Is every thing written in th da vinci code true,asin the marriage of jesus christ?

I dont know whether it is true or not. It was a very intruguing story and i was so shocked to read about the possibilty of jesus gettin married n havin a child.since i was a kid ive always associated jesus christ as an immortal being who was ';God's son';. The book explores the possibilty of jesus christ being human.and it can be true.why not? in the bible jesus hv said to walk on water n cure blind ppl n stuff.such miracles r not possible on earth.after so much of scientific discovery we should know better than tht.so if jesus was human we shouldnt be up in arms abt it . he was a good man whose teachings were beautiful n inspired so many .So there is a very good possibilty of the story of da vinci's code being true.Is every thing written in th da vinci code true,asin the marriage of jesus christ?
Absolutely not, it is a work of fiction.Is every thing written in th da vinci code true,asin the marriage of jesus christ?
The Da Vinci code is...


Fiction (from the Latin fingere, ';to form, create';) is storytelling of imagined events. A large part of the appeal of fiction is its ability to evoke the entire spectrum of human emotions: to distract our minds, to give us hope in times of despair, to make us laugh, or to let us experience empathy without attachment.


Fictional works鈥攏ovels, stories, fables, fairy tales, films, comics, may be partly based on factual occurrences but always contain some imaginary content.
It's FICTION. Fiction means MADE UP.














sigh
It is a novel. It says so right on the cover. That means it's completely made up and any resmblance to real life should be considered purely coincidental.
It is all speculative, which is NOT the same as saying it is true or untrue. I find it fascinating that Christians are up in arms about it... are they so unsure of their own religion that they are threatened by a book???





The theories that Dan Brown postulates within the book have already been explored in other texts on the theory of the magdelene and the line of Christ.
Pure fiction
who knows?





All I know is that it was a great read!





I couldn't put it down.
it`s purely fiction..
he just messing with your mind...
Dan Brown's citing of architecture is innacurate. There is no ';Rose Line';, not the Templar Iconography in the various churches mentioned. The Priory of Sion was a forgery, started by the gentleman that ';discovered'; the hidden documents. His descriptions of Nicea are also inaccurate, as the divinity of Christ was already determined, and the arguement at Nicea centered around the Creed, and Ayrianism. Of the over 300 bishops at Nicea, only about 15 disagreed with the Creed, and of those 15, 14 disagreed because of nuance, and not on substance. The remaining bishop, Arius, did not believe that Christ was even Human, that Christ became God, otherwise achieving apothesis, rather than being born God, and that gnosis, not faith, was the way to salvation.





Even if you buy the Gnostic Gospels, which have several flaws in them as applied to Christianity, the Gnostic Gospels do not place Mary as Christ's bride, or even as the favored disciple. Several references in the same Gnostic gospel, as well as others, speak of Mary's inferiority because she was a woman, and that through showing Mary how she can shed her feminine to become masculine, she can be saved.





The pentagram is not a femine symbol, nor a masculine symboll. It is a weaving of the masculine adn the feminie together in paganism. Paganims is not a faith of anti-christianity, but a faith of natural world and invocations.





James the Beloved Disciple of Christ was often regarded in early Church history as a pretty-boy. Remember, Leonardo liked having sex with young, pretty boys. Also, it was COMMON in Renissance paintings to depict pretty men as feminie. The concept of the ';V'; is a joke. You can find any letter if you look for it. You could even find a ';W'; with focis on several points that Brown cites.





The point is Brown made up his facts when they were inconveinent to the point he tried to make. He had a deliberate anti-catholic bias in his writing, as you can see in his speeches and other books. As far as a good read goes, it was OK. The characters were predictable and the ending cheesy. No suprises for me. The chapters were one or two pages long each, so they were perfect for mass consumtion. No comparrison to greater wors, like Tolkein, Dickenson, or other writes. But, his work is popular because of its simplisicity and its sophmoric reseearch.





Forgive my misspellings in this. Spellchecker failed to work to edit my writings.