Truth
or Fabrication?

The DA VINCI CODE

Fiction, Fact or History?

Pt-1

By Carlos A. Cedillo

Will it change western religion as we know it?—or will it strengthen Christian faith?

Dan Brown has caused a Tsunami in religious and secular society with his best seller and Hollywood production, The Da Vinci Code. The novel is a blend of suspense, mystery, drama and history—it touches on polemical events from Christian history and combines with code breaking in a complex scheme at the Louvre in France. Thus the story develops—immersed in obscurity and controversy.

What makes the book controversial?—Brown gives the reader a surreal flashback into history, searching out key religious events such as the Council of Nicaea of 325 AD, and a secret society-- the Priory of Sion. But there are other baffling theological aspects presented in the book-- provokingly designed to make the reader question what is truth concerning Jesus and the bible. His array of information – some factual as Brown claims in the introduction -- presents religious issues in an unexpected manner….affirming that almost everything taught by Christianity on Christ is false—that His divinity was the result of a voting process at the Council of Nicaea. Before the reader can digest the assault on Christ's divinity, the book jumps into an astounding diatribe that envisions Mary Magdalene as the figure to the right of Jesus in the famous Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci—not just envisions her as participating in Jesus’ Last Supper… but in his life as a pair-- as married.

At this point the reader will probably feel the need to double check Dan’s introduction…”Did he say it was fiction-- fact—or what?” --because unlike a novel or fiction, this writing presents certain historical events in such fashion as to cast doubt on the basic tenets of Christian belief and faith. The story subtly comes across as a true rendering of information and knowledge-- weaving back and forth between segments of real history and distorted history. In the first chapters it zeros in on a secret association whose historical origin lies amidst a twilight zone of partial truths, reality and non truths. Those who read the book may conclude that what they are reading is factual and true. Nevertheless, that uncertainty is shattered by the resulting evidence of thourough research and the simple truth, revealing key portions of this book to be cunningly crafted fabrication.

Now let’s examine some important aspects of the historical and religious pieces of this intricate mystery and the theological implications surrounding the Da Vinci Code.

Divinity of Jesus

The real purpose for the 300 bishops convening at the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was to oppose the Arius hypothesis on Jesus-

Arius had been in opposition to the fundamental aspects of Christian faith since early in the 3^rd century. His claim was that Jesus was a creature, a mere mortal, liable to fall, etc. It’s interesting to note that Arius came from Egypt where pagan religions were flourishing—the cult of Sol Invictus being the main one. This latter one worshiped the sun… considered as the Lord of the Roman Empire. It’s very likely there was religious jealousy and intolerance of the new religious movement of the early Christians. This was made evident by the extreme religious persecution that was leveled on Christians residing in Egypt.

The religious turmoil and division within the Roman Empire brought on by the Arius anti-divinity of Christ doctrines—made imperative the need of a formalized document that would encase the present Christian beliefs in God.— Beliefs and faith practiced as far back as AD 60 with the book of Mark (1) – and particularly the need for clarification of Jesus as the Son of God, as consubstantial or of the same substance as the Father. A vote was taken by the 300 bishops at the Council of Nicaea in favor of the new statement of faith, termed the Nicene Creed. But as such, there was no instance where the bishops were suddenly inspired to vote in Jesus as a divine entity-- as if it had just dawned on them who he was. As already mentioned, Jesus as the Son of God was at that time an established belief, as well as the resurrection. Even though Christian belief in the resurrection was not yet formulated in writing, it can be traced to within two years of that very event (2).

Concerning Arius, the Council voted unanimously against him and had his doctrine condemned-- and he was promptly sent into exile at Constantine’s command. This was the second time Arius was sent into exile—the first time was in 319 A.D. when Alexander condemned and exiled him for trying to prop up doctrine against the divinity of Jesus.

The Priory of Sion—proof of Jesus Christ’s royal bloodline through Mary Magdalene— or fabrication?

In the DVC introduction, Brown inserts a page of information on the secret society mentioned in his book--The Priory of Sion and the Dossiers Secrets—referring to these as fact. This alleged Priory is supposed to have been a secret society set up in the 11^th century. According to the narrative, its purpose was to preserve a secret having to do with the bloodline of Jesus Christ. The story claims that in 1975, certain documents or parchments were discovered at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, known as the Dossiers Secrets (3). The DVC lists the dignified members who purportedly belonged to the association…. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci.

The documents found at the Paris library seemed to support the original story that took place in Rennes-le-Chateau, Paris—this story [Later shown to be a fabrication of Plantard, as well as the Dossiers Secrets (4)] was published in a book by Pierre Plantard, titled L’Or de Rennes (“Rennes’ Gold”) in 1967. However—in real life-- it was later discovered that it was not the librarians (as narrated in the DVC) but the associates of Plantard who found the documents in the library-- the same ones who planted the forged documents to begin with. Plantard’s book is about a buried treasure that was uncovered by Father Berenger Sauntiere at the village of Rennes-le-Chateau in 1885 (5). The treasure was to Sauntiere more valuable than gold…. for according to the story, he had found antique documents that sustained an old southern France legend assuming that Jesus Christ did not rise to heaven --- but that he had escaped to France with his wife, Mary Magdalene. (Although after the Roman torture and excruciating crucifixion and death—seems it would have been quite difficult to drag around with a woman all the way to France [6]). The author explains that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children and had initiated a dynasty called the Merovingian Kings of France. Here Plantard gives his supposed meaning of the Grail Legends, the Holy Grail—that it’s the holy blood of Jesus Christ running through the veins of Merovingians (7). In the end Plantard expanded his story saying that he was the designer of the mystery Priory, as well as the last descendant of the Merovingians and that the blood of Christ was now in his veins. All seems quite astonishing and factual….however; it’s now been established that the Priory of Sion is a fabrication of Plantards imagination.

Massimo Introvigne, director for the Center of Studies of New Religions for Cesnur, considers the Priory is a forgery. He states the following: No reference to the Priory of Sion as an organization (led during the course of its existence by many famous people, including Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519) protecting the Merovingians and their legitimate claims to the throne of France against the Carolingians and further usurpers is recorded in history before the fabrication of the 1967 documents. The Priory of Sion itself was founded in 1956 by the key architect of the 1967 forgery, Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), but with different aims and by-laws. And no reference that the Merovigians protected by the Priory of Sion and mentioned in the 1967 documents are the physical descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene ever appeared in print before the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (CESNUR - Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni diretto da Massimo Introvigne www.cesnur.org--Dan Brown and the London Court Case: After Many Bogus Conspiracies, A Real One Finally Surfaces)

Dan Brown eventually had to face a court case in London to defend himself against authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the Holy Blood and Holy Grail, for plagiarism. Brown won the case but in the final ruling, the judge declared the Priory of Sion a hoax (8).

(1)- Case for Christ—by Lee Strobel—pg. 10

(2)- Case for Christ—by Lee Strobel—pg. 12

(3)- The Da Vinci Code FAQ, or Will the Real Priory of Sion please stand up? By Massimo Introvigne-- Cesnur-- www.cesnur.org

(4)- The Da Vinci Code FAQ, or Will the Real Priory of Sion please stand up? By Massimo Introvigne-- Cesnur-- www.cesnur.org

(5)- Priory of Sion…. Forged documents—Wikipedia

(6)- Case for Christ—Lee Strobel—pg. 62-70

(7)- The Da Vinci Code FAQ or Will the real Priory of Sion please stand up? Cesnur—www.cesnur.org

(8)- Cesnur- Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni diretto da Massimo Introvigne—ww.cesnur.org—Dan Brown and the London Court Case-

Judge Confirms that the Priory of Sion is a Hoax

Carlos A. Cedillo is a full time member of the Family International

* * * *

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and so on. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.