>LINKS AND RESOURCES
(READ FAQ PAGE FIRST BEFORE SENDING AN EMAIL)
CURSES AND HEXES
» "HELP! I'M CURSED!" How to break hexes, curses, generational curses, jinxes, spells, The Evil Eye, Ojo Malo, bans, charms, and everything else!
» PSYCHIC SCAMS
» WICCA MAIN PORTAL (SEVERAL ARTICLES DEBUNKING THE ORIGINS OF WICCA!)
» WEBSTER'S ESSAY ON WITCHCRAFT (1890)
» NEOPAGAN HOLI-DAZE
» PAGAN HUMAN SACRIFICES???
» ESSAY: NEW ORLEANS SUPERSTITIONS (1896)
» SATANISM DEBUNKED ARTICLES
» FAMOUS OCCULTISTS, FROM MERLIN TO CROWLEY! THEY'RE ALL HERE!
» THE REAL NECRONOMICON
» CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES
» THE ILLUMINATI
» BOHEMIAN GROVE
» THE PALLADIUM RITE OF ALBERT PIKE
» MORMONS AND MASONS
» ENOCHIAN MAGIC
» ALEISTER CROWLEY
» WHO IS THE ANTI-CHRIST?
» THE GOLDEN DAWN
» CABALA DEBUNKED
» THE OCCULT WORLD OF JOSEPH SMITH JR
» HAUNTED UNITARIAN CHURCHES
» BLOODY BUCKET BRIDGE
» TRUE OCCULT CRIME
» OCCULT CRIME GUIDE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT (1989)
» WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY?
» THE REAL X-FILES: GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY (HUGE ARCHIVE)
» WHO WAS L. RON HUBBARD?
» SCIENTOLOGY'S OCCULT CONNECTION
» E-METER, OCA TESTS, AND QUACK SCIENCE
» 75 MILLION YEARS OF SPACEMEN
» NAZIS WAR CRIMINALS AND ISLAM
» WAS HITLER AN OCCULTIST?
» PAGAN RUNES IN NAZI GERMANY
» HOLOCAUST DENIERS DEBUNKED
» KHAZAR MYTH DEBUNKED
THE DAVINCI CODE DECODED, DEBUNKED AND
I am not
a Roman Catholic, nor
do I agree with their Theology (in fact I'm agnostic, so I don't agree
with any Theology), but nonetheless I have to clear up the
misconceptions Dan "Cliff Claven" Brown puts forth. When something is a
lie, it needs to be corrected. The bad guys of Brown's penny dreadful
are a Roman Catholic organization called The Opus Dei, which is Latin
for "the work of God". It is far from the sinister organization it is
portrayed in Brown’s book, and the claims made against fly in the face
We all have met at sometime in our lives a "know it all". Ironically, know it alls usually know little if anything. Dan Brown caused quite a stir with his pretentious book, The DaVinci Code. Most Non-Christian types can't understand why Christians get their underoos in a bunch (and rightly so) over this book soon to be a film. The reason is the book, although fiction is presented in such a way as though to be fact. Dan Brown, when asked on NBC's Today show if he would have changed anything if he were writing an historic novel said "No", and that that the book was "historically accurate". But is it really? Did Brown really do "meticulous research" as he claims, or did he just a rehash old malarkey already disproved? Here's a quick look of a few things Brown got wrong(by no means a complete list):
According to the characters in Brown’s book (p. 233), the Bible “was
collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” Incredible
as it seems, even long-term Christians are tripping over this false
statement. While the final canon of the New Testament had yet to be
closed by the early church, when the Council of Nicaea was convened in
325 A.D with Constantine’s support and encouragement, those books which
we now include in the New Testament had already passed rigid scrutiny
before being identified as the inspired word of God long before
Constantine’s rule. Three criteria were applied to potential books:
Second, it’s quite a stretch of the imagination to create "Amon" and "Isis" from "Mona Lisa". If you scramble the words around, you get "Amon" from "Mona" but "Amon" is also spelled "Amen" some times too. "Isis" from "Lisa" would mean you have to discard the "L" and the "a". Then you’d have to add another "I" and "s" created out of thin air! This kind of logic reminds of stories back in the 1970's that if you connect all the stars on the Proctor and Gamble products it makes "666" (it doesn't, by the way). It takes a real stretch of the imagination to buy it.
*Brown claims (p. 244) that the marriage of
Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a matter of historical record.
Whose record? Even ABC’s television special discovered no serious
scholars who accept the idea that Jesus was married, and none said that
there was any historical record to support such a claim. Those on the
fringe who do believe it rely on one
obscure reference in Scripture to
a time when Jesus tells Mary to “stop clinging to Me.”
If Mary is pictured at the table and not John, then where is John,
Christ most beloved disciple? Brown leaps to the conclusion that since
no chalice is present, this means Mary Magdalene is really the
"chalice". Brown is ignoring the scene the image is trying to portray.
The scene dipicts the moment Christ announced someone would betray him,
after the meal. We see the apostle’s discussing whom among the it is,
just as in the Gospel. Leonardo is showing the apostles leaning away
from Jesus talking amongst themselves. If you look at the picture, they
don’t form an "M" for Mary Magdalene as Brown insists. Again, it’s a
real stretch of the imagination to try and picture an "M". The way the
apostles lean away from Christ makes him appear by himself, which
represents how the Apostles abandoned him at the cross. This is the
message Leonardo was really trying to transmit.