www.rationalrevolution.net

Debunking the "Da Vinci Code" Debunkers and the Jesus Myth

 By - May 21, 2006

Priests, preachers, and Christian historians are coming out of the woodwork to debunk the claims made in The Da Vinci Code. Though the book is a work of fiction, Dan Brown does state directly in the book that it is also based on facts. People around the world have protested the book, asked for it to be banned, called for boycotts of the recently released movie, and lamented the fact that so many people have believed its fictions.

What exactly does The Da Vinci Code claim, why does it have so many Christians upset, and  what "facts" have Christians used to refute claims made in The Da Vinci Code?

Basically, The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus was a mortal person, who did not die on the cross and get resurrected, but rather that he fled to Europe with Mary Magdalene where they had children, the descendants of which are still alive today. Dan Brown makes other claims in the book as well, such as the Catholic Church being aware of this and acting to cover it up throughout history.

Many of the elements in Dan Brown's book are based on non-cannon early Christian writings, such as The Gospel of Mary Magdala. The Bible is composed of a very small selection of early Christian writings, known as the canon. There are many apocryphal Christian writings that were excluded from the Bible by the early Catholic Church. Dan Brown has basically used these writings as if they hold more truth than the Biblical canon, and proposed that their exclusion from the Bible is part of a conspiracy to "cover up the truth".

The irony of all this, however, is that the apocryphal writings are certainly no more true that the Biblical canon, and yet by referring to the apocrypha Dan Brown has given Jesus more flesh and blood than the Bible does, because, after all, the apocryphal writings went into great detail about the life and activities of Jesus. The apocryphal writings have Jesus doing all kinds of things all over the place.

To put this in perspective, consider the movie Star Wars. After the movie Star Wars came out there were dozens of different books about the characters in Star Wars, that expounded upon the basic theme and had the characters involved in various plots and stories ranging across the Star Wars universe. It is as if there were stories written that claimed that Luke was not the son of Darth Vader. As you can imagine, Star Wars fans would inevitably engage in debate about the "true" nature of Luke. In reality, of course, Luke is just a fictional character, so the point is really moot. Instead of taking the position that Star Wars is just a story, and thus the whole argument is moot, Dan Brown's story basically makes the case that Darth Vader is not really Luke's father.

Like this, Jesus was the subject of all kinds of stories. From his teenage years to later romances, Jesus did it all in the apocryphal writings. In truth, there is nothing definitive that distinguishes the canonical writings from the apocryphal writings. It is true that most of the apocryphal writings were written later than the canonical writings, but this isn't the case with all of them. For example The Gospel of Thomas is thought to have been written at the same time that the canonical Gospels were written, if not earlier than some or all of them.

So, much of the debate over The Da Vinci Code stems from contradictions between Biblical canon and apocryphal Christian writings.

Here is what the Catholic Church has outlined as problems with The Da Vinci Code:

• Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
• Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
• She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
• Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
• That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
• The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
• Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
• The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
• In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
• There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
• The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
• The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.

source: http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

If you were to believe The Da Vinci Code you would at least think that we have all kinds of historical information about Jesus. Jesus must have been hounded by paparazzi the way The Da Vinci Code portrays it. What The Da Vinci Code does not do, certainly, is challenge the historicity of Jesus. In fact, The Da Vinci Code is based on the premise that we have more facts about the historical Jesus than most Christians today believe. The fact of the matter, however, is that all of the stories about Jesus, both the Biblical canon and the apocryphal writings, are fiction.

The table below simply illustrates the positions taken on the source material by the interested groups :

So, The Da Vinci Code, far from being a serious challenge to Christianity, is actually a very poorly supported piece of pseudo-historical fiction that takes many unsupportable positions on Jesus and fails to present any of the truly serious scholarship that fundamentally challenges the Jesus myth or Church history. Since this is a work of fiction that may be just fine, but Christians have come out to take on the book as though it were serious scholarship and are now using it to promote their own beliefs. Christians have used their own fallacies to counter the fallacies in The Da Vinci Code. The debate that has ensued over the "validity" of the claims made in The Da Vinci Code has been a case of dueling fictions.

Here is what Christians have had to say about claims made in The Da Vinci Code:

source: Da Vinci Code - Church injects antidote

Of course all that the Catholic Bruno does to "refute" Dan Brown's claims is simply quote from the Bible, which is the book whose validity is in question. There is no real evidence that the crucifixion story in the Bible took place at all, much less that "no skeletal remains" were found in "His tomb". Bruno acts as if we have record of a forensic examination performed by the Romans. The story of Jesus' crucifixion is just that, a story. Bruno provides no evidence for anything, he just repeats traditional Catholic doctrine.

Let's see what other critics of The Da Vinci Code have to say. An article in a conservative publication has this to say about The Da Vinci Code:

The Da Vinci Code's Top 10 Errors

1) CLAIM: Jesus was merely a man, not God. Brown says that the “pagan” Roman emperor Constantine, for the purpose of consolidating his power, created the “myth” that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified. (231-234).

ANSWER: Constantine, who converted to Christianity and ended Rome’s persecution of Christians, convened the Council of Nicea in 325, but only to sort out differences among church leaders, all of whom believed Jesus was divine. Early church historians referred routinely to Christ’s divinity, including Ignatius (105 A.D.) and Clement (150 A.D.)

Constantine did not convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed at the very least, if this even happened. So many of the stories about Constantine are forged that it is hard to separate fact from fiction, but certainly we do know that many of the stories about Constantine were fabricated by later priests and popes in order to lay claim to imperial property and provide a basis for their power, claiming that it was granted to them by Constantine, who had for all his life been the high priest of Deus Sol Invictus (God of the Invincible Sun). Constantine always believed that Jesus was just another representation of the sun-god Helios / Apollo / Mithras. It was common in Roman culture for people to ascribe many different personas and identities to the same gods.

Additionally, not all of the early Christians did think that Jesus was divine. Yes, there were many early Christians that did refer to him as divine, but there were others that did not. The ones that didn't believe in a divine Jesus have simply been rejected, and are not counted as "true Christians" today, so this self-imposed filtering is just a bit of nonsense. Everyone who didn't believe in a divine Jesus was rejected, but that doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of people who didn't believe in a divine Jesus.

In addition to all this, many of the Gnostics and others believed that Jesus was purely a metaphor, not a real person. They viewed Jesus as a mythical concept, not flesh and blood, as is indicated in the Bible itself as well as in many of the other Early Christian Writings:

 2 John 1: 7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

There was certainly no consensus on "who Jesus was" in the early days of Christianity.

3) CLAIM: The four New Testament Gospels (the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) comprise a false account. Numerous ancient writings tell a more truthful story.

ANSWER: Brown bases his view on 52 books collectively called the Gnostic Gospels, discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. All were written more than a century after the Biblical Gospels were written. None of these books has any tie to eyewitnesses in Christ’s time, unlike the Gospels themselves.

The Gospels have no ties to eyewitness accounts either. None of the stories about Jesus are based on eyewitness accounts. Even the early Christian theologians, such as Papias and Irenaeus stated this. The belief that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts developed much later. All of the Gospels about Jesus, including the ones that didn't make it into the Bible, such as The Gospel of Thomas, were written as if they were eyewitness accounts, but none of them actually are. This is most obvious when dealing with the story of the birth of Jesus, which is written as if it were based on eyewitness accounts, even though that would obviously have been impossible. The same can be said for all of the other myths of the ancient world. Stories about Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Orion, Hercules, etc., are written as if they were eye witness accounts too.

Not only are "the Gospels" not eyewitness accounts of Jesus, but virtually all scholars today agree that all of the Gospels are based on each other, they are not independent writings. The synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all so similar in fact that they are almost exact copies of one another, so it is not even accurate to say that we have four accounts of Jesus, we really only have one story, that has been re-written four times with minor changes in each telling. In fact, the differences between the accounts are now understood to have arisen because the four gospels were originally written in opposition to one another. Mark was the first, from which Matthew and Luke were copied, but they made critical changes due to theological disagreements. John was written in theological disagreement to the synoptics, John proclaimed salvation by faith alone, while the synoptics proclaimed salvation by works. Yet, all the gospels are based on the same basic outline and show signs of copying from one another, for example:

Mark 11:
28"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"
29Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"
31They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

Matthew 21:
"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"
24Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"
They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

Luke 20:
2"Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"
3He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?"
5They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."
 

This is just one example of many that show the gospels were copied from one another, with minor modifications to make the specific points of the various authors.

5) CLAIM: Jesus did not die on the cross but married Mary Magdalene and fathered children with her. Brown claims the church was led by Mary Magdalene, whose role was covered up by a ruthless Catholic Church.

ANSWER: Jesus’ crucifixion and reappearance after the resurrection are perhaps the best-documented theological events in history, with literally hundreds of eyewitnesses. The Roman pagan historian Flavius Josephus recorded the event this way:

"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 ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."[3]

The nonsense about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having children with her came from the Plantard forgeries and the Gnostic gospels of Phillip and “Mary Magdala.”

First of all, the quote that is referenced here is widely acknowledged to be full of errors. Secondly, the writing from which the quote is supposedly taken was not written until 93 CE and would, even at best, have been based on claims of other people, not a first hand account. Adding to that the oldest existing copy of the quote comes from a Christian source from the 800s, and there are many different copies of the text which don't mention Christ at all. Most Christian scholars today acknowledge that this quote is not authentic. For the many errors in this quote see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Thirdly, the Bible has many contradictions about who Jesus supposedly appeared before after he died. All of the books except one state that "only a few" people saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection:

Acts 10:

33 Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."

34 Then Peter began to speak: ... 39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

The number of people, and who they were, that Jesus appeared before according to the Bible is different according to every account.

Matthew: 13
Mark: 14
Luke: 13 plus an ambiguous amount: "them that were with them"
John: 14
Paul (I Corinthians): 500

For more information on the contradictions in the story of Jesus' resurrection see: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html

There is not one authentic claim of a crucified person, Jesus or otherwise, appearing to people after death in the ancient literature, aside from Christian writings. Likewise there are dozens of other myths from the same time about other people or god-men who supposedly came back from the dead and appeared before people too.

The claim that Jesus appeared before 500 people comes from one source, Paul, whom we know never saw Jesus at all. None of the Gospels state that Jesus appeared to 500 people, only that he appeared to the apostils and a couple more (each Gospel lists different people that he appeared before). Far from being "the best documented theological event in history", the story of Jesus' death and resurrection is quite contradictory between all the accounts, and none of them can be considered "documentation", since none of them are eye-witness accounts, they are all stories.

8) CLAIM: The “sacred feminine” was at the heart of the early church, but was ruthlessly suppressed. “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 sacred giver of life, was now the enemy” (238).

ANSWER: Once again (and throughout the book), Brown calls Scripture a colossal lie. Far from oppressing women, the church has proved to be a liberating force. Women have achieved unprecedented status in nations where Christianity has had an impact. Jesus honored women among His followers. Mary Magdalene was the first to discover the empty tomb, see the resurrected Christ, and to tell the other believers.

The Bible states that wives "should submit to their husbands", Jesus had basically no relationship with his mother, the 12 apostles were all men, Eve is the one who "cursed us all", women haven't been allowed to have leadership roles in the church until just recently, against much church opposition, etc., etc.

In what way has traditional Christianity helped women? Women were leaders in civic and religious life in the ancient world until Christianity came along. Women had positions of power in society in Greece and Rome and among many of the other so-called pagan cultures in Europe prior to Christianity. What examples are there of the church "liberating women"? By making them cover their heads and bodies and become nuns? Women have achieved unprecedented status in nations where Christianity has had any impact - in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

A real refutation of both The Da Vinci Code and Christianity

The oldest complete text of the Gospels comes from the 4th century. There are only small fragments of texts that predate this. The Gospels have been "dated" to have originated some time between 68 CE and 110 CE based on references that are made to them in other texts and scraps of material that have been found, but the full content of what these early works might have said is unknown.

The writings of the Jewish theologian Philo, who lived from 20 BCE to 40 CE, have been considered by many to be the founding doctrines of Christianity. Even early Christians viewed Philo as one of the founders of their religion. Philo was one of the influential Jews who incorporated Platonic philosophy with Jewish theology, a major hallmark of Christianity.

It was Philo who introduced the Platonic concept of the Logos into Jewish theology and discussed "the Word" as the origin of existence.

It is plain therefore that the creator of all created things, and the maker of all the things that have ever been made, and the governor of all the things which are subject to government, must of necessity be a being of universal knowledge; and he is in truth the father, and creator, and governor of all things in heaven and in the whole world; and indeed future events are overshadowed by the distance of future time, which is sometimes a short and sometimes a long interval. (31) But God is the creator of time also; for he is the father of its father, and the father of time is the world, which made its own mother the creation of time, so that time stands towards God in the relation of a grandson; for this world is a younger son of God, inasmuch as it is perceptible by the outward sense; for the only son he speaks of as older than the world, is Idea...
- ON THE UNCHANGABLENESS OF GOD; Philo

For God, while he spake the word, did at the same moment create; nor did he allow anything to come between the word and the deed;
- ON THE BIRTH OF ABEL AND THE SACRIFICES OFFERED BY HIM AND BY HIS BROTHER CAIN; Philo

Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.
– The Special Laws; Philo

Compare these statements to the introduction to the Gospel of John:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

These can also be compared to the hymns of Orpheus, which date back to the 4th or 5th century BCE:

Zeus was the first, Zeus last, the lightning's lord,
Zeus head, Zeus centre, all things are from Zeus.
Zeus born a male, Zeus virgin undefiled;
Zeus the firm base of earth and starry heaven;
Zeus sovereign, Zeus alone first cause of all:
- Orphic Hymn; 4th century BCE

Philo lived during the time that Jesus is said to have lived on earth, in the area that Jesus is said to have been born, preached, and died, and yet there is not one single mention of Jesus in all the writings of Philo. How could such a man, who was both active in the community, viewed as a religious and philosophical leader, and whose works were known and cherished by early Christians, not have known that God himself had come down to earth during his lifetime in human form, performed miracles, been proclaimed "King of the Jews", been killed, and then caused an earthquake when he transcended bodily into heaven? All of this supposedly happened right under the nose of Philo, in an area of the world that he wrote and reported on.

This is no trivial matter since Philo was one of the most esteemed Jewish leaders of his time, he wrote prolifically, and his writings are well preserved. He also wrote about many of the events going on in the community and about various religious leaders during the time that Jesus is said to have existed. In fact, Philo wrote about the mocking of a man as a Jewish king in 39 CE.

Philo's account of persecution remarkably resembles the later account written in the Gospels about the trial and mocking of Jesus.

Indeed the only reference to Jesus Christ by any Jew who lived near the supposed time of Jesus, outside of Christian writings, is the quote by Josephus, which has been thoroughly proven to be fraudulent, as already discussed.

The only other reference that could be interpreted as a reference to a historical Jesus outside of Christian writing is a quote from the Roman historian Tacitus, which refers to a "Christus".

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
- Annals; Tacitus; 109 CE

This quote is now the single greatest piece of corroborating evidence for the existence of a real live flesh and blood Jesus, yet there are several problems with this quote. This text is believed to authentically be that of Tacitus, but it is obviously not a first hand account. The problems with this quote are the following:

• Pontius Pilate was not a procurator, he was a prefect, which shows that Tacitus was writing this based on hearsay, not record
• Any Roman record of the killing of Jesus would have mentioned him by the name Jesus, not "Christus" or "Christ"
• Tacitus thinks that his name is "Christus", a birth name, not "Christ" or "Christos", which is a title (the anointed one)
• The information about "Christus" being killed and founding the religion came from the Christians, it's not independently established
• Tacitus says that "Christus" created the name "Christianity", but the name Christianity didn't come into existence until after the supposed lifetime of Jesus, and Jesus is never claimed to have used the term "Christian", it doesn't even appear in the Gospels

We know that Tacitus didn't get the idea that "Christus" was killed by Pontius Pilate from a Roman source because no Roman source would refer to "Christ" or "Christus". If Tacitus got this information from a Roman reference to an actual execution, then he would have used the name Jesus because a Roman source would not have recorded the execution of a person by the religious title "Christ", which would have had no meaning to the Romans anyway. Tacitus is clearly piecing together "common knowledge" here, meaning public opinion, and shows that he isn't fully knowledgeable about Christianity, but rather he just knows the popular claims about it. Tacitus clearly didn't even understand what the name "Christus" was supposed to mean, because he used the name "Christus" as a birth name, not as a religious title meaning "The Anointed One".

Tacitus lived from 59 CE to 117 CE and is considered one of the best Roman historians. This quote is the only reference he makes to "Christ", and it's clearly a misinformed reference based on second-hand accounts of what Christians believed, it's not a record of "the crucifixion", as some Christians have claimed that it is.

There are approximately 40 other writers from the time and place that Jesus is said to have lived, who wrote in detail about the events of the day, whose works we have today, and none of these people mention anyone that fits the description of Jesus, though some do mention other known people, such as Apollonius of Tyana, who were also claimed to have had mystical powers and performed miracles. (Apollonius also personally recorded his own journal and teachings)

In no other manner, I believe, can one exhibit a fitting respect for the Divine being, beyond any other men make sure of being singled out as an object of his favor and good-will, than by refusing to offer to God -whom we termed First, who is One and separate from all, as subordinate to Whom we must recognize all the rest- any victim at all; to Him we must not kindle fire or make promise unto Him of any sensible object whatsoever. For He needs nothing even from beings higher than ourselves. Nor is there any plant or animal which earth sends up or nourishes, to which some pollution is not incident. We should make use in relation to Him solely of the higher speech, I mean of that which issues not by the lips; and from the noblest faculty we possess, and that faculty is intelligence, which needs no organ. On these principles then we ought not on any account to sacrifice to the mighty and supreme God.
- On Sacrafices; Apollonius of Tyana

Apollonius of Tyana (2 CE - 98 CE)

There is also ample evidence that many of the early Christians held beliefs that fully contradict major elements of what the Gospels say now. For example, there was no early universal belief that Jesus was crucified on a cross. There are early images of crosses on early Christian artwork, but not of Jesus on the cross. The first images of Jesus on a cross come in the 5th century. The cross had been a symbol of worship in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian world for centuries before Christianity, and early Christians worshiped the cross for reasons that had no association with their understanding of the story of Jesus.

This is demonstrated in an early Christian writing by Tertullian, in which he defends the practice of worshiping the cross by explaining its symbolism. Nowhere in his explanation of why Christians worship the cross does he mention Jesus. If there was a real Jesus, who died on a cross, and this event was central to the Christian belief, then Tertullian, a major Christian father, would have certainly stated that this was the reason why they worshiped the cross.

The charge of worshipping a cross. The heathens themselves made much of crosses in sacred things; nay, their very idols were formed on a crucial frame.

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth, however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting, then, from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs, and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the process:) after the cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the god. In a well-understood routine, the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated (deity) begins to derive his origin. By way of example, let us take the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now, if you transplant it, or take a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because, as the third stage is attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since, then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images. Examples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.
- Ad Nationes; Tertullian, 197 CE: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Tertullian here perhaps tells us how the crucifixion image of Jesus was invented when he states:

Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross,... if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross.

The Gospels in their original Greek did not refer to a crucifix, but used the word "stauros" (Mark 18:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, John 19:17), meaning a stake or vertical pole. The Talmud refers to a Yeshua (the Hebrew version of the name Jesus) that claimed to be the messiah who was stoned to death and then hung from a tree.

Even parts of the Bible still refer to Jesus having been hung from a tree:

Acts 10:39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

There was actually little consensus about how Jesus died among the early Christians. It was only through the canonization of the Bible and the enforcement of Catholic doctrine that consensus was obtained in the 4th and 5th centuries.

There is much confusion about the Bible today due to the fact that the Bible is not presented in the order that it was originally written, but instead it was later assembled into its present order. The way that the Bible is presented the Gospels are first, then the acts of the apostles, then the letters by Paul, then other books, and finally Revelation. This presents the works of the Bible in the order of a story that smoothly moves from start to finish, but the books were not written in that order. This false order, while no secret and acknowledged among all biblical scholars including conservative Christians, greatly misrepresents the story of Jesus to make it look like the story started with "Jesus" being born and proceeding through to his death, then the actions of his apostles, and then Paul going to Greece to spread the news and start the church, and then finally the book of Revelation.

For a listing of early Christian writings in the historical order of their authorship see:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Most scholars today agree that the writings of Paul are actually the earliest New Testament writings about Jesus. The Gospels were not written until after the works of Paul and several other works had been written and disseminated. Paul, however, fully stated that he never actually saw Jesus or learned about him from anyone else. So, the first person to actually write about Jesus, Paul, had never seen him.

Galatians 1

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

The stories about the "life of Jesus", a.k.a. the Gospels, came after Paul, who had never personally seen Jesus, began telling stories about him. Paul states that his knowledge of Jesus came from "visions", not from people.

Virtually all Biblical scholars today admit that the Gospels are not first hand, or even second hand, accounts of Jesus. The only scholars who do not acknowledge this are conservative Christian scholars who deny this as a matter of faith.

So, in the Gospels what we have are stories that were written by Greeks and Greek speaking Jews, about a miraculous god-man who fulfilled known prophecies that were written in the Hebrew scriptures and other writings.

The Torah (Old Testament) states:

Isaiah 7

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The Gospel of Matthew states:

Matthew 1

18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Why Jesus would not have been called Immanuel according to this prophecy is not clear, but what is clear is that anyone writing a story about a savior for a Jewish audience would already know about this prophecy and would design the story around the prophesy. Paul said nothing about Jesus being born from a virgin, the only thing that Paul said about the matter is this:

Galatians 4

3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

...

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above [in heaven] is free, and she is our mother.

...

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." 31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

This is the most significant reference Paul makes to "the birth of Jesus", if it can even be interpreted in that way. Clearly Paul's statements about the birth of the Son of God are based on theological principles, not on observation or accounts from other people.

Since the stories of Paul and obviously the older Jewish scriptures, were written and discussed before the Gospels, the writers of the story of Jesus' life had plenty of material to draw on. The writers of the story of Jesus' life had both the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures to draw on and the story of the crucifixion from Paul, so they already knew how the story was supposed to start and end. The Gospels filled in a character that tied the old Jewish prophecies to the new apocalyptic movements that were popular in the Hellenistic world at the time, while incorporating the use of popular "pagan" mythological events and information from Paul. Likewise, the Gospels really constitute one story, not four, and thus the story of Jesus' life comes basically from one account, which was copied into multiple accounts, of which the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen out of several Gospels about the life of Jesus.

The Gospel writers drew on the Jewish scriptures, the works of Paul, apocalyptic prophecies, and common themes in the various religions and philosophies of the area, such as Platonic philosophy, Zoroastrianism / Mithraism, the mystery religions of Dionysus and Osirus, and the cult of Helios / Apollo.

The Bible is a small selection of writings taken out of a very large collection of writings, which themselves are part of a spectrum of ideas that developed over time in the Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman world. The teachings of Zoroastrianism originated as early as 1,700 years before Christianity, and are clearly very similar to those found in the Bible. Zoroastrianism, under the title of Mithraism, was highly popular in Rome around the same time that Christianity developed.

The early Christians were very aware that their religion shared many characteristics with the other existing religions of their time. Christians defended the claim that they possessed a newly revealed truth against accusations of the time that their religion was simply borrowing from others.

And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood"; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

Justin Martyr claimed that "wicked devils" had influenced the practice of the Eucharist in Mithraism because he was using a common claim by Christians at the time, which was that the devil had preemptively caused other religions to "copy" Christianity before Christianity existed. According to the Christians, the devil went around the world during the thousands of years prior to Christianity creating fake religions that "stole from" Christian traditions... which didn't exist yet, so that people would be confused later.

This line of argument was made in detail by Tertullian.

Chapter XL.-No Difference in the Spirit of Idolatry and of Heresy. In the Rites of Idolatry, Satan Imitated and Distorted the Divine Institutions of the Older Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures Corrupted by Him in the Perversions of the Various Heretics.

The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius [legendary king of Rome, 8th-7th century BCE], and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has sown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints.
- The Prescription Against Heretics; Tertullian

He made the argument again in another work:

"Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy." (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honour by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged, we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivaling the things of God, while we find him, too, practising baptism in his subjects.
- On Baptism; Tertullian

The early Christians were obviously aware that their rituals and beliefs were held by others, and when this was pointed out they claimed that this was due to the devil using trickery to introduce those practices to heathens prior to Christianity. The only reason to claim that the devil was involved in this copying was because it was known that these practices preceded Christianity. If these practices had spread to other religions after Christianity then there would be no reason to invoke a supernatural cause of the "copying".

The influence of the so-called "pagan" religions on Christianity has been recognized throughout history. In The Age of Reason Thomas Paine, who assumed that Jesus was a mortal person, discussed the impact of Greek and Roman religion on Christian mythology:

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything; the church became as crowded with one, as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
- The Age of Reason; Thomas Paine, 1794

If we look at the structure of the Catholic religion we see that it mirrors the common "pagan" religions of the day. Effectively:

• God - Zeus / Cronus / Ahura Madza, etc.
• Jesus - Helios / Dionysus / Osirus / Mithras, etc.
• Mary - Diana / Isis / Ianna / Hera / etc.
• 12 Apostles - 12 Signs of the Zodiac, a common theme in mythology of the time
• Angels - Angels (Angels come from Greek mythology, the word means messenger)
• Saints - Lesser gods
• Satan - Angra Mainyu / Pluto / Hades / etc.
• Demons - Devils / Imps / Pan / Lesser gods (the word devil comes from Persian language and was introduced to Greek culture after the conquest of Alexander the Great)

To call Christianity a "monotheistic religion" is really a stretch. The Christian religion contains an enormous and elaborate mythology that includes many demons, angels, miracles by numerous saints, and of course God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, and Satan, all principle "deities" in the religion.

God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are said to be "one", though they clearly serve the role of three different deities in the religion.

The mythology of Christianity contains the Zoroastrian mythology of the War in Heaven and the Fallen Angel, as well as an on-going mythology that continues after the time of the Biblical writings about various angels and saints who intervene in worldly events, and miraculous explanations for everything from the writing of the Bible, the translations of the Bible, the outcomes of wars, and miracle explanations for almost every event in Christian history, such as how Christianity was adopted by the Roman Emperors, etc.

Indeed, some of the early saints were simply popular gods that were re-branded as Christian symbols. Just as each little god of the Greeks and Romans was dedicated to a specific role, such as "the god of seafaring", "the god of travel", "the god of love", "the god of good harvest", etc., the saints simply took on these same roles. There are thousands of saints, just as their were thousands of lesser gods among the pagans. Pagan temples were in fact converted into places of worship for saints. Pagan tokens became saint tokens, etc.

This is because Christianity was a religious movement that developed among Jews who had integrated into the "pagan" cultures of "the Gentiles". For over 100 years prior to the rise of Christianity, hundreds of thousands of Jews had been immigrating out of their occupied homeland and into other parts of the Roman Empire, mainly for economic reasons.

Map of the Jewish Diaspora

In all of the regions outside of Judea, Jews integrated into the local "pagan" cultures, often integrating "pagan" holidays, beliefs, and rituals (such as baptism) into their religion. It was these Jews who were living among "the Gentiles" that first adopted Christianity.

The area of Greece and Turkey, where there were many Jews who had integrated into non-Jewish culture and were looking for ways to reconcile their Judaism with the "pagan" cultures to which they now belonged, is where the Christian religion became established.

The influence of the existing "pagan" culture on Christianity can most easily be seen when simply looking at the imagery of Christianity itself.

This mosaic is from a Jewish synagogue as seen below

Helios surrounded by 12 virgins, 12 disciples, and 12 signs of the zodiac

Mosaic from Zippori Synagogue in Galilee showing Helios, zodiac, Dionysus, and menorah

Apollo with halo

Apollo with halo

Christ as the sun-god from tomb in St. Peter's Basilica, discovered in 1942

Early image of Christ as "The Good Shepherd"

Jesus performing "miracle of loaves and fishes" depicted in royal robes

"The Good Shepherd"

Zeus - 4th century BCE

Religious charm showing Baccus / Dionysus 200 years before the first image of Christ on the cross

Isis and Horus - Mary and Christ

Isis and Horus mosaic from The House of Dionysus

Eirene the goddess of peace holding her son Ploutos

Messalina with Britannicus - 45 CE, based on Eirene and Ploutos

Madonna and child

Diana of Ephesus shrine with blessing hands

Virgin Mary shrine with blessing hands

Diana of Ephesus with moon goddess symbol on head

Virgin Mary standing on moon goddess symbol

Pre-Christian Roman figure of angel

Mary Queen of Heaven

Hera Queen of Heaven

Pan chasing shepherd

Pan tempting Aphrodite

Early Zoroastrian image of Angra Mainyu

Modern depiction of The Devil

Classic Roman image of Mithras killing bull

Classic Medieval Christian image of Samson killing lion

Samson killing lion, recent depiction in children's book

As you can see, the symbolism of Christianity clearly comes from the existing religious imagery of the cultures in which Christianity developed. The famous halo of Christ is nothing more than the widely used halo of the sun-god Helios / Apollo / Mithras. There are essentially no depictions of Jesus from the 1st and 2nd century, and few exist from the 3rd and 4th century. Most of the early images of Jesus come from the 5th century and later, and are heavily based on Romanized concepts of what a god-man would look like. Angles, the Virgin Mary, and Satan all have clear precedents in the "pagan" religions as well. Even the famous image of God in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel mural looks like Zeus or Chronos with his muscular body, beard, and robe.

Not only is the imagery of Christianity based on the imagery of the "pagan" religions, but the stories of Jesus are as well. All of the miracle events attributed to Jesus had been attributed to other gods and heroes before. The story of Jesus is not a direct copy of any pre-existing myth, but it does incorporate the qualities of many different myths, which is suitable for a religion claiming that its hero is one god who has come to replace all of the other gods.

Helios the sun-god "walked on the water" and had "12 disciples" (the signs of the zodiac). Helios' / Mithras' resurrection after three days of death was celebrated on December 25th - Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun). The sun "died" on December 22nd, the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The sun was "reborn" on December 25th, 3 days later.

The Emperor Aurelian dedicated the Sol Invictus Temple on December 25th, 274 CE. The dedication celebration was called The Birthday of the Invincible Sun.

From Greek mythology the mortal hero Orion was fathered by the god Neptune. While Orion's story does not parallel that of Jesus', he was claimed to be able to walk on water.

Dionysus was a god-man of peace who was conceived by Zeus and a mortal woman named Semele. Before his birth Dionysus was merged with Zeus and then born from the god. Dionysus was a bringer of peace and was said to be able to convert water into wine. He was eventually tortured, killed, and resurrected according to myth.

The Egyptian god Osirus was one of the most important Egyptian gods. He was the god of the dead, and considered to be a merciful god that judged the souls of the dead to see if they could enter the eternal afterlife. Osirus gave birth to the child-god Horus. Osirus was said to have died and been resurrected. The yearly growth of grain was said to represent the resurrection of Osirus and thus bread was seen as the body of Osirus. Every year "The Passion of Osirus" was performed as a religious play in which Osirus was killed, dismembered, rejoined, and then reborn. After Osirus is resurrected Horus sends him on to the afterlife and then there is a battle between Horus and Set in which Horus defeats the evil Set.

After the Greek and Egyptian cultures had merged, due to the conquest of Alexander the Great, the cult of Osirus and Horus was merged with the cult of Dionysus. The rituals and myths of these cults were also merged with Platonic philosophy, which was ostensibly monotheistic and believed that the material world is corrupt and that the afterlife is a place of purity where the soul rejoices after death.

Many of the concepts from the Osirus-Dionysus cults are present in Christianity as well, which was developing around the same time.

Stories about miraculous healers were prevalent across the Greco-Roman world, and included stories about everyone from Emperors to gods to heroes to even animals that could heal people through "magic".

Importantly, both Jesus and Mary are said to have "ascended bodily into heaven", meaning that there is absolutely no trace of their existence on earth at all. Again, this applies not only to Jesus, but also to Mary. It is also a fact that claims of bodily transcendence into heaven were a part of several Greek and Roman myths and histories about mythical heroes that people believed were real. When Romans asked for the bodies of mythical hero figures, so that they could be enshrined, the religious leaders would claim that they had ascended bodily into heaven, so that there was no body left on earth (because, of course, these people never existed).

One thing that The Da Vinci Code does get right, however, is the use of power by the early Catholic Church to shape Christian doctrine for political reasons.

The Code of Justinian records how Christian consensus was achieved in the empire:

CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.

Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.

2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prætorian Prefect.

Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.

(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word .... These things, indeed, do not require further proof, and should be respected.

(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.

Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
- The Code of Justinian; 529-534 CE

Conclusion

While many people may find it hard to believe that Christianity could have become so popular if Jesus were not real, it must be remembered that Christianity didn't even begin to become popular until after the time that Jesus had supposedly died, in communities where he never supposedly traveled, among people who never saw him. "Jesus" is not responsible for the spread of Christianity, the "story of Jesus" is. The real growth of Christianity took place in Greece, after the ministry of Paul. What ultimately made Christianity a major religion were the actions of Roman Emperors, who used it for political and military purposes in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Furthermore, there are hundreds of other examples of major religions that developed around the world based on mythical leaders that never existed.

Far from "shaking the foundations of Christianity", the The Da Vinci Code further perpetuates the Jesus myth and breathes new life into many of the apocryphal fables about his life. Unfortunately, much of the really interesting scholarship on Jesus is being completely left out of the debate that has been stirred by The Da Vinci Code, because both of the sides in the debate take the position that Jesus existed in flesh and blood.

For the most part The Da Vinci Code has presented an easy punching bag that lay-scholars and Christian apologists can easily pummel while affirming their traditional views. While The Da Vinci Code does present many interesting concepts, and even does raise valid points about the historical rise of Christianity, it is undermined by many incorrect details, which opponents of the book have honed in on and used to their own advantage.

Christian organizations are using The Da Vinci Code to further promote fallacies about their faith by countering the falsehoods in The Da Vinci Code with their own falsehoods.

The most solid refutations of The Da Vinci Code are not claims that "Jesus really did bodily ascent into heaven because the Bible says so," but rather the evidences that Jesus never existed at all, and thus nothing about Jesus in The Da Vinci Code could be true, because Jesus is but a myth.

See Also:

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Origins of Christianity and the Jesus Myth