The da Vince Code: True or False?


It may be said that truth is life, and life requires discernment. While novels are usually understood to be fiction, and often more or less refer to historical events, when dealing with ETERNAL matters we are walking on holy ground. When a soul proffers as facts things about Jesus and the Bible but which in fact are lies, then they are to be fully examined and exposed by those who have come to know Christ and realized the truth of Scripture. Which, unlike Dan Brown and publisher$, calls us to “prove all things” (1Thes. 5:21). Therefore is this work written.

With almost 50 million copes of the Da vinci Code having been sold, and with multitudes paying to see the film version, many have asked how much of the story which Dan Brown weaves is true, with many deceived souls (33% in one poll) believing it substantially is. This is not surprising, considering it is the Bible which Brown attacks, which men by nature seek to rationalize away rather than make the changes it calls for. In addition, we live in an age of extreme illiteracy regarding the Bible and how it was passed down. But Brown also craftily writes his novel as if it were based on fact. Indeed, the beginning of the novel boldly declares FACT, and although this only refers to all the descriptions of Brown's “props” (which themselves are not all accurate) and NOT his version of history, the intimation throughout the novel is that it is an exposé of suppressed truth. In an interview, Mr. Brown even claimed that he himself became a believer in his conspiracy theory after being unable to refute it – which is about as credible as a thief claiming he could not find a police station. Even a cursory examination of Dan Brown's “proofs” reveals his reliance upon fabrications, and further research reveals that the claims of the da Vince Code are almost entirely fallacious, depending on suprious evidence or lack thereof and replete with logical fallacies, a work of pseudohistory which not only disallows it from being taken seriously as true, but even negates it as good historical fiction (which should at least have it's facts of history straight). The fact that one must resort to such subterfuge to discount Biblically substantiated faith is not surprising, as contrary to Brown's belief, the Bible did not become the Bible and withstand over 2,000 years of attacks to become the world's best seller by autocratic decree or deception, but because it's books manifests their God - breathed inspiration to whosoever receives it's message, while it's historicity is supported by more archaeological and manuscript evidence than any literature of comparable antiquity. And by faithful study of the Scriptures it is abundantly manifested that this is the material source of life – giving Christian faith, rather than by Imperial meddling or Roman Catholic ecclesiastical decrees. In burying the evidence that thoroughly refutes him while spinning a tale of aggressive fiction purporting to be true, the Da Vinci Code reveals that Dan Brown is guilty of the same of kind of suppression of facts that he purports took place in regards to Christian faith.

Meanwhile, it is the very Book that Brown has chosen to attack that foretold and warned, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2Timothy 4:2, 3).

Though the list is by no means complete, below many of the da Vinci Code fables are listed and exposed.

Technical notes

This page views best in Firefox . Press F11 for full screen mode in most browsers.

To increase print size for viewing in Internet Explorer 6 (IE), go to View >Text Size>Largest. In Firefox, use Ctrl and + key, and in Opera 9, hit View>120%, or the 0 key.

Note: this web page is made by an amateur (me!) but i think everything should work as it does in my browsers.  Click in the Table of Contents on each FACT, and you will see both the da Vinci fables and my response. Click on TOCto return. Clicking on  Fable links on the left side of the main table with take you out to different pages. Thanks. 

Author: Daniel Hamilton. Home:

Brief overview

Table of Contents

FACT #1 N. Testament not formed by Emperor Constantine.

FACT #15 – YHWH not androgynous (blasphemy)!

FACT #2 Jesus Divinity manifest long before Constantine.

FACT #16 – Sex in Temple profanity

FACT #3 – Jesus Divinity not by “a close vote.”

FACT #17 – Fornication separates from God – not giving spiritual communion

FACT #4 – The Divine Sonship of Jesus recognized long before 4th century.

FACT #18 – It is Gnosticism that demonizes women, while the Bible make them “sacred.”

FACT #5 – Dead Sea Scrolls confirms Bible, not the da Vinci code!

FACT #19 – Pagan world denigrated women while New Testament faith uplifted here.

FACT #6 – Nag Hammadi manuscripts not as old as New Testaments.

FACT #20 – Mary is not made a prostitute in the Bible, but a redeemed soul!

FACT #7 – False “gospels” inferior quality, not voted out for political reasons.

FABLE #21 – Biblical faith not borrowed form pagain, but often vice-vera

FACT #8 – Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT early Christian texts.

FACT #22 – 1st day of week specific day of Christian assembly from 1st century.

FACT #9 – Heretic title used long before Nicea.

FACT #23 – Priory of Sion – Brown a disciple of fabricators; DVC built upon beget lies.

FACT #10 – Jesus humanity clear in New Testament, as is His Deity.

FACT #24 – Dossiers Secrets – fake members in fake conspiracy.

FACT #11– Any idea Jesus marriage is unwarranted, and is not “historical fact!”

FACT #25 Arts amd da Vinci codes- conspiracy on steroids.

FACT #12 – Kissing of Mary has no support, but is part of larger blasphemy.

FACT #26 – FACT – All descriptions .. not accurate, let alone history. A work of errors.

FACT #13 Jesus celibacy is NOT condemned

FACT #27 – Almost everything the Da Vinci Code taught about Christ is false!

FACT #14 – Mary was NOT at last supper.


JESUS CHRIST is LORD. Only HE can save you -- and you MUST be saved! Click HERE to know why, and how!

Brief overview

Proverbs 14:25: A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.

Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,...

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Dan Brown has produced a work of near - complete fiction presented as fact, which alleges that the faith of Christians is the result of a vast and suppressive conspiracy – a very serious charge – but which theory is based on page after page of fabrications, which are easily shown to be such by the abundantly substantiated historical facts and which affirm just the opposite of Dan Brown's imagination. The da Vinci Code's opening assurances that the novel is based on accurate descriptions is misleading, leading souls to assume it has been carefully historically researched, when just the is true, and only historical ignorance, desire for deception, and a most extreme reliance on conspiratorial circular reasoning would allow it any credence as fact. Though Mr. Brown's fiction is not limited to Christian history, that being of ultimate importance this exposé primary addresses that subject.

The fable called the Da vinci code, in short (see here ( for a broader and secular summation) puts forth a specious conspiracy that alleges a suppression of the "real" story of Jesus and the Christian faith, a story which Brown then imaginatively and deceptively supplies, and which would result in an extremely radical, and very much feminized distortion of it. In his attempt to infer authority to his attack of Christianity, he uses fictitious “scholars such as British “royal historian” Leigh Teabing, and “Harvard professor” Robert Langdon, which serve him well as proxy professional prevaricators. This “gospel according to Brown,” has Mary Madelene being the wife of Jesus, and pregnant with child at the crucifixion, thus begetting a “royal blood line” that included kings in France and England. Along with this Brown has Leonardo Da Vinci supplanting the apostle John at the last supper with Mary, and even makes her to be the “Holy Grail” (instead of the extra-Biblical, legendary cup from which the Lord drank from). But the more foundational blasphemies are those that make the four Biblical gospels a conspiratorial work, which Brown supplants with “gnostic” pagan beliefs. If that were not deviant enough from the facts, Brown renders the Christian faith itself an adaptation of paganism, and presents Mary as the intended head of the church, while also promoting ritual religious fornication!

Though such fantasies certainly will find a welcome audience in the post – Christian, carnality – driven, deception – loving west, it falls flat on it's face when faced with the facts as well as logic, which is easily seen in the following exposé. TOC





Links to more material 


Da Vinci Code (DVC)



Below are somewhat brief (which i have trouble being) refutations and commentaries regarding the DVC's fables. For some, more material is offered (with some redundancy), by clicking on the FABLE links in the left hand columns. Though over 25 fallacies are exposed here it is by no means a complete list (I had to stop somewhere). Source links are provided throughout as well as at the end (such providence does not mean i affirm everything else that a site may offer, but they are overall sound sources with substantiated facts).

Thanks be to God for He (alone) is good.

1Thes. 5:21 Prove all things;
1Tim. 1:4 Neither give heed to fables
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.



Is it true that the Christian faith is the result of the rewriting of Biblical gospels and suppression of others by Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Institution in the 4th century?

DVC: “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated [properly assembled] by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.”


Luke 1:1 (A.D. 57 – all such dates conservative + approx.) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Among other things, all the Biblical gospels, which were based upon eye-witness accounts, and were written and were in circulation – along with all of the New Testaments (N.T.) books – within 60 years after Jesus death and resurrection, which is substantially earlier than Browns nebulous “Gnostic” (somewhat)sources. And unlike the latter, the Biblical gospels and N.T. books were and are consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures which is their evident foundation. And unlike Browns late and sparse sources, the books of the Bible enjoyed wide acceptance among early churches are abundantly testified to by thousands of manuscripts, including whole or partial manuscripts which predate the 4th century by up to 200 years, and are estimated to have been written much earlier than that. In addition, the writings of numerous early church leaders testify to the fact that the New Testament existed in the 1st and 2nd century – long before 4th century Constantine and the Nicean Council (see Fable #2 link at left ). The canon of Scripture was basically settled long before 4th - century Constantine and the Council of Nicea, and the 66 books of Bible owe their selection, promulgation and endurance not to autocratic imposition, Constantinian (who did not even do the selection or control it) or otherwise, but to God and the consensus of multitudes who by Him realized that their evident power, purity and probity was because they were wholly inspired (or “breathed”) of the Spirit of God, and not simply written by men. Such Holy Writ stood and stands in sharp contrast to the Gnostic counterfeits in all such virtuous attributes and evidences, the effect of which incohesive and insubstantial teachings and imaginary Christ - phantom has been that of impotence and obscurity, attractive to those seeking darkness and deception rather than light and truth!




Is the belief in Jesus Divinity the result of Constantine's autocratic intervention and church formulation at the Council of Nicea?

DVC:“Constantine upgraded Jesus' status” and “rewrote” history by commissioning and financing “a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike.”



1Peter 1:20 (A.D. 66) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1John 4:22 (A.D. 87) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

This is easily proved to be patent nonsense in every point. Long, long (like going back to JESUS time itself) before Constantine and the Roman Catholic Institution came to be, believers in Jesus Christ realized He was no mere man, but God “manifested in the flesh” (1Tim.3:16). This is clearly evident in the gospel of John - which is the gospel from which we have the oldest fragment (125 A.D.; written by 90 A.D.) - as well as the other N.T. books which came before it (and in the O. T. as well: Is. 9:6; Mic. 5:2, etc.), all of which antedate Constantine and Council of Nicea ( by over 200 years!

The Biblical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, also not only testify to the same, by also speak very clearly of Jesus humans traits, and do so more abundantly than the metaphysical gnostic “gospels” Brown seeks to supplant them with. In fact it is because the Biblical; gospels reveal Jesus humanity so clearly that Nicea primarily met, as there were many who only taught of the human aspect of Jesus (which relegation is a tendency of man, as Jesus is a challenge to them morally and sovereignly).

Moreover, contrary to both Islamic and Gnostic imaginations, one cannot simply change the New Testament to place Jesus literal physical death and resurrection or Divine Sonship – which both Muslims and Gnostics deny - in it, as basically everything in them is directly or indirectly linked to such! EVERY ONE of the Biblical manuscripts which antedate both Nicea and the Quran declare the same truths as current Bibles! , and no even one of them say what the aforementioned later works purport! In Scripture Jesus is called the Son of God over 50 times, and the Divine title of God is applied as well, with His very works testifying to the same. In the Scriptures unique titles, attributes and glory which belong to God alone are given to the Lord Jesus, revealing that the LORD who Isaiah saw in His glory was in fact Jesus Christ,* the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3). Therefore saith He, “he that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on him that sent Me., And he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me” (*John. 12:34b-45; cf. Isaiah 6:1—10). Praise ye the Lord!

In addition, abundant historical confirmation, is seen in the writings of early church leaders:

100 AD Ignatius of Antioch “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you" (Letter to the Smyraeans) “Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time”

Hippolytus “For Christ is the God over all” (Refutation of All Heresies 10.34).

Iranaeus (lived between 120-202 A.D.) “In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King.”

150 AD Justin Martyr “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63).

Rather than bowing to historical record, and the Lord of history, Mr. Brown has made lies his refuge and crowned deception his king! See Fable #2 link at left for more.



DVC: “the Emperor led the bishops to declare Jesus as the Son of God by a vote.” "A relatively close vote at that".


John_20:31 (80 A.D.) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Council of Nicaea could hardly "invent" the divinity of Jesus, seeing it was already held as evident truth long before Constantine, because the person of Christ and the gospels and writings of the 1st century apostles revealed it, as is evidenced by historical records. Thus Nicea – based upon the testimony of Scripture and not by leading by Constantine who did not even attend – affirmed that Jesus is Lord, possessing the same eternal, uncreated nature as the Father, and declared Arianism heretical. AS FOR A “CLOSE VOTE”, JESUS DIVINITY WAS AFFIRMED BY A VOTE OF 298 TO 2 (2 abstained). Hardly a cliff hanger! Brown is caught lying through his teeth again.



The divinity of Jesus was first raised and established at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, “ prior to that time, no one—not even Jesus’ followers—believed Jesus was anything more than a “mortal prophet.” 


Matthew_16:15 (A.D. 45) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Brown's zeal to replace the Biblical Jesus with one more to his liking brings him to make not only wholly unsubstantiated claims but exceeding rash ones as well. Here we are told that no one believed Jesus was anything more than a mortal prophet. Considering Brown expects us to believe nonsense about Mary Madelene being Pope, and at the end has his proxy “parishioner” (Langdon) bowing down to her in worship, how much more should he expect that at least allow that some disciples believed Jesus to be the immortal Son of God, seeing  Scripture reveals such. Yet it is Brown's assertions that must fall before the abundant evidences which testify of truth - believing souls declaring Jesus, as Thomas did, “My Lord and my God” (Jn. 20:28)! Not only do Biblical manuscripts record this but writings from early church leaders also do, and even the record of a non-Christian sources such as pagan Roman historian Pliny testify to the fact that early Christians worshiped Jesus. See Fable #4 link at left for substantiation.



The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's... confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda..”


2Cor._4:4:1 (A.D. 62) Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

One thing about the Da Vinci code is that it is consistently false in it's attacks against Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) were discovered in 1947 (excavated till 1956), and represent the principal finds of surviving Biblical documents written before AD 100. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran, and which actually work to confirm the integrity of the Scriptures, and show the spurious nature of Brown's scattered sources. Consider that comparison of the nearly complete book of Isaiah with the text from which the King James Bible was translated (the 11th century A.D. Masoretic text) found nearly 95% word for word agreement, with the remaining 5% being mostly obvious slips of the pen or spelling changes. This accuracy despite there being over 1,000 years between the two manuscripts for changes to occur! In addition, evidence indicates that the some scrolls that were found were in a room where imperfect ones would be put, which could account for any real, though minor, changes (Jewish scribes were typically very scrupulous in transcribing).

Meanwhile the Qumran finds work to confirm the historicity of the Jewish faith which is the foundation of the New Testament, and refutes Gnosticism, as incohesive as it is. These, along with other overwhelming evidences,  bury Browns idea that the God of Christianity was 4th century formulation!



The Gnostic Nag Hammadi gospels are as old as the gospels in the New Testament. .


Acts 1:1 (A.D. 52) The former treatise [Luke] have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

It becomes more and more evident that Brown's scholars must belong to the flat earth society, as he is “flat” wrong here (again). The Nag Hammadi gospels are neither as old as the Biblical gospels nor anywhere as well substantiated! Based upon internal and external evidence (comparison of fragments and quotations, historical correlations, examination of textual families, etc.) the Biblical Gospels are dated to the first century. Thousands of actual manuscripts exist today, many of which date prior to 200 A.D., including a fragment (writing materials of Biblical age did not least long) of the gospel of Mark. There are also fragments of other New Testament books such as Acts, which is dated to have been written around 50 A.D., and a fragment of the gospel of John dated at 125 A.D. or earlier. Nearly complete copies of both Luke and John exist which are dated from between A.D. 175 and 225.
    In contrast, the manuscripts of the Gnostic Nag Hammadi library, which gospels were written 100 to 200 years apart, and discovered hundreds of miles apart, were copied between A.D. 350-400, with most Gnostic literature being written between the late 2nd to the 5th century. No evidence exists to show that any of these books were written before A.D. 150..



80 Gnostic “gospels” voted out by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 because of political reasons


1Cor. 2:15:(A.D. 59) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,

Heb. 5:14 (A.D. 64) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

While there are only 45 titles in the Gnostic Nag Hammadi Library, and not all of them are “gospels” (or in their case attempted syncretistic pagan/Christian accounts of Jesus life), the real issue is why would Browns preferences, along with other (not thousands!) so obviously spurious books, be placed with books which met the Heavenly standard of Divine inspiration? Even in the secular realm, not every book becomes a classic, and we do not attribute that to conspiracies! With New Testament Scripture, not only did books have to meet holy and powerful criteria (see below), but ages of unconstrained devotion and testimony by those who trust and obey it provide the kind of transcendent affirmation that a church council could not, though such serves to confirm the 66 (not 73) books of their selection.

As in the prior and confirmed selection of the Jewish canon, the selection of books in the New Testament canon were not based upon politics, but on whether they met the holy “quality” that set them apart from other books. Originals always have imitations, and but in almost all cases* it was easily apparent by spiritually mature men to discern the difference.

The formal criteria was that a book had to be written close to the time of Jesus. It had to be authored either by one of the apostles or a companion of one, and consistent with the substantiated understanding of the Christian faith. Plus it had to be widely received by the churches.

Brown's Gnostics sources, as well as many others, failed these necessary tests, and in their case it would be every single one!




The Dead Sea Scrolls are also early Christian texts.”

These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which I mentioned earlier,” Teabing said. “The earliest Christian records.”


Exodus 17:14 [A.D. 1490] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

The conclusion of the blind guides Brown follows is rejected by actual scholars, as the DSS (, with minute scarcely possible exceptions such as one fragment of one complete word, are NOT early Christian texts! They do not even mention Christianity nor the names of anyone associated with its beginnings, having been written before the coming of Christ (though they did look for the Messiah).

About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah (Abegg et al 2002). About 25% are traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts such as the Community Rule.” (

A much disputed possible Christian text is that of a fragment (7Q5 [ in which the only complete word in Greek is "και" = "and" Though hardly anyone considers that it may be part of Mark 6:52-53, it would not validate Brown's assertion, and instead, as the fragment is dated at between sometime AD 30 and 60, it would help confirm that Mark was written by then.



"Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Const-antine's version was deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in history."


2Pet. 2:2:1 (A.D. 68) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Having dispensed with the fallacy of Constantine's version (unless perhaps Constantine really lived in the first century B.C. and wrote parts of the O.T., plus the gospels, plus the rest of the New Testament!), let us find out about heretics. The word heretic literally means sect, or division, and is used in such places as the first century Biblical letter 1 Corinthians (11:19), where it refers to necessary divisions between spiritual and carnal believers, while Galatians (5:20) shows it as a fruit of the flesh. Titus 3:10 enjoins, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; and 2 Peter 2:1 warns of such.

Early church leaders Irenaeus and Tertullian had already used the term heretical in regards to Gnosticism and similar unsubstantiated doctrines in the second century, such as in documents titled 'Against Heresies' and 'The Prescription Against Heretics.' The Muratorian Canon, a list with most of the New Testament books from the late second century, warns against heresy.

Thus “heretic” is used far earlier than Nicea, and their use of it would come from the Bible which of those who depart from established truth. But the key thing here is that the truth about Christ and aspects thereof had already been recorded in Scripture long before Constantine, while Browns scholars are shown to have PhD's in nonsense.



“..any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible. (p. 244)


Luke 22:44 (A.D. 57) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

John 4:6 (A.D. 80) Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well:

One really must wonder if Brown has ever actually ready the Bible? The Biblical gospels make Jesus humanity abundantly clear, yet not at the expense of his Divinity, though that is a overall the more sublime but sure revelation in the synoptics.

In addition, while the Bible abundantly describes Jesus earthly aspects, it is actually Brown's metaphysical and incohesive, scarcely substantiated Gnosticism that does not, but consistent with it's metaphysicality it portrays Jesus more like a phantom, who did not actually suffer on the cross etc. Blasphemous, heretical and nonsensical!



Brown claims that it is "a matter of historical record" that JESUS was married to Mary Magdalene and that she had 5 children!

DVC: “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse” (246).


Luke 9:58 (A.D. 57) And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Mr. Browns fantasy only exists in own island. The four Gospels in the Bible, which (unlike Brown's spurious sources) were written when people who were eye witnesses of Christ were still alive and records their testimony, and is diligent in recording the major events of Christ's ministry (and marriage certainly would be one of them), says nothing of the kind. The only marriage that the Lord Jesus had any connection with is one in which He and His disciples were invited guests (John. 2:1, 2). This wedding was for someone else, and was where Jesus performed His first miracle (2:11). It is only sometime later that the Lord cast 7 demons out of Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), and who became one of the followers of Jesus, not His wife.

Neither does any of the other Gnostic literature prove that Jesus was married. As part of Brown's spin cycle he says that the Aramaic word for "companion" (used in regards to Mary in the Gnostic gospel), literally meant "spouse." Not only is this translation denied by various Aramaic scholars, but even more critically, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip that this was found was not even written in Aramaic, rather it was written in Egyptian Coptic, which may have been a translation from Greek!

Even in the Coptic translation found at Nag Hammadi, a Greek loan word (koinonos) lies behind the term translated “companion.” Darrell Bock observes that this is “not the typical . . . term for ‘wife’“ in Greek.{28} Indeed, koinonos is most often used in the New Testament to refer to a “partner.” Luke uses the term to describe James and John as Peter’s business partners (Luke 5:10). Michael Gleghorn ©2006 Probe Ministries




DVC states that Jesus “used to kiss [Mary] often” ..


1Thessalonians 5:26 (A.D. 53) Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

Like Judas, Brown would betray the Biblical Jesus with a kiss, albeit a proxy one, for though though it would be no sin for Jesus to be married, such frequent public kissing on the lips would be improper, and Brown's statement here is actually part of a larger and unmentionable slander. However, nowhere is is there any such thing a Brown imagines. Though Brown must resort to the pseudo gospel of Phillip, and has it saying that Jesus kissed Mary often on the mouth, when the manuscript is examined the word for "mouth" is not there! Old manuscripts often are missing words due to the age of the material (yet unlike the little - desired Gnostic sources, for the Biblical gospels an abundance of manuscripts exist which enables cross referencing), and although Brown's source is a meretricious one from the beginning, if the missing word were to be accurately rendered sribes would footnote a normal, non-sexual cultural point of contact and not “mouth” (Gn. 33:4; Lk. 15:30;). Brown thus is guilty here of eisegesis (not exegesis), that of an unwarranted reading into the text what one desires. No where in Scripture is kissing someone else with the lips even stated (it seldom goes into bedrooms), and which is part of holy sexual desire between man and wife (cf. SOS 4:3, 11; 5:13;). Though non-intimate kissing was a cultural practice in Jewish culture (as it is in many others), yet in contrast to Brown's imagnination, nowhere in the Bible do we see that Jesus kissed anyone, and even the other Gnostic "gospels" do not have Him kissing Mary. What we do see is that He Himself was kissed twice in the Bible, and both in public: in Lk. 7:38 by an unidentified women, who wept and kissed His feet in gratitude because her many sins were forgiven, and in Mark. 14:45 by Judas Iscariot (cf. Acts 20:37), as he betrayed the Lord who died for us and us and rose again that we may be forgiven! And so in the absence of any true records, Brown uses a fake and late pseudo-gospel, which he must add to in seeking to make his case, while even none of the other Gnostic sources say what Brown seeks to extrapolate out of nothing.

This absence of evidence would also go for children, and Brown's claim that Mary Magdalene had a daughter named Sarah finds no ancient source, but was made up by a modern women writer named Margaret Starbird, who, showing an Eve-like tendency, based this fallacy upon “a strong intuition.” (The Beloved’, 1999).



DVC: “Jesus was a Jew, and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.



Matthew 19:12 (A.D. 45) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Biblical and historical ignorance continued. Though celibate singleness is the exception, God required celibacy from people such as Jeremiah, "Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place" (15:2), while Ezekiel could not even morn for his wife after God took her away with a stroke (24:16) It may also be inferred that Elijah and Daniel and others were also celibate. And as in the case of Jeremiah, which celibacy was enjoined for a special purpose, how much more fitting it was for Jesus, whose mission to save people physically and spiritually and enable salvation for the world, required self-less dedication day and night, culminating with His death for our sins at the young age of (approx) 33. Surely not only would caring for a wife and children much hinder such a world – saving mission, but it also would be unfair to them.

In addition, celibacy was an option in Jesus time. Here Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria describes the Essenes (thought by many to be the collators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) as those who “repudiate marriage . . . for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife” (Philo, Hypothetica, 11.14-17).

And rather than suffering the universal commendation Brown assumes, Jewish historian Philo describes the esteem of such dedicated celibacy: “This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase . . . the honors which they confer on them” (Ibid., 44) Josephus says likewise. (see much more on this, and about Mary Magdelene at,

However it should be said that neither the Lord's celibacy nor the words of celibate Paul in 1 Cor. 7 justifies a church law that requires an unmarried, celibate clergy (except for married eastern church priest converts). It is never to be presumed that all clergy will have the gift of celibacy Paul speaks of, while the 2nd requirement that is laid down for ordination of Pastors is that they be “the husband of one wife” (1Tim. 3:2)! What Rome does (or anyone) and what the Bible teaches are not to be assumed to be the same. To know the Truth we are to reverently “search the Scriptures” (Jn. 5:39) with the heart to obey (Acts 17:11).



Brown paints Mary in at the last supper



Mathew 26:18 (A.D. 45) And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. 20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Jesus ate the passover with His 12 (not 13) apostles. In the gospels all 12 are clearly named and identified as males, and the Lord never had any female apostles. Anything else would we a radical departure from both the Old Testament as well as the the rest of the New Testament, where religious leadership is always ordained to be of males. Though the actual earliest and authentic records of the last supper are what we must go by, as far Da Vinci's painting goes there are only the 12 disciples of the Lord. The female looking man on Jesus right is the young John the beloved, looking feminine after what often was the custom by many artists (some of which were homosexual) in da Vinci's time and environment.

Unlike Brown's professional prevaricators, British royal historian, Leigh Teabing, and a Harvard professor, Robert is the statement of one with an real PhD Denise Budd, a Columbia University,

As far as the Magdalene (being seated next to Jesus), clearly there is no dispute. That figure is St John. He is Christ’s favorite, and is always shown by his side… in earlier Florentine examples of that scene, the figure of John is always by Christ’s side, he is always beardless, and he’s always beautiful… A perfect example of this “feminine” characterization of John is in Raphael’s ‘Crucifixion’ in the London National Gallery, painted around 1500.”



DVC's Langdon blas-phemously claims that YHWH comes from the name Jehovah, which he insists is an androgynous union between “the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah”


Exodus 6:3 (1490 B.C) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Having invented history, Brown attempts his hand at etymology which he likewise mangles. Like a certain cult founder, Brown must be ignorant of the fact that that the letter “J” nor the name Jehovah did not even exist until at least the 13th century(!), and rather than YWHH coming from Jehovah, the exact opposite is true.

Devout Jewish believers came to regard the primary name of God, transliterated (the best we know) as YHWH (known as the sacred tetragrammaton, which in essence means I AM as in Gn. 3:14; cf. Jn. 8:58) as too sacred to utter or write, so they evidently put the vowels for the word “Adona,” which means Lord under the tetragrammaton, YHWH, from whence came “Yahweh” or Jehovah.” (Hebrew has no vowels).

Most modern scholars believe that when the Masoretes added vowel points to the consonantal Hebrew text, they had not placed the correct vowel points of God's name above and below the consonants of YHWH. Instead modern scholars believe that the Masoretes had placed the vowel points of adonay above and below the consonants of YHWH so that the reader would read "Adonai" aloud” (

In addition, “The Hebrew—not "pre-Hebraic"—word for Eve is hawâ, (pronounced "havah"), which means 'mother of all living'" ( Info on Masoretes (

Therefore YHWH cannot come from Jehovah, neither is there anything androgynous in it's etymology! Herein we see another example of Browns resorting to fallacious history, as well as linguistic slight of hand to promote his Gnostical nonsense.



DVC: Brown desirably - and incredibly - claims that early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex” in the Jewish Temple, and that YHWH was worshipped along with a female consort named Shekinah.




Exodus  20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Ex. 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Lev. 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Jer. 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,..

Micah 1:2b ...let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple.

Mr. Brown's inferences here that the Jewish faith sanctioned such are another of his another profane deceptions that have no basis in fact. He does not even try to falsely reference a source, as per his usual manner, and there is none to be found, unless (also as usual), he is using another unsubstantiated source! Anyone is familiar with the God - ordained precise rules of behavior in the Temple knows that nakedness itself was strictly prohibited and violation of such prohibitions was a capital offense. The Temple of the Lord was holy, and those that violated it were to be slain, as were those that blaspheme God as Brown regularly and impudently does.

It was this kind of thing which was a practice of pagan religions, which Brown would blasphemously join the Biblical God and Christ to! Only in Israel's spiritual backsliding in direct disobedience to God was such a thing done in the Temple:

1Sam. 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lord's people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Dt. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [male temple prostitute] of the sons of Israel.

One should read the book of Lamentations to realize the consequences of such continued idolatry and profanity.

In addition Brown's attempt to use Shekinah is just as blasphemous. Shekinah refers to the manifest glory of God such as was seen in the Temple (not the Mormon one!), and not that of some female consort (there were not even any female priests). Finding a name that is similar, Brown states that that name, Sheshach is “mentioned repeatedly in the Book of Jeremiah” yet this is a person's proper name and has nothing to do with Shekinah, neither is it mentioned repeatedly but only twice is it found Jer. 25:26, 51:41)!



Brown taught that use of ritual, religious fornication was a means attain knowledge of the divine.” And that the Catholic church sex made sex into a shameful things, because it threatened their position as intercessors.



Isaiah 59:1, 2 (700 B.C.) “Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear”

Outside to Rome's unBiblical deviations, this is more Gnostical nonsense. Rather than bringing souls into communion with Almighty God, Brown instead actually promotes fornication which is sin, which separates men from God and blessed communion with Him! Again, long, long before Roman Catholicism, the LORD declared that fornication was sin (Lev. 18; Dt. 22), and that fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God, but shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death (1Cor. 6:10; Rev. 21:8).

And it was because of sin that therefore was atonement provided (which sacrifices pagan also copied), and for which the Temple was built. But Christ having come and giving Himself for our sins (as prophesied 700 years prior in Is. 53) as the perfect propitiation for our sins, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but all who come to Jesus Christ and receive the Lord are forgiven of all trespasses (Heb. 10; Col. 1:13). Praise ye the Lord!

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1Jn. 4:10, 14). Praise the Lord!

As for sex, the Scripture declares that sex within marriage is not shameful nor unclean, but “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers [those who have sexual relations before or outside of marriage] God will judge(Heb. 13:4). The only wise God, who made everything good, and enabled sexual relations, also gave us holy, just and good laws for the practices thereof. And just as a womens nakedness is not for public consumption, but only for the man who has earned the right to behold, so sexual relations are only right within the context of marriage. Among other reasons, such a highly intimate act requires the ultimate in vulnerability, which requires trust, which requires commitment, and only within the lifetime commitment called marriage is that kind of security promised and sexual intimacy approved and blessed by the Creator. And as God has designed this to normally result in bringing more lives into the world (though that is not the only reason for it), so the love and solidity of marriage is necessary there as well. The failure of many to make or keep that commitment in no way negates the fact that marriage is ordained of God, and only sexual relations between husband (man) and wife (female) is sanctioned (homo-sexual relations are never given the provision of marriage, but are condemned).



Langdon’s confident explanation: “the sacred feminine was demonized and made unclean. 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.”(p. 238)


Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col. 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

1Pet. 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

No, the Bible does not “demonize” women, which is what Brown's erotic faith can do to both men and women, but makes her – as well as the man “sacred” -- not gods but creations of the true and living God uniquely worthy of respect or dedication – in Christ. They are not positionally equal, any more than a football quarterback is with the receiver, as one must be the leader and God has created men to be overall more fitted to that, but they are spiritually equal (Gal. 3:28). More is said about this below.

As for Eve being the scapegoat, this in not the case, as consistent with make leadership is greater responsibility, and in Scripture Adam is given the greater guilt, as unlike Eve who was deceived (perhaps generally indicative of the downside of certain positive qualities of women), Adam knew what he was doing.

But Brown's professor does not, as he erroneously states that Eve ate of the apple (which would likely have symbolic meaning in the DVC), when in fact in the Genesis record says nothing about apples, but simply states the “fruit of the tree.” (Gn. 3:3). One would think a “Harvard professor” of religious symbology would know that, but he is as fictional as his lies.



DVC “...Con-stantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity (pg 124).



Esther 1:20 {520 B.C.) And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. 21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan: 22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

What in the world, or more exactly, what “world” is Brown is referring to? As anthropology will tell you, male leaderships has been the norm throughout recorded world history, and if anything is being overthrown, it is male leadership, and deleteriously so. Even in pre-Christian Gnosticism male gods were clearly dominant. Neither was pagan Rome matriarchal, and it was Biblical Christian faith (not it's institutionalized counterpart) that effectively influenced for better treatment of both women and children as well as the absolution of slavery. Meanwhile, the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls work to confirm the historicity of the lasting patriarchal Jewish faith, which is the foundation of the New Testament faith, and thus, along with other anthropological evidence, it buries Browns idea that 4th century Christianity converted a world of female leadership (Sacred Femine) to male leadership. And again contrary to the record of so many other faith, the Christian faith elevates women as both sacred and feminine, but not as the “goddesses” which Brown fashions out of whole cloth.



DVC: “Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to lead the church, but “Peter had a problem with that”, and therefore thus she made to be declared a prostitute and had no leadership.



Genesis 3:16 ... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It is Mary who has “prostituted” Mary for his own deceitful end. As to Mary being intended to lead the church, this, per usual, is clearly without any substance at all to support Brown's desire to see Mary Magdalene as Pope.

Going back to the underlaying theme, the Bible was much contrary to other cultures in the place and treatment of women, and places them as a team, but it knows not of two headed leadership. While the Bible candidly shows the accounts of many notable men and women, both good and bad, in no place were women placed in leadership position. All the Levites were male, as were all Christ's apostles, and only men are given ordination in the New Testament as well. There simply is no record or formal provision for female leadership over men, and the Holy Spirit's commands to Pastor Timothy (1 Tim. 2) are “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (11-14).

The Bible's commands regarding men over women are based not on cultural considerations but on creational distinctives, which are after the Divine order. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1Cor.11:3).

All of which (among other benefits) should constrain men to act like men. The only exceptions are when and if men will not do so (or are unable to), like as in Judges 4 where faith-full Deborah led when Barak would not. Though this may be preferred over no leadership in such a situation, if continued there will be aberrations, and the Holy Spirit's express commands are woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

As for Mary being denigrated as a prostitute, the Bible says no such thing, but records Mary as one of many followers of Jesus, “out of whom the He had cast a 7 devils (Mk. 16:9). The idea that Mary was a prostitute had nothing to do with Peter, but evidently came from a Pope (presuming to sit in his seat), “St. Gregory the Great” (540?-604).



DVC:: "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on Dec. 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days.”



Deuteronomy 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, .... 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. ... 26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house,

16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. 22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth.

While little in DVC is actually original, except for some new extremes of fabrication, the Biblical faith in the living and true God needs no help from it's counterfeiters, nor is it any of it negated by those who unScripturally seek to add to it using Gods name. This is both an issue of which came first, and what are distortions or imitations of what the Bible says.

As God has written the essence of His law on their hearts (Rm. 2), so religions also overall have a moral code that is similar in essence to that of the 10 commandments of the Bible (such as Code of Hummarabi), but fall short of God's law in scope, character and power. Also, many beliefs are copies, distortions or counterfeits of what God sets forth in Scripture. For instance, the practice of sacrifice was done by early peoples, but it was God who first instituted it and ordained it's beneficial use, while pagan religions distorted it (such as by sacrificing children). Examination of such things shows that neither Biblical Judaism or Biblical Christianity borrowed from paganism, and often the reverse is true.

Note what authors Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel have to say in their book, "The Da Vinci Hoax":

Unfortunately for Brown and the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," there is little or no evidence that most pagan mystery religions, such as the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris or the cult of Mithras, existed in the forms described in their books prior to the mid-first century. This is a significant point, for much of the existing evidence indicates that the third- and fourth-century beliefs and practices of certain pagan mystery religions are read back into the first-century beliefs of Christians – without support for such a presumptive act ...

Neither is does Mithraic scholarship know of no such titles for Mithra as “the Son of God” or the Light of the World,” nor even any birthdate, and Mithraic scholar Richard Gordon states,“there is no death of Mithras.” Therefore there could not be any burial or a resurrection! (

As for Christmas and other like accumulated practices from institutionalized Rome and which do indeed have a distinctly pagan source, while such adaptation may be considered “ideological victory” the fact is this is also a distortion of Biblical Christianity (though many observed it sincerely). The Christianizing (versus using them as points of reference) of distinctly pagan things as well as annual celebrations that have no Biblical precedent as such are contrary to precept and principle in Scripture (Dt. 7; Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-17).

Finally, this provides more evidence (not that anymore is needed!) that Constantine did not change the Bible, as neither a Dec. 25 birth date nor an annual commemoration of Jesus birth is found in Scripture, despite Mr. Brown's imagination that Constantine could change Scripture!



Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the sun.”



Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

While the name “Sunday” is of pagan origin, as are all the days of the week (and will not be so in the millennial reign of Christ), the Christian observance of the first day is not. Long before Constantine, both in the New Testament books and in the writings of early church leaders which came much before Constantine, Christians were meeting specifically on the 1st day of the week, and in fact it is the only specific day recorded that Christians met together a church:

Jesus arose and: appeared to the disciples on the first day of the wek, (Mark 16:9 John. 20:19), and Pentecost was on the first day of week when the Holy Spirit was poured out (and is considered by most to be the birth of the church).

And this is was on the first day that we read the disciples met on in Acts 20:7: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,..”

Likewise in 1Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

This is because the 7th day Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law, just as circumcision - which was also an “everlasting covenant” (Gn. 17:7-9) - was (Rm. 2:28, 29; Gal. 6:15), being part of the “days, months, times and years” (Gal. 4:10) that were “shadows” that prefigured Christ (Col. 2:14-17) and the spiritual rest which faith in him offers (Heb. 4;; Mt. 11:28). And having received the substance, even Christ and that which faith in Him brings, we no longer look to the shadows for life.

In addition is the ancient testimony of such writers as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (110 AD) who wrote: "If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher.”

Justin Martyr (150 AD) also stated that the first was the day when Christians gathered together to assemble and read the Scriptures and hold their assembly, as it was both the initial day of creation and the day of Jesus resurrection.

Writing from others which also antedate Constantine significantly, such as Cyprian, and Pliny the Younger, testify that Christians met on the first day. The apocryphal writings the Didache (70-75) instructs: "On the Lord's own day, gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks."

Though these latter references have not the authority of Scripture, along with it they show that Christian did indeed meet on the first day long before Constantine, and that Brown's (and other's) allegations are false.



DVC: “FACT: The Priory of Sion– a European secret society founded in 1099– is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.”


Jeremiah 51:18 They are vanity, the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

Artifical Intelligence: The Priory of Sion has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a modern day club, albiet with some high aspirations, created in 1956 by Frenchman Pierre Plantard in 1953, and the use of him by Brown indicates how much the character and veracity of his sources means. And that Brown himself, whose work based on what follows, is guilty of promoting scams similar to which himself spuriously alleges.

Pierre Plantard was an admirer of Adolf Hitler who had welcomed the German invasion of his homeland. He also claimed to being a legitimate claimant to the throne of France! He was convicted of fraud and embezzlement in the early 1950s and spent time in prison.

After founding and registering the Priory of Sion in 1956, Plantard was involved in tricks, schemes, and fabrications, and the planting of “proof” of his Priory of Sion through forged so-called “Dossiers Secrets” at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) in Paris (“created evidence” is Brown's specialty was well )! A man named Henry Lincoln read them and drew the attention of the BBC, which would produce a documentary in 1970. This led to a confederacy with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh who in turn founded the pseudohistorical “Secret Files of Henri Lobineau.” These were put together by Plantard and author and fellow con man Philippe de Cherisey (who forged the Dossiers Secrets”) under the pseudonym of "Philippe Toscan du Plantier." These became the basis for Baigent's and Leigh's work of deception, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which became the basis for the da Vicni Code!

To make a not - too - long story shorter, after more attempts at fabrication, Plantard was investigated by a French judge investigating the activities of a prominent man Plantard had placed as a grandmaster – apparently after the man had died – of his created Priory of Sion. A search of Plantard's house found what was as “a fantasy-land of harmless, forged documents, including some proclaiming Plantard the true king of France.” Plantard later testified that he had fabricated the entire hoax, but received no real punishment, and being finally brought back to some reality, lived in obscurity till his death in Feb. 2003. Philippe de Chérisey already made several confessions prior to Plantard's, confessing that the story told in "L'Or de Rennes," which was one of the books used to promote the mythical Priory of Sion, was a total forgery.

Despite such exposure of vast deception by conspiracy writers, the real “conspirators” carried on, with the help uncritical pseudo historians like Brown who seem to care less about truth than about the dollar.

After the publication of DVC, Baigent and Leigh sued Dan Brown in 2006, charging that Brown had stolen entire chapters from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" for his novel. A British court overruled their claim. So much for suppression of conspiratorialists.

On a BBC report about this mysterious group in 1996, tThe original president of the Priory of Sion, Andre Bonhomme made this statement: “The Priory of Sion doesn’t exist anymore. We were never involved in any activities of a political nature. It was four friends who came together to have fun. We called ourselves the Priory of Sion because there was a mountain by the same name close by. I haven’t seen Pierre Plantard in over 20 years and I don’t know what he’s up to but he always had a great imagination. I don’t know why people try to make such a big thing out of nothing.”

Read the whole story here:



"the Dossiers Secrets had been authen-ticated by many specialists and incon-trovertibly confirmed that the famous people listed were indeed former Priory leaders....


Isaiah 28:15 We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

Just a quote from one of the true researchers should suffice here:

It should be understood that this fictionalized treatment completely reverses the judgment of real-world researchers, who (with the exception of dedicated conspiracy theorists) have rather dismissed the Dossiers as obvious forgeries. Nor had any "historians" ever suspected that Newton, Botticelli etc. were members of any "Priory of Sion"; this claim first appeared in the Dossiers themselves.



DVC:“…The arts…Once you open your eyes to the Holy Grail you see her everywhere.”

Leonardo was a “prankster and genius” who is “widely believed to have hidden secret messages within much of his artwork.


2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

It is exceeding evident that Brown sees what he wants to see. I have little interest in dealing with his rabbit trail “grail” (an unBiblical legend of the cup Jesus drank from and is definitely not Mary), nor all of Mr. Brown's delusions regarding da Vinci, suffice to provide just one out of the chorus of actual scholars which sing in harmony in exposing Brown in essentially taking Da Vinci's name “in vain:”

Jack Wasserman retired art history professor at Temple University in Philadelphia and noted expert on the artist Leonardo da Vinci has this to say about Dan Brown novel story:

"Just about everything [Dan Brown] says about Leonardo da Vinci is wrong," says Wasserman, a retired art history professor at Temple University in Philadelphia and noted expert on the artist. "The writer, I think, gives the impression that he's also a historian - which he is not. I don't think he's so much interested in the truth as in drama and mystery." Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

J.V. Field, president of the Leonardo da Vinci Society and historian of art at the University of London, described the book’s theory about Leonardo’s putatively hidden messages “Everything I know about how pictures were used to communicate indicates that the theory is absurd.” Authentic history requires proof, said Field, but “The Da Vinci Code offers none that scholars would recognize.”



DVC: FACT: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.


Ephesians 4:11 (A.D. 64) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Even Brown's carefully worded statement – which does not say all “history” – is misleading and false, thereby setting the standard for the whole novel.

While his “descriptions” of documents are often showed to be exceeding false, Brown also substituted deception or unwarranted conclusions for accuracy in certain other “descriptions.” However, i have not focused on such as my main contention is this expose of Mr, Brown's da Vinci Code has been his multitudinous fallacious claims he had made in his undisguised attacks on the Biblical Christian faith, and which fallacies as so well documented that this should not even have to be written. The true Holy Spirit - inspired Scriptures warned, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived(2Tim. 3:13), and Mr. Brown is one of many men of "cunning cratfiness" who have sought to war against God and His Word by peddling vain deception, "a work of errors" (Jer. 10:15), but which unlike the Word of God, shall not endure. Yet as Jesus came to seek and save that which lost (Luke 19:10),  so this documentation is purposed to enlighten souls as to the spurious nature of the DVC, and point them to the light, even Christ, the Son of the living God, whom Mr. Brown will one day give an account to. It won't be pretty (unless he can and will repent).



Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false” (235).



2Peter 5:16 (A.D. 66) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Rather, “Almost everything the Da Vinci Code taught about Christ is false!” And exceedingly and blasphemously so! As the evidence conclusively shows, the parallel universe that Mr. Brown lives in does not exist except in his poor mind. After exposing lie after lie, all deceptively presented as fact, one might ask why would he do such? Only love for money or fame- and real hatred for Christ and truth, can explain it.

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.





Proverbs 15:7 The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.


See home page for more helps






Will you Be You Saved, Or Lost?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me (Jn. 14:6).

The Bible declares that “that no lie is of the truth, and that ” the truth shall make you free” (1Jn. 2:21; Jn. 8:32).

Believing a lie about Christ is believing the devil, and will send you to the Lake of Fire with him (Rev. 21: 27)!

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).

The Lord Jesus testified that it is the devil who was “a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (Jn. 8:44).

Thus the real author of the “da Vinci code” is not really Brown, but the devil himself (though Brown makes money off millions of souls, many of which read it as fact).

The ultimate choice you must make is between the devil and Christ, between darkness and light, between Heaven and Hell. Jesus declared, The thief [the devil] cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

To be saved, consider the following and may God grant you grace to repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ today.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation" (Heb. 2:3).

All have sinned, and broken God's good laws in heart and in deed, and nothing sinful will be allowed into God's Heavenly City; a real place of “fulness of joy” in the presence of Almighty God (Rm. 3:23; Rv. 21:27; Ps. 16:11; Rev. 21, 22).

If you die in your sins, you will not be allowed into Heaven, but will end up in a place just the opposite of Heaven, a place called the Lake of Fire, a real place of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. A place of real torment - forever (Mt. 25:41, 46). "Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3)

You have nothing to offer God by which you can gain Heaven nor escape Hell. Neither Allah, the Pope, Mary, Muhammmad, Buddha, etc. can save you. Your church membership, “good deeds,” praying to saints, etc. will not make you right with God.

Only the One sent by the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came down from Heaven and is able to redeem you on His expense and merit - on His precious blood and righteousness (not yours) - and then strengthen you to follow Him.

It is only this living and true Jesus that lived sinless, and then took your sins and paid for them with His own blood, and rose again to be your present Savior and future Judge! (Acts 10:34-43; 1Pet. 1:18-20; 2:24; 3:18).

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:30, 31)

You can be saved - forgiven, justified, and "born again" by the Holy Spirit of God, as Jesus said you must be (Jn. 3:3-7). If you want to be saved from your sins and live for God instead(and you cannot until you are born again), decide you want Him over sin, and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to save you, trusting Him alone to do so. Though you can never gain Heaven nor escape Hell on any off your own merits, or that of a church, you must decide you want Christ over sin, and choose light over darkness by receiving the Lord Jesus. Then you can be forgiven and declared righteous, and made “alive in Christ,”and thus live for God by the power of His Holy Spirit. Praise the Lord!

Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve” (Joshua 24:15).

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).

Jesus promised, "He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life" (Jn. 6:47).

Our prayer for you is you turn to HIM today, deciding you want JESUS rather than sin, light rather than darkness, and pray to Him to save you, a helpless sinner.

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (James 4:6).

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, GOD be merciful to me a sinner.”

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Lk. 18:13; Rm.10:9).

To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 4:7). We ask you to not do anything else until you have made you decision for God. Think on what the Lord has said, and what He has done for you a sinner, and “consider your ways,” and turn to Christ with your whole heart – while you still may!

Here is an example of a salvation-seeking prayer:

Dear LORD JESUS, please have mercy on me. I admit that I am a sinner, and I need to be saved. I know that I cannot save myself, but I believe that the FATHER sent You, and that You died for my sins and that You rose up alive. You are LORD.

So I am asking You LORD JESUS, to please save me. Please wash away all my sins, and come into my life, which I yield to You. And please fill me with your Holy Spirit so I can live for you.

Thank you LORD Jesus Christ, for saving those who trust in You. Amen.

Jesus said, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn. 6:37). That is good news!

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (Jn. 1:12).

You show this decision in obeying GOD by being baptized under water in identification with your LORD, and following HIM with a Bible – believing/preaching church (despite persecutions).

Be baptized under water in identification with your Lord, then follow Him with a Bible believing church: "Then they that gladly received His word were baptized: ...And they continued stedfastly ... (Acts 2:41, 42).

Praise ye the Lord!


O give thanks unto the Lord for He is good; for His mercy for ever” (Ps. 107:1)!



Implied By Design
Free Web Counters