Book Review: The Da Vinci Deception by Erwin Lutzer

Date May 15, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

People throughout recent history have questioned who Jesus
really was. Erwin Lutzer believes The Da Vinci Code offers a Jesus that
is contrary to the real Jesus. In The Da Vinci Deception, Lutzer seeks to
set the record straight, showing how much fiction is really in the novel.

Before analyzing the novel, Lutzer provides a summary of the
narrative. The following six chapters address the Council of Nicea, the Gnostic
Bible, Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene, the New Testament canon, the
“Historical Jesus” debate, and the accusation that Christianity borrowed from
pagan mythology. He concludes with a presentation of the Gospel based on the
real Jesus and what He did. At the end of the book is a short list of resources
and some discussion questions for each chapter.

Erwin Lutzer’s book, The Da Vinci Deception,
covers the most of the major problems with Dan Brown’s novel, including
Gnosticism. It is very accessible, but also very simplistic. This is a good
book for those who just want the basics, but readers should look elsewhere for
a more in-depth critique of The Da Vinci Code.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments No Comments »

Book Review: The Da Vinci Deception Experience by Erwin Lutzer

Date May 14, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

The Da Vinci Deception Experience is a media
curriculum kit that consists of three items: the book The Da Vinci Deception
by Erwin Lutzer, a leader’s guide, and a DVD-ROM. Since the book is primarily
marketed independent of this curriculum, I will be reviewing it separately.

The DVD curriculum follows the material of The Da Vinci
Deception book. Thus, it is primarily divided into the seven chapters of
the book, each forming a session on the DVD. The first session is a 17-minute
introduction to the material. The following six sessions are six minutes each
addressing the Council of Nicea, the Gnostic Bible, Jesus’ relationship with
Mary Magdalene, the New Testament canon, the “Historical Jesus” debate, and the
accusation that Christianity borrowed from pagan mythology. The airtime in these
sessions is given almost completely to Erwin Lutzer who addresses the concerns
in each of these areas.

The leader’s guide provides a thorough schedule for working
through the material. For each season, it includes suggested group questions,
games, handouts, chapter summaries from the book, teaching material, homework
assignments, and lists of additional resources.

On one hand, the material covered is very simplistic. It may
work for people not very familiar with the academic discussions, but will
probably not do for dealing with some of the more thoughtful critics. Though
the DVD is very accessible, it’s also tedious. On the other hand, the leader’s
guide is exceptional. I don’t think there’s anything more a leader could ask
for in a curriculum.

The Da Vinci Deception Experience will be useful for those church or small group
leaders who want to educate their people will the very basics of responding to
Dan Brown’s novel. Though the leader’s material isn’t as good, I recommend Lee
Strobel’s curriculum (Discussing the Da Vinci Code) as a richer
educational experience.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments No Comments »

Book Review: The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code

Date May 14, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Most of the responses to The Da Vinci Code by Dan
Brown deal strictly with facts (or the lack thereof). But what about the big
picture? What does the novel communicate and how has it impacted our culture?
As Christians, how ought we to respond? The Gospel According to the Da Vinci
Code by Kenneth Boa and John Alan Turner seeks to answer these questions.

While the novel is actually fiction, our culture is such
that many people treat it as non-fiction. “What Dan Brown says he believes is
fundamentally incompatible with historic, orthodox Christianity. However, in a
pluralistic society such as ours, millions of people seem to think you can pick
and choose your beliefs like toppings on your pizza.” (2)

Through their introduction and 12 chapters, Boa and Turner
analyze the problems The Da Vinci Code presents in our current culture
and how Christians should respond. “So what is the gospel according to Dan
Brown? Simply put, ‘Everything you’ve ever heard about Jesus is wrong.’” (23)
They discuss postmodernism, truth, and history, while pointing out Brown’s
problems and errors.

The authors ask, “What Would Jesus Do With Dan Brown?” (90)
They essentially boil down the proper Christian response to “We’ve got to stop
being foolish. We’ve got to stop being tacky. And we’ve got to stop being
mean.” (118) Though they deal a few of the errors in Brown’s novel, they point
to Darrell Bock’s Breaking the Da Vinci Code for a more thorough
critique.

There are a number of great points throughout the book, such
as, “Saying that Dan Brown’s book is about Christianity is like saying Finding
Nemo is about marine biology. We have just as much evidence to suggest
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene as we have that clown fish talk.” (25) The
authors also get points for using Jack Bauer as an illustration (102-103).

Unfortunately, these good points are counterbalanced by poor
ones. In at least one case they esteem a cheesy slogan as good methodology:
“people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.” (106)
The book doesn’t appear to have a logical structure and often switches focus
without reason. The authors make some brief points about Gnosticism and “the
sacred feminine,” but no thorough analysis of those topics is offered.

The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code has periodic good points to offer, particularly in
regards to the status of our culture. In that sense, it succeeds in dealing
with the big picture. However, readers would be better off reading a book
responding to the historical claims and pagan worldview of The Da Vinci Code.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments No Comments »

Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language

Date May 12, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

I mentioned in my last post that the beliefs described in the McLaren interview led to Hansen’s (the interviewer’s) loneliness for God, and I’d like to explain why I think this is the case.

 

For those who fully embrace the idea that “the God who really exists must be better than the concepts of God that I have, and so I have to continually call on the God who is greater than my best concept of God,” and that “only wonder understands; concepts create idols,” God becomes more of an abstract idea than a person.  Why?  Because personal knowledge of Him and His character (who He is and who He is not) is always beyond our grasp.  It’s difficult to love, trust, and experience a being you don’t know.

 

Toward the end of the interview, Hansen expresses the despair he’s been struggling with.  How can anyone come close to God if words can’t help us truly know Him?

 

Hansen:  What, okay, well, if you need to go beyond words then, what kind of experiences have you had, Brian, that have given you the hope to continue on?  I mean it’s got to be experiences or practices or living social justice out. What is it that has helped you and can help us to go beyond the words and to have that?

 

This question is heartbreaking to me.  Hansen thought the only way he could satisfy his intellectual questions about Christianity was to take on the postmodern views of truth and language that allowed him to “go beyond” the words of the Bible to find God (as I described here and here).  But by doing so, he lost any hope of relating in a meaningful way to a true, personal God who exists in reality.  His only connection with God (he thinks) must therefore consist of an indefinable experience he must achieve through some other means (mystical practices, good deeds, etc.).

 

Since Hansen hasn’t achieved this kind of experience, he says, “On an emotional level though, I am just really struggling trusting even God exists at all, and I can’t mental talk myself into that.”

 

If you have intellectual questions about Christianity, I implore you to not cover them up by changing your view of knowledge, language, truth, and spiritual reality, or by postulating secret meanings “greater than” the actual text of the Bible.  If you don’t believe the Christianity of the Bible is really, actually true, deal with your questions.  It is possible to be intellectually satisfied by a Christianity with a God who can be known and a Bible that can be trusted.  This will take some time on your part to research, but the result is worth it.

 

God never intended for us to be lost in a fog of ideas about Him; He wants us to have the joy of knowing Him.  (This is not to say we’ll know Him perfectly in this life, nor that there isn’t an indefinable, experiential aspect to our knowledge of God.  I claim only that we can know what He has revealed to us through His words and that this knowledge is crucial for true relationship.)  As John 17:3 says, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

 

And how can we know Him?  Not from contentless, conceptless experiences.  In John 4:22-23, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.”

 

The Jews who worshiped God knew Him because they had His words about Himself.  The Samaritans who did the same did not know God because they didn’t accept His words.  Without true words about God, there is no true worship.  And without true worship and communion with God, we remain in our loneliness.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 22 Comments »

Flew's Integrity in the Search for Truth

Date May 12, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

One year ago today, Garrett posted some excerpts from an interview Gary Habermas did with former atheist Antony Flew. This evening, to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the A-Team post, Biola University will be awarding Dr. Flew with The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth for 2006. Timbo and I are here to cover the festivities live.

 

We arrived 50 minutes before the ceremony (7:10 pm) to assure we got good seats. Being the only attendees here for some 15 minutes, we had no trouble finding a seat by a plug. We’re in the third row back, and we’ll be sitting behind such personalities as Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzales, and other well-known scientists/philosophers /theologians.

 

Since there’s not much going on at the moment here’s some info from Biola on the award:

 

The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth was given to Flew for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression. Flew drew scorn from skeptics following his shift in views. When informed that he was this year’s award winner, he remarked, “In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I’ve received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award.”

Biola University established the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth in 2004 to honor legal scholar and Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, who was the award’s first recipient. The award recognizes Johnson’s pivotal role in advancing our understanding of design in the universe by opening up informed dissent to Darwinian and materialistic theories of evolution. Flew is the second recipient of this award, which will be presented on May 11 at Biola University through the university’s Masters of Arts in Science and Religion (MASR) program.


7:40 pm: Timbo finished his Dr. Pepper.

Almost 8:00: About 100 people are here. They are mostly students, though we've spotted a few profs.

8:05pm: Philip E. Johnson has entered, whose name is on the award. Other notables are Michael Behe, John Mark Reynolds, Charles Thraxton, Craig Hazen, Doug Geivett, and John Bloom.

8:07pm The guest of honor, Dr. Antony Flew has entered the building.

8:10pm: The ceremony has begun. Dr. John Bloom is making opening remarks. On stage seated from left to right is Philip E. Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Gary Deddo, Bloom's seat, Gary Miller, and Dr. Flew.

8:12pm: Stephen Meyer is interviewing Dr. Johnson in “Oprah style” about how he got into the Naturalism debate.

8:15pm: Dr. Johnson is discussing the importance of definitions in legal briefs and the application of that in science. How Naturalists define science determines their research results.

8:20pm: Dr. Johnson- The laws of logic apply to every field, including law and science.

8:25pm: Dr. Johnson- Naturalists don't follow the evidence where it leads. Dr. Flew did, which is why we are awarding him tonight.

8:27pm: Dr. Johnson- Who more appropriate to comment on dishonest methodology than a professor of law!

8:33pm: Gary Deddo, Dr. Johnson’s IVP editor, is talking about the publications and the new feschrift in honor of Dr. Johnson.

8:35pm: Gary Miller, provost of Biola University, is giving the award.

8:37pm: Miller notes the problem of questioning status quo, it helps to have tenure. He is giving a bio of Flew, noting his work promoting atheism.

8:39pm: The audience recognized Flew with standing applause. Dr. Bloom is reading a statement by Gary Habermas since he could not attend this evening.

8:42pm: Dr. Habermas- Antony Flew showed courage by announcing his change of mind.

8:45pm: Dr. Flew is offering remarks on academic freedom on what influenced his conversion to deism. Quoting Plato- “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” He has become like Jefferson, being a deist. His god is not interested in or concerned about human behavior.

8:50pm: Dr. Flew- The truly interesting question is how life began. He depends on David Berlinski's article on the origins of life. It is impossible to produce a chemical account of how Darwinian evolution began.

8:55pm: Dr .Stephen Meyer is recounting his encounters with Dr. Flew.

9:01pm- The ceremony is over- time for the punch and cookie reception!

(from my lame camera phone, left to right: Stephen Meyer, Antony Flew, and Philip Johnson)

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Science Comments 4 Comments »

Connecting Emergent Ideas (2 of 2)

Date May 11, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

Yesterday, I used an interview with Brian McLaren (listen here and here or read here) to trace Emergent ideas from a view of language and truth to a view of sin.  Now I'll continue to the cross and Jesus Himself:

 

5.  If “injustice between human beings” truly is “God's real concern from beginning to end” about sin, then the cross, in dealing with sin, is not about fulfilling justice but about addressing God's central concern for human relationships.  If there is no need for God to reconcile us to Himself, then the cross is solely about Jesus demonstrating loving self-sacrifice to show God's love for us and to teach us how to live in relation to others. 

 

6.  If this is the meaning of the cross, then there are implications touching on the way we view Jesus Himself.  How is He unique?  Should we cease to be divisive (i.e., unloving) by claiming He's unique?  The interviewer (Leif Hansen), having believed all I've outlined above, expresses his confusion over this:

 

Hansen: Now, I agree with you and I am starting to come to an understanding of the cross….[W]eren't there people before Jesus and since Jesus, some inspired by Him, some Christian, some martyrs.  And wasn't God, in a sense, demonstrating self-sacrificial love since the beginning of time–since God created beings other than Himself? So, I guess the reason I ask that question is two-fold. One, it has to do with this question of world religions and Christian exclusivism. Some might say, well yes, we also believe that at the heart and center of God and of reality is self-sacrificial love. But we don’t think that Jesus was the only one to teach about that and to demonstrate that in His life. Now…someone who believes in the literal ontological divinity of Christ would have an argument and say, well yes, but this was, this was more central because it was actually God, literally, demonstrating that kind of love–

 

[Actually, we would say that Jesus' death accomplished something and that's why it's central, but without a positive concept of justice and holiness, nothing unique was accomplished by Jesus, and His centrality doesn't quite make sense.]

 

Hansen:  However, someone–a more liberal Christian–who might think that Jesus was perfectly imaging God's love, or totally inspired by God's love but not literally God (to be honest, that’s the direction I am leaning more myself these days), we would have a hard time saying what makes Jesus' life and example and living love to the death more unique than any other.

 

McLaren:  Right…these are important subjects. I understand you're saying: look, we could look at Gandhi's life as an example of self-sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior's life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn't it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example? Because by doing that we create–we perpetuate–this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what you're saying?  [Please note that McLaren is clarifying Hansen's question and is not stating this as his own opinion here.]

 

Hansen:  Bingo!  Yeah, that's really right on.

 

In the interest of inclusivistic love (of central importance for those who accept all of the above), and in light of the fact that the Bible is “our story”–the way our community uses language about God, but not necessarily literally definitive of who God is, it makes sense to drop the idea of the uniqueness of Jesus (and His divinity) in order to truly love people.

 

In no way am I writing this to condemn the host of the podcast.  The questions, struggles, and loneliness for God he expresses in this interview logically proceed from his starting point (see more on the loneliness tomorrow).  The starting point is his philosophical view of language and truth.  I emphasize this for those who think the philosophical issue is not important–that one can evaluate the ideas proceeding from this view on their own.  The ideas on both sides are part of larger systems whose conclusions follow from their views of truth and language.  We each have to determine which view is correct, or we may proceed to build a house on sand that will ultimately fail. 

 

McLaren responds to Leif's concern about using exclusive language about Jesus, acknowledging that this question is connected to his (McLaren's) entire developing system of thought:

 

McLaren:  See, I think I can feel your pain, Leif. And part of what I feel is this: there is a whole package. And the package [you're objecting to] ultimately is this hell package. And here's what I would say: I think the deeper problem here is a problem of the larger narrative. And I think there's another way of seeing the narrative where a lot of these problems disappear….I've been struggling with this for, you know, fifteen years. I've really been struggling with this stuff. And so I feel like, piece by piece you get a different vision. But you can't rush it. And the other narrative is so deeply ingrained.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology Comments 9 Comments »

Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)

Date May 10, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

I finally had a chance to listen to Bleeding Purple’s podcast of a two-part interview with Brian McLaren, and I found it extremely helpful for grasping a more complete picture of Emergent Christianity (how the ideas fit together as whole, their roots, and their implications). As McLaren points out in the interview, the views he shares with us aren’t just individual, unrelated thoughts. They’re part of a “whole package”–a “different vision” of Christianity that he’s gathering together “piece by piece.”

This interview allowed me to connect some dots between certain Emergent ideas–ideas that begin with a different view of truth and end with a different view of Jesus. Whether you agree or disagree with McLaren’s philosophical foundation and the ideas that logically follow, it’s important to clarify the “whole package” because acceptance of certain key parts will connect you to other key parts you may not have realized were related.

I’ll clarify using quotes from the interview, and I encourage you all to listen to the interview itself in context (Part One, Part Two), or read a (mostly accurate) transcript here.

1. Our reality is constructed by our society through the ways we have chosen to use words. Therefore, we have no real intellectual “knowledge” of God (His characteristics, who He is, etc.)–we have only the way we have chosen to talk about Him. Since our concepts are only a result of our language, we should not trust our intellectual ideas about God.

McLaren: [T]he God who really exists has to always be greater than the language we use in speaking about God. [This understanding] gives us permission to doubt the way we speak about God as an act of faith in saying that the real God would have to be better than the way we speak about God….Only wonder understands; concepts create idols. And for someone like yourself and like me and so many of us who have grown up in evangelical contexts, where we argue about God in ways that would make you think that we have great confidence in our words to capture God, so we’re ready to pillory somebody who doesn’t use words just the same way we do.

2. If our language talks about God but can’t express literal truth about God, then the Bible does not contain such truth, and conforming our ideas to those expressed in the words of the Bible is not the best way for everyone to find God.

3.If we do not accept the full Bible as expressing real truth about God, then we will not see the full picture of not only his mercy and grace (which everyone leaps to embrace), but also his holiness and justice (which humans have resisted throughout time).

4. If we do not have a concept of God’s holiness and the goodness and rightness of justice, then we must conclude that the main problem God has with sin is not that it requires justice and separates us from Himself, but that it destroys relationships between people and makes them unhappy.

McLaren: I think the problem is God wants His children to get along with each other. He wants them to be good people because He’s good. And His vision for creation is that they’ll love each other and be good to each other and enjoy each other and have a lot of fun together. So sin is incredibly serious. But I think we’ve shifted why it’s so important….The problem is–why does sin matter to God?…We have a vision that the real problem is God wants to kill us all. And we’ve got to somehow solve that problem. And what that does, Leif, to me that is so significant, is that it then minimizes the concern about injustice between human beings. That becomes a peripheral concern. But what if that’s God’s real concern from beginning to end, see?

This view of sin directly affects one’s view of the cross, and ultimately, of Jesus. I’ll continue to clarify the progression of these ideas tomorrow.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General), Theology Comments 63 Comments »

Book Review: Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code by Bart Ehrman

Date May 10, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

It’s rather obvious what Christians think of The Da Vinci
Code by Dan Brown, particularly in light of the mass of books coming out
against it. However, what does a well-established, self-proclaimed agnostic
think of it? New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman voices his appraisal in Truth
and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code.

The books eight chapters are divided into two parts:
Constantine and the New Testament, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Dr. Ehrman
makes it clear in the Introduction that while he found the novel to be “a
terrific page-turner” (xix), he found many historical inaccuracies that needed
to be dealt with.

In part one, Dr. Ehrman expounds on the role of Constantine
in early Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library, the
non-canonical gospels, and the formation of the New Testament Canon. Part two
investigates our sources for the historical Jesus and what they say about him,
his relationship with Mary Magdalene, and the view of women in early
Christianity.

Dr. Ehrman sums it up quite nicely: “The problem is that
people who read a book like this have no way of separating the historical fact
from the literary fiction… [The author’s] a novelist, not a scholar of history.”
(189) I was surprised to find myself agreeing with the author throughout the
book, and even enjoyed some of his quips. In speaking of the Gnostic gospels he
notes, “the Jesus portrayed here is not merely human; he is a superhuman
wunderkind.” (52)

There were however significant points where I disagreed,
such as: “In fact, we don’t have any document written by a single eyewitness to
the life of Jesus.” (103). Even if Dr. Ehrman believes the evidence for Matthew
and John having written their respective Gospels is weak, there’s still a
reasonable chance they actually did write them. On pages 116 to 117, he rants a
lengthy list of differences between the Gospels. Some that he offers do
(initially) appear to be serious challenges to agreement between the Gospels,
but some are also very easily resolved.

From a literary perspective, Bart Ehrman did a good
job of bringing academic discussions to a layman level. Even having studied the
Dead Sea Scrolls in college, I found his discussion of them and the Nag Hammadi
Library intriguing. In some cases, I think, he waters things down a bit too
much in that he becomes very repetitive with his points- as if a non-academic
reader could not keep up with his line of reasoning. Overall, Truth and
Fiction in the Da Vinci Code is a great read for those looking to find out
what a non-Christian thinks of Dan Brown’s novel. Though it has its weaknesses,
it stands together well with other critical works that show the problems with The
Da Vinci Code.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments 2 Comments »

Book Review: De-Coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn

Date May 9, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

De-Coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn is the best selling
Catholic response to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Welborn explains
that “much of the foundation for The Da Vinci Code’s plot might seem new
and intricately creative, but the harsh truth is that most of it isn’t new at
all.” (15) In her book she aims to show that not only are the novel’s claims
unoriginal, but also that many are blatantly false.

Each of the ten chapters deal with a specific set of claims ranging
from the historic “secrets” of the church, to Jesus’ relationship with Mary, to
Leonardo da Vinci himself. The chapters are short and to the point, being about
eight to ten pages each. Throughout the book are info boxes that point out
interesting facts or disprove Brown’s claims. At the end of each chapter are
recommended books for further reading as well as review and discussion
questions.

Amy Welborn leaves no stone unturned. I really can’t think
of anything she doesn’t address in this book. Everything is addressed at a very
popular level, and her writing style may at times be considered spunky. Due to
the popular level style, some of the arguments come across as lacking
sophistication, which may be good or bad depending on the reader. The book would
be of further use if it had indexes to accompany the study questions and
recommended reading.

Even though De-Coding Da Vinci is written from
a Catholic perspective, it’s catholic to the degree that Protestants will find
nothing worth disagreeing about in the book. Amy Welborn does an admirable job
of addressing a very diverse range of issues in a manner that’s accessible to
everyone.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments No Comments »

Book Review: Exploring the Da Vinci Code

Date May 8, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Similar to Lee Strobel’s “Case for…” books, Exploring
the Da Vinci Code takes an investigative approach interviewing Christian
scholars about controversial issues. The book is an adapted form of the
interviews Strobel conducted for the DVD of his Discussing the Da Vinci Code
Curriculum Kit. It is essentially the same material with added commentary
throughout.

Authors Lee Strobel and Gary Poole boiled the issues down to
four categories and interviewed a scholar to deal with each of them. In chapter
one, the topic of historical analysis is discussed with historian Paul Maier.
The second chapter poses the question “Can we trust the four Gospels?” to New
Testament scholar Scot McKnight. Strobel interviews Kathy McReynolds in chapter
three about the role of women in Christianity and Jesus’ relationship with Mary
Magdalene. The final chapter deals with the divinity of Jesus with scholar Mark
Strauss.

Just like the discussion guide for the curriculum, the book
has questions for reflection interspersed throughout its pages. In the back of
the book, again just like the guide, are several appendices that recommend
further resources, state the facts, and give arguments for the true identity of
Jesus that is affirmed by historic Christianity.

Strobel is known for his investigative journalist
approach, which he applied well in these interviews. He asks good questions
that provoke good responses form the reputable scholars. Those who enjoyed his
“Case for…” books will also enjoy this light read. Though it somewhat
deals with “the sacred feminine,” it does not really deal with the underlying
pagan worldview of Dan Brown’s novel. For the most part though, Exploring
the Da Vinci Code is a useful little book that shows many of the problems
with The Da Vinci Code.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, The Da Vinci Code Comments 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »