How does this post contribute to the goal of finding grace - GraceFinder?

I hope that it helps clear away doubts or rabbit trails that may arise in someone's mind from reading or watching the DaVinci Code.

It is all taken from the site: thetruthaboutdavinci.com

While I am stating points of historical inaccuracy in the DaVinci Code, I am not saying that the posture of the Christian is to hammer people who have read the book or have seen the movie, or to use this material with vitriol and anger to others. The truth about Jesus will stand the test of time. Those who believe He is in charge of this universe need not fear those who try to try to recreate who He is. My hope is that anyone who reads this will use the material to "speak the truth in love" not as if they have all the answers but with a humilty that shines through.

Historical Inaccuracies in DaVinci Code

First a Quibble - Calling Leonardo DaVinci by his last name "from Vinci" is like calling Jesus from Nazareth.

Tarot Cards: Mr. Brown states, "Originally, Tarot had been devised as a secret means to pass along ideologies banned by the Church. Now, Tarot's mystical qualities were passed on by modern fortune-tellers" (p. 92). The historical fact is that Tarot cards were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century. They did not acquire occult associations until the late 18th century. The cards' suites carry no Grail symbolism whatever.

Noah an albino: the book describes Noah this way: "Noah of the Ark. An albino. Like you, he had skin white like an angel" (p. 167). Nowhere does the Bible describe Noah as an albino. Apparently Mr. Brown took his idea from the non-canonical 1 Enoch 106:2

Joseph of Arimathea: Leigh Teabing, the renowned historian, describes Joseph of Arimathea as "Jesus' trusted uncle" (p. 255). But nothing in the Bible or early historical tradition suggests this connection.

Gospels vs. Gnostic gospels: For instance, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ tells of a man who is changed into a mule by a bewitching spell but converted back to manhood when the infant Christ is put on his back for a ride (7:5-27). In the same book, the boy Jesus causes clay birds and animals to come to life (ch. 15), stretches a throne his father had made too small (ch. 16), and takes the lives of boys who oppose him (19.19-24). It was easy to dismiss such fiction.
... less reputable books began to appear as well. Among them was the Protoevangelion, purporting to supply details of the birth of Christ; two books on the infancy of Christ, one claiming to be written by Thomas; and the Gospel of Nicodemus, sometimes called the Acts of Pontius Pilate. However, by the mid-second century only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted universally by the church. The other "gospels" simply did not meet the four criteria for acceptance set out above. (see website for full account of the Biblical canon)

Biblical Canon Process: Note that this process was completed two centuries before Constantine. For example, in AD 115 Ignatius referred to the four gospels of our New Testament as "the gospel"; in AD 170, Tatian made a "harmony of the gospels" using only these four; around AD 180, Irenaeus referred to the four gospels as firmly established in the church.

The Muratorian Canon was established around AD 200, representing the usage of the church at Rome at that time. The list omitted James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews (all due to authorship questions), though these were soon included in later canons. It excluded all gospels but the four in our Bible today. And it did so more than a century before Constantine.

The New Testament list we use today was set forth by Athanasius in A.D. 367. His list was approved by church councils meeting at Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397. Again, these decisions did not create the New Testament. They simply recognized what the Church had viewed as Scripture for generations. And Constantine had nothing to do with these decisions. I checked several histories on the Council of Nicaea, where Teabing says the emperor created the Bible, and could find no connection whatever.

F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible canon. His opinion should be considered: "One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."

This is just a flavour of the site above that I want to "claim" for GraceFinder. The tone of the site is friendly and truthful. They paint such a marvelous picture of Jesus from the historical documents that have stood the test of time and the scrutiny of human beings.
BC for GF