Comments on: What Da Vinci Didn’t Know, by Holzapfel, et al. http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/ Uplifting, edifying, and enriching reading by and for Latter-day Saint Women Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:27:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Téa http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-981 Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:43:27 +0000 http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-981 Starfoxy, do you mean that we actually have to read the <i>introduction</i> to the book? Like anyone has time to actually read those pages, especially if they have roman numerals... ;) Starfoxy, do you mean that we actually have to read the introduction to the book? Like anyone has time to actually read those pages, especially if they have roman numerals… ;)

]]> by: Naiah http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-946 Tue, 30 May 2006 17:05:04 +0000 http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-946 I was writing a RS program a few moths ago, and I actually stmbled across something that identified the woman in terms of another sister in the gospels. I think it might have been in relation to Mary & Martha/Lazarus. Shoot, it was a great insight. I'll go see if I can dig it up, and write it up for you! I was writing a RS program a few moths ago, and I actually stmbled across something that identified the woman in terms of another sister in the gospels. I think it might have been in relation to Mary & Martha/Lazarus. Shoot, it was a great insight. I’ll go see if I can dig it up, and write it up for you!

]]> by: Starfoxy http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-939 Tue, 30 May 2006 16:11:44 +0000 http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-939 Tanya, Thank you for mentioning the CD that was produced. They mention the CD breifly in their book, but seemed to indicate that the book is more in-depth than the CD. I haven't listened to their discussion, so I can't say with certainty, but the book does focus specifically on claims made by the DaVinci Code, and only discusses specific texts (like the Nag Hamadi) to explain the accuracy and historical 'weight' of the documents used in the DaVinci code. Michelle, that is an excellent question and I'm so glad you asked. I think the book is very much worth reading, even if you never even want to read The DaVinci Code. The amount of information about Mary Magdelene, and the early church is wonderful, and clearly explained. For instance, I had been taught in various places (Sunday School, seminary etc.) that Mary Magdalene was formerly a prostitute, and was most likely the sinful woman that washed Christ's feet with her tears and hair. In 'What DaVinci Didn't Know' the authors explained that there is practically *nothing* to indicate that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute, or was ever mentioned in the Bible unless it was by name. They explained that a declaration was made by a Pope several hundred years after Christ's death that Mary was the sinful woman, and it has been taught extensively from that time on even though it has no scriptural basis. The authors share extensive knowledge that is highly useful. Tanya, Thank you for mentioning the CD that was produced. They mention the CD breifly in their book, but seemed to indicate that the book is more in-depth than the CD. I haven’t listened to their discussion, so I can’t say with certainty, but the book does focus specifically on claims made by the DaVinci Code, and only discusses specific texts (like the Nag Hamadi) to explain the accuracy and historical ‘weight’ of the documents used in the DaVinci code.

Michelle, that is an excellent question and I’m so glad you asked. I think the book is very much worth reading, even if you never even want to read The DaVinci Code. The amount of information about Mary Magdelene, and the early church is wonderful, and clearly explained. For instance, I had been taught in various places (Sunday School, seminary etc.) that Mary Magdalene was formerly a prostitute, and was most likely the sinful woman that washed Christ’s feet with her tears and hair. In ‘What DaVinci Didn’t Know’ the authors explained that there is practically *nothing* to indicate that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute, or was ever mentioned in the Bible unless it was by name. They explained that a declaration was made by a Pope several hundred years after Christ’s death that Mary was the sinful woman, and it has been taught extensively from that time on even though it has no scriptural basis. The authors share extensive knowledge that is highly useful.

]]> by: Michelle http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-929 Mon, 29 May 2006 21:36:29 +0000 http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-929 Starfoxy, Would someone who hasn't read <i>The DaVinci Code"</i> benefit from this book, or would reading Brown's book be a prerequisite? Starfoxy,
Would someone who hasn’t read The DaVinci Code” benefit from this book, or would reading Brown’s book be a prerequisite?

]]> by: Tanya http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-916 Mon, 29 May 2006 17:50:10 +0000 http://roxcy.synthian.org/2006/05/29/what-da-vinci/#comment-916 My Aunt loaned me the CD of their discussion. It came out a couple of years ago I think. Perhaps some would like to listen rather than read it. I know for me, I found that the discussion spent a great deal of time on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamadi Library. I kept wishing they would get to the points of the book and the plot. Then again maybe I don't take these sources as seriously as other readers might? I have enjoyed The DaVinci Code, and I enjoyed the movie. I agree with These Bretheren that we must not get our history from literature. There are many works of fiction where people do just that, including The Work and The Glory series. While fiction can make history interesting, it is fiction because the Author takes literary license with the subject matter and material. As far as Historical Evidence goes, there isn't much out there to proclaim the divinity of the Saviour. That testimony is meant to be given through the Holy Ghost. It is only by and through that means that we can actually learn for ourselves the beauty of God's love for us. We can learn of the Saviour through the writing of the Scriptures, but without the testimony of the Holy Ghost born in our souls they become meaningless. Thanks for your review Starfoxy, someday I hope to pick up the book and enjoy it. My Aunt loaned me the CD of their discussion. It came out a couple of years ago I think. Perhaps some would like to listen rather than read it. I know for me, I found that the discussion spent a great deal of time on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamadi Library. I kept wishing they would get to the points of the book and the plot. Then again maybe I don’t take these sources as seriously as other readers might? I have enjoyed The DaVinci Code, and I enjoyed the movie. I agree with These Bretheren that we must not get our history from literature. There are many works of fiction where people do just that, including The Work and The Glory series. While fiction can make history interesting, it is fiction because the Author takes literary license with the subject matter and material.

As far as Historical Evidence goes, there isn’t much out there to proclaim the divinity of the Saviour. That testimony is meant to be given through the Holy Ghost. It is only by and through that means that we can actually learn for ourselves the beauty of God’s love for us. We can learn of the Saviour through the writing of the Scriptures, but without the testimony of the Holy Ghost born in our souls they become meaningless.

Thanks for your review Starfoxy, someday I hope to pick up the book and enjoy it.

]]>