So Dark the Con of Man
…and so-so the movie of Dan, especially the anagram portions, wouldn’t you agree? They were all solved in a matter of seconds! It reminded me of when my wife looks at those MagicEye 3D puzzles and says, “Oh yeah, do you see the sailboat?” and I’m still trying to figure out what color the picture is supposed to be.
It turns out Dan Brown was onto something when he used anagrams as clues in The Da Vinci Code. According to Wikipedia,
Jews are often credited with the invention of anagrams, probably because later Hebrew writers, particularly Kabbalists, were fond of it, asserting that “secret mysteries are woven in the numbers of letters.” Anagrams were known to the Greeks and also to the Romans, although the known Latin examples of words of more than one syllable are nearly all imperfect. The Romans called the art of finding anagrams the “ars magna” (great art). Interestingly, “ars magna” is a perfect anagram of the word “anagrams.”
Furthermore,
Indeed, the right to lampoon royalty and politicians via anagram was enshrined in English law in 1215, when King John, albeit under duress, signed the Magna Carta (Magna Carta = Anagram Act) at Runnymede, in Surrey?W. Camden (Remains, 7th ed., 1674) defines “Anagrammatisme” as “a dissolution of a name truly written into his letters, as his elements, and a new connection of it by artificial transposition, without addition, subtraction or change of any letter, into different words, making some perfect sense applyable (i.e., applicable) to the person named.”
Some interesting anagrams for you to ponder from Anagram Genius, Da Vinci Code anagrams:
“The Da Vinci Code” -> “The candid voice.” (by Frank LaRue using Anagram Genius) (2003)
“The Da Vinci Code” -> “Convicted. Die! Ha!” (by Stanley Accrington by hand) (2006) (pending approval)
“The Da Vinci Code” -> “Addictive con, eh?” (by Mick Tully using Anagram Genius) (2006) (pending approval)
“The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci” -> “Reputable and splotched visionary.” (by Barzin Barry Sabahat using Anagram Genius) (2005)
“Mona Lisa” -> “Mail a son…” (by Shayon using Anagram Genius) (2005) (pending approval)
Some other anagrams for you to ponder:
“Jesus Christ” -> “Chess Jurist.” (by Anantha by hand) (2005) (pending approval)
“Christian” -> “Rich at sin.” (by Joe Fathallah by hand) (2002)
“Christian” -> “Rich saint.” (by unknown by hand)
Anagrams are interesting because they bring new words to the original word, and sometimes they connect. The word “Christian” has various meanings in our culture. How has this word influenced you… what do you think a Christian is?
23 Responses to “So Dark the Con of Man”
Leave a Reply
Start a Conversation
Media
Soul Cravings: Seeking
Is it possible that God has been actively seeking you, possibly even for a lifetime?
>Watch
Do you crave destiny? (Part 2)
Destiny? Is this really me? Was I really born for great things?
>Watch
How about Dan Brown = Won Brand = drawn nob = worn band
Using “Brendan’s On-Line Anagram Generator“:
Michael Baigent (author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail)
BETHEL MAGICIAN
IMAGINATE BELCH
(the 2nd describes his aforementioned book :D)
Interestingly, there are no anagrams found for the phrase “THE TRUTH” :)
I think a Christian is more rich at sin than a rich saint. That’s where grace comes in right? Knowing you’re rich in sin and that you need a redeemer. Rich saints seem annoying if you ask me. haha.. for some reason I think “self-righteous” when I see that.
this book is really well vwritten to say f*** o** frm stupid relegionity
Vikas I am sure from the above entry that you wanted a reaction so here goes…..
FROM FIT OFFICER-STUPID UGLY INK
(WITH THE HELP OF http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram)
dont critisise religeon it has rule dour lives so go and f*** yourself vikas
Whoa, both John A and Vikas please refrain from swearing. We are all civilized beings here who want a healthy debate with out using swear words.
Why does religion raise up such passion in us. I am not sure why you are so intense john a do you really believe it? If so why would you swear at an unbeliever? God has love in his heart for all men and in fact forgave the very ones that crucified him.
The davinci code insulted the catholic church with all that mary madgalene rubbish
So what did Jesus say to do with that?
Listen mostly you people just blind to see the truth of the whole da vinci code. why is that it cant be possible taht jesus was married and still be divine. What is so wrong of A WOMAN leading the church. In the Gospel of Phillip which was reject by Constantine the great showing the Mary Magdalene “was jesus compaion in which in those days compain ment spouse.The companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.”.They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them,”Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”
do your research a little more n find the turth.
R., your blind faith in The Da Vinci Code is on one hand inspiring, but on the other hand quite misplaced, because there is no evidence to back up your claim.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Jesus being married; the problem is that there is no reliable evidence at all that he was. The only copy of the Gospel of Philip that we have actually reads “And the Companion of the [...] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [...] Mariam more than [...] Disciples, [...] kissed her often on her [...]. The other [...] saw his love for Mariam, they say to him: Why do thou love [...] more than all of us?”. The text exists only in a single copy which is dated from 180AD-250AD, and the [...] indicates missing portions that were filled in to fit the authors’ presupposed theories. Truthfully we cannot know what was originally there. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say what has been (probably incorrectly) filled in actually is right. Even if that were true, that would prove nothing, since we have only one copy of a document written by an unknown person over 150 years after Jesus lived, and the text doesn’t even say anything about them being married; in fact no ancient text states or even strongly implies that they were married. Gnostics (the authors of this text) would be even less likely to imply Jesus was married, since they viewed matter as evil, and any further ties between Jesus and the phyiscal world (ie through marriage) would likely be avoided.
The earliest biblical gospels, on the other hand, were written about 30 years (not 150 like the “Gospel” of Philip) after Jesus’ death, and exist in thousands of early copies (not 1 copy like Philip). It does help to do a little research :)
I believe all of this is true. That is why I visited the website in the first place. To find proof.
Tony do you mean you believed all that was mentioned in the Da Vinci Code was true? Or the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus?
c emmeze hers one thing like i said before the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian n they will tell u that n trust me i asked. but yet go read the gospel of Mary Magdalene. Trust me theres places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted now its up to u to c if u really want to know. u find the information do the study. but if theres nothing wrong with jesus being married the nwhy in 590A.D the church wants to call Mary Magdalene a prostitue for what purpose there was no need for that. SO now people are to be decieved for wat tha vatican wanted to protray no tahts wrong y is that she just couldnt being of a regualr women or yet even jesus wife. That should not take away his divinity. and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them tahts doesnt help ur thought of wat ur tryna say that was a usless part of the bible. just sometimes weigh ur options n really think wats real and wats not. Thank you for reading my post. i appreciate it
You are it seems at least committed to what you believe R. It is good to hear your opinions. However I don’t think you really read Emmzee’s post throroughly. You are projecting a lot of theology on one or two scrap of questionable written material. (the Gospel of Thomas or the gospel of MM) It is proven fact that they were written at least a hundred years after the fact. Are you disputing this and yet putting such an enormous amount of energy into believing Jesus and Mary were married? If Jesus was married then it does take away from the gospel story in my mind at least. As I have said before, he did not acknowledge her or take care of her and His child (if Da Vinci code is right) before his death on the cross but made special effort to be sure his mother was cared for by John. That does not speak to me of a loving a caring man. I am interested as to why is it so important to you to believe this? Have you read the traditional gospel accounts of Jesus?
Note to Emmzee, are some of the posts closed now? I cannot boot up the one about “Did Da Vinci paint MM in the Last Supper” anymore.
Jan, the topic is not closed. It seems for some reason some web browsers can’t access that page anymore … maybe it’s just grown too large? I can’t access it either on this computer using Firefox or Internet Explorer, but Opera works. On the other hand my brother’s computer can access it using Internet Explorer. So for now you can try Opera (www.opera.com … it’s free) but I’ll try to see what the problem is.
R., regarding Jesus’ marraige, an indepth article can be found here for your reading pleasure:
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesusmarried.htm
One quote is particularly worth noting (emphasis mine):
“the word companion in those times meant marriage ask any scholar or and historian” The question remains, if the word “kiononos” means “spouse”, why does no English translation of the Gospel of Philip translate it that way? More importantly, that same word is used many times in the New Testament for relationships other than spouse, for example Philemon 17 where it denotes a companion in faith or Luke 5:10 where it refers to a business partner. Sure it can mean spouse but the context of the passage (as per the quote above) shows that it is not likely intended that way here.
“places where u can find the gospels with out being distorted” Where would those places be? Why are you assuming the biblical gospels are “distorted”, which were written close to the time of Jesus’ death and for which we have thousands of copies … but not assuming texts like the Gospel of Philip are distorted, which was written at least 150 years after Jesus’ death and for which we have a grand total of 1 copy?
“and the Gnostics. be serious now y even mention them” I mentioned gnostics because the Gospel of Philip is a gnostic text. It clearly uses gnostic ideas. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip
R., why is Jesus’ marriage important to you?
i find the thought that all of this is based upon books and theroies. Yet as a woman no one makes mention to the fact that GOD as we know him and all his Glory choose a mere oridnary woman to birth his son, are not all men brought to life this way was it not pain and deliverence to bring forth his life(Jesus,if the son of god is not himself born of womans Flesh how can it be impossible to perform the very act that brings all men to life. Just my thought Creer0372
i think neither the davinci code or the catholics bases are truth
First i like to say ; ‘I love the movie!’.
The plot is very interesting. I feel that in this story there is a kind of truth. Everything seems to click.
( secretly i hope that the story was true >> That story with the holy grail and the living descendents really existed.)
Many people who are religious might see this book/ movie as an insult, Altough i am raised catholic myself i do feel that the davinci theory has a point there is some sort of truth in both of them that is what I think.
(Forgive me for my english I’m still learning)
Élodie d’A.
the truth, is something that would be different to everyone because we all interpret things in different ways. It will, has and is a mystery. As far as my truth goes i am a catholic i find nothing wrong with believing the divinci code it gave me even stronger faith because it allowed me to connect with jesus and see him as a human being. But at the same time i still worship him and respect him as a divine being. You can have both only those that are pig headed will tell you you can not.
I fear that my opinion will not mean much here because I have not done the research many seem to have done. But I’d just like to point out my interpretation.
Firstly, it must be noted that the transition between the the story’s claim and Da Vinci is art is unfathomable precise to be mere coincidence. I truly believe beyond all doubt that the book reflects Da Vinci’s motives in his art perfectly. I’ve studied the Mona Lisa and seen that her face does, indeed, look nearly male if you focus on her right side, and profoundly female if you focus on her left. And I’ve studied The Last Supper, as well. I’ve seen the details Dan Brown speaks. I’ve noted that one of the twelve apostles depicted was a female, and that there was a stretched hand in front of her throat. So it seems obvious to me – blatantly, even, when considering biographies of Leonardo Da Vinci – that he was against standard belief of the Church. This could easily reflect his opinion.
The trouble is in Da Vinci historical stature. When faced with a mad genius such as he, do you trust his brilliance or doubt his madness?
I have an old heirloom from my Grandfather – who was an ordaned minister. The heirloom is a carved representation of Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper. It is exactly the same in every minute detail except for one: the hand in front of the woman’s neck was missing. Capturing the decor of Da Vinci’s painting with astounding detail in metal, the only thing that was gone was the only thing that seemed to threaten the woman.
Whether it spouts hatred toward me, controversy, or mature discussion is up to you, but I ask you: If not to hide something, why would my heirloom from a Minister leave out that one detail?
“I think that Leonardo Da Vinci ia a really great man,, to make such things…but please tell me what is the truth im really confuse about that…daryl_roxas@yahoomessenger.com…thanks..