhelmingly in favor of Christ‘s divinity. [2, 3] The actual fact about the Council of Nicaea in 325 was not whether Jesus was merely human or something more, but how exactly his divinity was to be understood.  Brown is an actual scholar yet he repeatedly leaves the actual historical documents out, including the Bible. He relies on unverified Gnostic gospels, and leaves out the most well documented (manuscripts), supported (archeologically) preserved (over 5,000 manuscripts) compilation of historical records and events ever assembled in human history: The Bible. So as a scholar, his writings are anything but scholarly.
That is why the Da Vinci Code book and the subsequent movie, is most troubling: it begins page one with the word, in all caps, “FACT” and follow that with a long list of factual errors. First of all, it must be remembered that the Da Vinci Code is fiction. However, I did discover three facts that were true in the book: Paris is in France, London is in England and Rome is in Italy.
1. Tim O’Neill. “Early Christianity and Political Power”. History versus the Da VinciCode. 2006. 16 Feb 2009 http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/chapterfiftyfive.htm#christpower
3. Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870.1964