Da Vinci code

[Joe Meert]

Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Discuss...

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Do you think so Joe? Like how you think Christ's resurrection wasn't unique?

[DivineOb]

Why don't we just rename the science forums "Anything but science", since that's what seems to be discussed the most...

[Dee Dee Warren]

This is suitable for archeology I think. This section is much broader.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270525#post270525)
Dee Dee Warren:

Do you think so Joe? Like how you think Christ's resurrection wasn't unique?

JM: Lol, you crack me up. I say discuss and you bring up an irrelevant topic. You also leap to a conclusion regarding my beliefs. For the record, this 'documentary' appears to be nothing more than a docu-crock. However, I'm interested in the opinions of others. Can you possibly curb your prejudice long enough to argue cogently on a topic or does your bias run so deep that you've lost all perspective?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270541#post270541)
Joe Meert:



JM: Lol, you crack me up. I say discuss and you bring up an irrelevant topic. You also leap to a conclusion regarding my beliefs. For the record, this 'documentary' appears to be nothing more than a docu-crock. However, I'm interested in the opinions of others. Can you possibly curb your prejudice long enough to argue cogently on a topic or does your bias run so deep that you've lost all perspective?

Cheers

Joe Meert

I asked what you thought about the topic, and brought you your unusual beleif on another area about Christ. I find it pretty relevant especially since you refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection. It would not surprise if you thought Jesus was married, that is nothing compared to thinking Graves is a good compilation. I am heartened to hear that you have some sense on this issue. And yes I am very biased against the blasphemy that Christ's resurrection was not unique and is not a proof of His deity. You'll have to just live with that.

But good thing you think the doc is crock. That is very good to hear. I am curious who will defend it.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 08:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270557#post270557)
Dee Dee Warren:
I asked what you thought about the topic, and brought you your unusual beleif on another area about Christ.

JM: I have no unusual beliefs. You and your bloodthirsty brethren have interpreted that I do, but that's a different topic.


I find it pretty relevant especially since you refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection.

JM: Two very different topics. I've explained my stance on this issue and allowed you the last word on the topic. Please stick to the topic at hand, or resist comment.



It would not surprise if you thought Jesus was married,

JM: Given your prejudice and lack of objectivity, I find it entirely within the bounds of poor logic that you would reach such a bizarre conclusion. However, your lack of objectivity has nothing to do with reality.



I am heartened to hear that you have some sense on this issue.

JM: I place no value on your opinion one way or another. I simply find it humorous that you once again jumped to a bad conclusion.


You'll have to just live with that.

JM: Your opinion one way or the other is of little consequence to me, but of course you are free to state it here.


But good thing you think the doc is crock. That is very good to hear. I am curious who will defend it.

JM: Why is it a good thing? Would it not be better for your prejudicial views if I accepted the conclusions? After all, that was the conclusion you leapt to when I started this thread? Yes, it's a total sensationlistic crock with little (if any) historical backing. However, your opinion (plus/minus) on this issue would not be of any value in trying to sway me one way or the other.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270584#post270584)
Joe Meert:


JM: Two very different topics. I've explained my stance on this issue and allowed you the last word on the topic. Please stick to the topic at hand, or resist comment.

You absolutely did not. In fact you got thoroughly gored and turned tail. I will comment further on that thread. You never ever addressed the issue of the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection. You are not being truthful. More on that Locker Room thread.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 08:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270590#post270590)
Dee Dee Warren:



You absolutely did not. In fact you got thoroughly gored and turned tail. I will comment further on that thread. You never ever addressed the issue of the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection. You are not being truthful. More on that Locker Room thread.

JM: Like I said, I place no value whatsoever on your opinions on this board. You are free to conclude whatever you want, I find your opinion irrelevant and of no consequence. Last word, yours!

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Socrates]

:lol: Surely Joe can't really think that Jesus was married? Next you'll be saying that he thinks Kersey Graves is reliable :rofl:

Actually there is already a thread on this, Absolutely ludicrous case for Jesus, "the Last Adam", being married (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=269513#post269513).

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=270798#post270798)
Socrates:

:lol: Surely Joe can't really think that Jesus was married?

JM: LOL. You have a serious problem when reading for comprehension, don't you?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[TheOneAndOnly]

As I said before, Jesus had children whose descendents became the Merovingian dynasty Frankish kings. The Templar's new this and The Pope crushed them. Leonardo di Vinci also new it, as well as Isaac Newton and various other great Europeans. It's only a matter of time...........

[jpholding]

I recently wrote an evaluation of Brown's book:

http://www.answers.org/issues/davincicode.html

Brown's book was full of errors. The documentary actually touched on very little of the issues involved and seemed more like an attempt to win some sort of production award for ABC and/or rush out something to capitalize on the publicity.

[Sheepdog]

hmm. i wonder if i wrote a book describing a conspiracy where Darwin was never the one who formulated his theory of evolution, but it was made by neo-nazis later on; that he was a young earth creationist; and these "facts" about him were destroyed in a massive coverup; would such a book make the best seller list?

i don't get why the Jesus revisionists are so popular :hrm:

[Orion]

JM: Lol, you crack me up. I say discuss and you bring up an irrelevant topic. You also leap to a conclusion regarding my beliefs. For the record, this 'documentary' appears to be nothing more than a docu-crock. However, I'm interested in the opinions of others. Can you possibly curb your prejudice long enough to argue cogently on a topic or does your bias run so deep that you've lost all perspective?

Hi, Joe.

I've had the opportunity of reading your posts, at various fora, going at least as far back as 1998, and I'm glad to see you here.

I believe that you'll find that this particular forum is not quite as restrictive and protective as was, say, the CARM forum. I further believe that you can express your ideas here without fear of undue censorship, so long as you do so in a respectful, non-combative fashion. The idea is to get people to think, and the throwing of stones is not going to get people to think.

[geochron]

The Da Vinci code is fiction, n'est-ce pas? - but give it 1500 years and people will be swearing it's literally true.

How would Jesus having married Mary Magdalene detract from the credibility of the rest of the stories about him?

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271959#post271959)
geochron:

The Da Vinci code is fiction, n'est-ce pas? - but give it 1500 years and people will be swearing it's literally true.

only if the historians of that day are so stupid they can't tell history from fiction.


How would Jesus having married Mary Magdalene detract from the credibility of the rest of the stories about him?

if it does, it would only be to a small extent. i'm only concerned with the factual dishonesty in the book as catalogued in Holding's article. if i started making up "facts" regarding Darwin (e.g. "he converted to Christianity on his death bed"), implying that they are true in real life, i know i would be called on it.

[Pilgrim]

I don't see that Christ having been married would detract from what he did. If anything it would have proved beyond doubt that he really did suffer like the rest of us!

But, there is no indication anywhere in the Biblical record or any early primary sources that he was so to make an argument from silence seems to be poor scholarship

[Richbee]

This so funny, I fell out of my chair, rolled on the floor laughing so loud, tears of Joy until I broke a rib!!!

How to be a Religious fraud and sell books, or in the case of Elaine Pagels, how to be a Christian Apostate and Sell books!!!

Jesus Flew a Spaceship (10 Easy Steps to Revising World History)

Here are a a few tried-and-true steps to creating your own revisionist history:

Step One:

Point out that all historical recollection, whether written or spoken, rests solely on the witness of someone's memory, and memory is as unverifiable as any other thought or idea. Simply questioning what the recollector's motives possibly could have been or the accuracy with which he/she recollected the past is sufficient for this phase.

Step Two:

Cast the traditional sources of historical recollection in a disparaging light. That is, posit theories involving conspiracy, power politics, and general back-stabbing. Your proposal that such a milieu dominated the decision making regarding which recollection should be THE traditional recollection will inevitably cause doubt in the accuracy and authenticity of the traditional historical recollection.

Step Three:

Identify, or better yet, create a group which the traditionalists extinguished during the process of establishing the traditional recollection (see Step Two).

Step Four:

Develop or embellish the "recollection" of the extinguished group. There will undoubtedly be some historical documentation regarding the position of an historical, extinguished group, but heck, those recollections are all according to the traditionalists, and based on Step Two, you have shown that they can't be trusted. Thus you can pretty much disregard any historical documentation and begin constructing your own theory (!) as to what this group believed and why the traditionalists found them so "dangerous". Be creative!

http://www.foutz.net/blog

[Richbee]

Part 2.....

More......

Step Five:

Along with creativity, be sure to add some "historicity" to your theory. By historicity, of course, I don't mean historical fact (since we don't want to trust the traditional sources of historical recollection), but rather ideological history. An easy way to accomplish this is to build your theory around what you suggest someone thought. This way, you can "historically support" your theory merely by stating: "Group A believed so and so." The utter beauty of this type of historicity is that there is no possible way to verify or deny its validity, since belief in and of itself may in fact have no external appearance whatsoever. And if anyone denies your statement, you can simply defend yourself by suggesting your opponent is simply taking the traditionalists' recollection hook, line and sinker.

:yipee:

Step Six:

Make sure your theory includes alot of controversy and famous people. As long as we are calling traditional historical recollection into question, the sky's the limit! Go for big, outrageous themes which sound almost completely laughable. Sprinkled with the right measure of controversy and celebrity, people will drink it up like kool-aid on a hot Guyana afternoon!

Step Seven:

Market your theory to the masses. This means putting it in simple narrative form (not forgetting to use 12 pt or larger font!), adding a few main "characters" and a plot. Be sure to add some villians (the traditionalists of course!) so that your populus audience will emotionally interpret your theory as the underdog and thereby cheer it on to the justice of victory. Remember that there will be a few readers who are skeptical, so consistently reiterate the "historicity" of Step Five above. If you are truly at a loss of such historicity, you may simply state: "There is a theory that [eg., Jesus flew a spaceship]". You'll be amazed at how many people, upon hearing this, immediately assume that your theory must at least be plausible among "professional theorizers" and supported by some type of evidence.

Step Eight:

Have the mass media generate and then cover the "hype" surrounding your theory. No doubt they will love the controversy and celebrity you've added to the theory (See Step Six). The media loves an underdog, especially one fighting the authority of established tradition! (Cha-Ching!) Although the media probably won't need any tips from you on slanting a story, make sure they word their coverage such that it even exaggerates your own claims (if that is possible). For example, they might say something like: "The traditionalists thought and established X. BUT an earlier form of thinking was held by [Your UnderDog] which believed Y." Look at the beauty of this statement! The mass-media-fed populus will read this and immediately conclude that your UnderDog holds the older and more authentic view, (when in fact all that it really means is that someone thought Y before X was established as tradition)! Pure genius!


In March 2003, Dan Brown published the fictitious The Da Vinci Code. Like several of Brown's previous novels, Da Vinci Code is a conspiracy novel involving a major institution and "hidden truths". His Deception Code (2002) involves the coverup of alien insects, NASA and the presidency. Angels and Demons (2001) involves the Vatican, time bombs, and the secret society of "Illuminati". (etc.) In the same vein, Da Vinci Code involves a clash between surviving remnants of an ancient society (based on belief in the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdelene and their offspring) with the religious powers that be. But this time its a power struggle involving the genetic progeny of Jesus.

http://www.foutz.net/blog


:rofl:

[JardinPrayer]

Pilgrim:

I don't see that Christ having been married would detract from what he did. If anything it would have proved beyond doubt that he really did suffer like the rest of us!

I resemble that remark!

[IslamicGodzilla]

Geez, Joe - a person can get more in five minutes of study than five hours of a show like that. But I do have this observation:

I think that you and Dee-Dee are actually in love and that what we are seeing between you is a frustration from unfulfilled desire.

[Joe Meert]

Yesterday @ 08:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=276104#post276104)
IslamicGodzilla:
I think that you and Dee-Dee are actually in love and that what we are seeing between you is a frustration from unfulfilled desire.


JM: Could be. I seem to attract the best side of creationist females. It's the animal magnetism of danger and walking on the 'wild side' of Christianity that seems to bring on the love-hate relationship they have with me. After a while, they get cranky and I lose interest. We're now at that point.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[geochron]

11-05-2003 @ 08:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271981#post271981)
Sheepdog:



only if the historians of that day are so stupid they can't tell history from fiction.



if it does, it would only be to a small extent. i'm only concerned with the factual dishonesty in the book as catalogued in Holding's article. if i started making up "facts" regarding Darwin (e.g. "he converted to Christianity on his death bed"), implying that they are true in real life, i know i would be called on it.

Not if you called it "fiction", I wouldn't have thought.

[Passant]

if i started making up "facts" regarding Darwin (e.g. "he converted to Christianity on his death bed"), implying that they are true in real life, i know i would be called on it.

Only by skeptics, I'm sure you know this claim HAS been made, HAS been refuted, and is STILL believed by many Christians. Now, If the atmosphere today was as it was in the past, the truth would easily be suppressed, and we would have a new truth, the truth according to the Church.

[jpholding]

geochron:

Not if you called it "fiction", I wouldn't have thought.

And what if you preface that fiction with a statement in bold, "FACT," and say that within your fiction, one will find these things which are taken as fact by the author?

[HippoCrates]

11-04-2003 @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271432#post271432)
Sheepdog:

hmm. i wonder if i wrote a book describing a conspiracy where Darwin was never the one who formulated his theory of evolution, but it was made by neo-nazis later on; that he was a young earth creationist; and these "facts" about him were destroyed in a massive coverup; would such a book make the best seller list?

Provided it was reasonably well written and had a moderately professional presentation, yes, it probably sell pretty well. Not as well as a book about Jesus, though, because Darwin just isn't as big a name.



i don't get why the Jesus revisionists are so popular :hrm:

Jesus is about the most famous historical figure on the planet.

[jpholding]

Today I looked into some of Brown's claims about art and he's as bad as he is when it comes to claims about Christianity. Here's a poignant example. He claims that "Mona Lisa" is an anagram from "Amon I'lsa", a combo of two Egyptian gods. Three problems:

1) The most relaible source, a contemporary of the woman in the portrait, says that it is a real painting of the Madonna Lisa, the daughter of a wealthy merchant.

2) The painting is not even called the "Mona Lisa" in France and Italy; in those places it is called La Gioconda.

3) The word "Mona" is misspelled to begin with. It actually is supposed to have two N's (Monna) as a contraction of "Madonna" (the Italian version of "Mrs", so to speak). So Brown needs to account for that extra N. :rofl:

[Socrates]

11-11-2003 @ 06:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277718#post277718)
Passant:

Only by skeptics, I'm sure you know this claim HAS been made, HAS been refuted, and is STILL believed by many Christians.

Only in the circles Passant comes from, but not from Christians who are familiar with AiG -- see Did Darwin Recant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp) (countering the myth of Darwin’s deathbed confession, Lady Hope).


Now, If the atmosphere today was as it was in the past, the truth would easily be suppressed, and we would have a new truth, the truth according to the Church.

But don't expect Passant to document his wild conspiracy theories.:dufus:

[margec]

Why don't you guys above read the books on p. 253 of DaVinci Code by Dan Brown if you want to be able to carry on any credible debate at all. Laboring without the facts on one side of any debate is stupid, I know as we were winning debaters in high school!! This alternative history of Jesus that was stamped out by the Inquisition over and over again to support a little power base for the "church" version needs to be looked at from its supporters point of view. Otherwise, you are just lost in judgment from the get-go and Jesus had plenty to say about that and a lack of love. Ya, Inquisitorial thinking is not conducive to love; why don't you guys get real. What are you afraid of, the truth??!! This suppressed history has been preserved by the freemasonic and templar organizations from time immemorial; I know I was raised in these organizations; you'll need to give an honest look at their history, of which DaVinci is a very good novel exposing the real story; It is said all will be revealed in the last days; it looks like it is happening; Better pay attention and with love and a little respect, because Jesus is not apt to be happy with all the subversion of his message that's happened over the centuries with the many Inquisitions and carnage of religious wars.

[jpholding]

margec:

Why don't you guys above read the books on p. 253 of DaVinci Code by Dan Brown if you want to be able to carry on any credible debate at all.

With those books? Please:

The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince. Historians they are not; the credits on their book list them as “writers, researchers, and lecturers on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries.” Their other authorial credits include such masterpieces of critical history as The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestrial Life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt and The Mammoth Book of UFOs. Harvard University Press is practically beating their door down.

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Starbird and Sweeney. Printed by that fine academic press “Bear and Company,” this book is authored by one who claims to have a Masters degree (in what is not specified) and to have studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School, though actually she holds BA and MA degrees from the University of Maryland where she concentrated on German, comparative literature and medieval studies (NOT Biblical studies) and only attended classes at Vanderbilt Divinity School without any degree awarded.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent and Leigh. This book, a bestseller that is the motherlode for Brown’s sort of theorizing, is not entirely endorsed by Brown’s historian character, who pins it for “dubious leaps of faith” but allows that its “fundamental premise sound.” It’s nice to know something is, because the authors’ qualifications are not. The lead author Baigent’s sole credential is a degree in psychology. Leigh is described in one location (a website promoting his virtues as a speaker) as a “a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica,” which seems a roundabout way of saying he has no relevant credentials in the subject.

Explain to us why we should give these people any credence.

[i]This alternative history of Jesus that was stamped out by the Inquisition

What Inquisition? It had different manifestations and purposes in each country. None were concerned with alternative histories of Jesus.

What are you afraid of, the truth??!! This suppressed history has been preserved by the freemasonic and templar organizations from time immemorial;

Yeah sure. :ahem: And professional historians are ignorant of it...

[margec]

jpholding: All those books just "reviewed" by you so graciously will give more bibliography to very serious history books; I'm sure the christian "prophets" cited over and over by you people were equally as well educated??? And anyone can be in touch with God's message, that's what you fail to concede, to you detriment. Devalue the sources all you want personally, but a look at they and their citations will get you back on solid historical ground, and that is why you are all so upset about it , of course!! So anyone wanting to know more of the facts, go for it; Barbara Thiering is a very noted scholar with her Jesus the Man; Laurence Gardner, with his Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Genesis of the Grail Kings, and others has info based totally in solid history and secret archives. It has to be looked at honestly tho, which I notice is not a high priority with biased people. But you'll never win the debate in the end if you can't discuss the issues with some clarity. Trying to do Inquisitional snow-jobs won't cut it any more with people who really want to know the truth, and are willing to search it out. Kessinger publishing has thousands of the freemasonic writings preserved for time immemorial!! Good luck on the truth!! You don't have a good starting position tho if your mind is closed to ideas squashed by the Inquisition. And, you'd better look a little closer, because the inqusitors were very concerned about whether the cathars, etc. had the correct "version" of belief in Jesus!! Get with it!!

[jpholding]

margec:

jpholding: All those books just "reviewed" by you so graciously will give more bibliography to very serious history books;

I am sure they do. In academia that is called "padding".

I'm sure the christian "prophets" cited over and over by you people were equally as well educated???

"You people"? What are you, a racist? I don't cite propehts in my article. I cite scholars who testify to the incompetence of Brown and his sources.

Barbara Thiering is a very noted scholar with her Jesus the Man

She is considered a nutcase who gets no respect from any other scholar.

Laurence Gardner, with his Bloodline of the Holy Grail,

Another loser with no relevant qualifications and who helps out delusionals like "Prince Michael of Albany":

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htm

Genesis of the Grail Kings, and others has info based totally in solid history and secret archives.

The "history" is completely contrry to that held by professional historians in the relevant particulars, and the "secret archives" are a bunch of hokum. Stop being gullible.

Trying to do Inquisitional snow-jobs won't cut it any more with people who really want to know the truth,

Or want the truth to be what they want it to be. No answer to my question about the Inquisition?

And, you'd better look a little closer, because the inqusitors were very concerned about whether the cathars, etc. had the correct "version" of belief in Jesus!!

The Cathar "version" of Jesus was one that taught a spiritual dualism (which made Satan the creator of the material world, argued that Satan made man, and that God pitied man and gave him a soul), and taught poverty, vegetarianism, honesty, and abstention. In other words nothing like what Brown offers. If you read works by real historians like Henry Kamen and stopped being so gullible when it came to the likes of Brown, you might actually learn something.

[margec]

Another great book on history subject to the Inquisition is: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances A. Yates; maybe you'd like to try to devalue her credentials too: "enjoyed a world-wide reputation as an historian. She was awarded the DBE for her services to Renaissance Studies. She was a Fellow of the British Academy, A Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, an Honorary Fellow of the Warburg Institute, and of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford.!! She details events of a later Inquisition, early 1600's, in the Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Fascinating and sad history; she also wrote Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. The Warburg Institute, University of London gives her high acclaim. Her books just came out in the 1970's and Asa Briggs, New Scientist says: "brilliant analysis of events, movements, relationships and consequences. Her book is compulsive reading, and forces the reader back not only to alternative accounts of early seventeenth-century movements, which seem superficial, but to Dr. Yates other books." I'll put excerpts of it on next!

[margec]

From the Rosicrucian Enlightenment: P. 17-The Bohemian Tragedy: Prague became a mecca for those interested in esoteric and scientific studies from all over Europe. Hither came John Dee and Edward Kelly, Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler. However strange the reputation of Prague in the Time of Rudolph it was yet a relatively tolerant city. Jews might pursue their cabalistic studies undisturbed (Rudoph's favourite religious adviser was Pistorius, a Cabalist) and the native church of Bohemia was tolerated by an official 'Letter of Majesty'. The Bohemian church, founded by John Huss, was the first of the reformed churches in Europe. Rudoph's toleration was extended to the Bohemian church and to the Bohemian Brethren, a mystical brotherhood attached to its teachings.
Prague under Rudolph was a Renaissance city, full of Renaissance influences as they had developed in Eastern Europe, a melting pot of ideas, mysteriously exciting in its potentiality for new developments. BUT FOR HOW LONG WOULD THIS RELATIVE IMMUNITY FROM THE FORCES OF REACTION CONTINUE after Rudolph was dead?? THE FORCES OF REACTION WERE GATHERING, . . The moost likely next candidate for the imperial and Bohemian thrones was the FANATICAL CATHOLIC-HAPSBURG Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, a PUPIL OF THE JESUITS, DETERMINED TO STAMP OUT HERESY. . . . True to his training and nature, Ferdinand immediately put an end to Rudolph's policy of religious toleration by revoking the Letter of Majesty and beginning to set about the suppression of the Bohemian church. Some people have said that the true beginning of the Thirty Years War lay in the beginning of THE APPLICATION OF INTOLERANT POLICIES in Bohemia.. . (p.18) . . Such vistas of religious policy would lead in idealistic thinking to those hopes of a reform of the church through the empire which had been a European dream ever since the time of Dante. . . (p.19). .Years afterwards, Elizabeth used to show visitors to The Hague the letter which the Archbishop of Canterburg had written advising the acceptance of the Bohemian crown as a religious duty.
Others gave more cautious advice. The Union of Protestant Princes were on the whole against acceptance as too dangerous. . . .but Frederick expressed the sum of his intentions when he wrote to his uncle, the Duke of Bouillon, "It is a divine calling which I must not disobey . . my only end is to serve God and His Church". (p.20) . .The coronation ceremony in Prague cathedral was conducted by the Hussite clergy. It was the last great public ceremony to be sponsored by the Bohemian church, SOON TO BE COMPLETELY SUPPRESSED!! (p. 21) "Sunlike rays from the Divine Name, in Hebrew, are indeed falling on Frederick and Elizabeth, and this is the red dawn of a new morning. The verses lay particular stress on how this dawn depends on the new Queen. Wyclif came from England, they explain, from whom Huss took his teaching, alluding to Wyclif's influence on the Hussite reformation; . . . Here we reach the heart of this great tragedy of misunderstanding.. . . But when the time came it was revealed that James was perfectly willing to desert his daughter rather than risk incurring the Hapsburg anger.
The whole question is extremely complicated, and the rights and wrongs of it are complicated. . .We need only a broad outline of what actually happened, and the general statement of the fact that James pursued a policy of appeasement of the Hapsburg powers whilst Frederick and his supporters hoped against hope that he would be actively on their side. The TRUTH PROBABLY IS THAT FREDERICK'S CHIEF CRIME WAS THAT HE FAILED!! If he had succeeded in establishing himself in Bohemia, all the waverers, including his father-in-law, would probably have wavered over to him.
The personage who should have been the informed arbiter of these affairs, the personage to whom liberal Europe was looking for guidance - James I of Great Britain - appears to have been rapidly falling into a state of senile incompetence and decay, incapable of taking decisions, avoiding serious business, at the mercy of uncrupulous favourites, despised and hoodwinked by Spanish agents. So Europe rushed on, unguided and confused, into the Thirty Years War. \\
Well, anyone can look up the history of that in any good encyclopedia like Brittanica, but (p.21) gives you an idea of what happened, thanks to the catholic "church": This victory riveted the Hapsburg domination on Europe for another generation and initiated the Thirty Years War, which eventually whittled away the Hapsburg power.. . . (p.24) In Bohemia, mass executions or 'purges' exterminated all resistance. The Bohemian church was totally suppressed and the whole country reduced to misery.
. . .Historians have noted the effect on the history. . . They have seen that James I, conducting his foreign policy by "divine right" and without consulting Parliament, which was unanimously in favour of supporting the King of Bohemia, was beginning a train of events which would eventually destroy the Stuart Monarchy. . Great noblemen like William Herbert, Earl of Penbroke, practically apologized, with shame, to Frederick's representative about the King's abandonment of what he considered his duty. The people, eager to ring bells and light bonfires in honour of their beloved Elizabeth, were not allowed to do so.
I DEFINATELY THINK SOMEONE IS GOING TO SUFFER HERE WHEN JESUS CHRIST COMES BACK, AND I THINK ANYONE WITH A SHRED OF KNOWLEDGE OF THIS AND OTHER MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF HEINOUS CRIMES KNOWS WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE!! And again, I'm so glad the founding fathers of our country were so wise to see thru this crap and give us the religious freedoms we now enjoy, so we do not have to suffer at the hands of people like my attacker, who operate with such total bias and lack of love and respect for the truth of all people.

[jpholding]

margec:

Another great book on history subject to the Inquisition is: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances A. Yates; maybe you'd like to try to devalue her credentials too: "enjoyed a world-wide reputation as an historian.

No need. What you posted didn't have a danged thing to do with the sort of material Brown in reporting. Do you actually check things for relevance before posting them?

Come on now. Name three things I noted as errors in Brown that are not errors.

[margec]

I remember nothing you mentioned that has any relevance on Brown's story; But you are terribly wrong on Barbara Thiering being a "nutcase" and "not respected by one scholar". She is a 22 yr. (retired) member of the Univ. of Sydney's School of Divinity and now fulltime writer and researcher. The Westar Institute renewed the quest of the historical Jesus when they began with their first meeting of the Jesus Seminar in March 1985 when founder Robert Funk addressed the assembled scholars in Berkeley, California. To report the results of its research to more than a handful of gospel specialists, at its inception 30 scholars took up the challenge. Eventually more than 200 professionally trained specialists, called Fellows, joined the group. They meet twice a year to debate technical papers and vote. Better check it out!! Barbara Thiering is one of their fellows!! So much for your claim that she gets no respect from any other scholar!! I wonder what your qualifications are??? I'm checking on your Henry Kamen. The reviews weren't 5 star on him generally, but I'll keep you posted as to where it looks like he stands in the lineup of so called "scholars". So far all I noted was he was a "revisionist" on the Spanish Inquisition.
It should irk you that while searching his books, by clicking on two of Amazon's choices that included "Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church", I scrolled down to two 5 stars!!: the second messiah, Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas; and Massacre at Montsegur by Zoe Oldenbourg!! More good reading for you if you can handle it.

[margec]

Also, you must remember, Brown is writing a novel; he doesn't have to be totally accurate; you have to look behind him to the sources, of which there are thousands, maybe millions, if you really want to be able to debate well. I was raised, as I say in this tradition, so I have a slight advantage, But I've heard it said before that the books written on the freemasonic subjects rival the bible, so if you're not familiar with the serious history, you do have a little work to do to get caught up!!! Enjoy, if you can. But you have to honestly want to learn something also, not just attack from bias. The Westar Institute has some revealing words on their Jesus Seminar page in this regard as to why all inquisitional things are relevant: " The Five Gospels (their publication) represents a dramatic exist from windowless studies and the beginning of a new venture for gospel scholarship. Leading scholars - Fellows of the Jesus Seminar - have decided to update and then make the legacy of two hundred years of research and debate a matter of public record. . . In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's Origin of Species (pub. 1859) and the ensuing Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925, American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of INQUISITION THAT MADE HONEST SCHOLARLY JUDGMENTS DANGEROUS. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials and suffered the loss of academic posts. . . However, the intellectual ferment of the century soon reasserted itself in colleges, universities, and seminaries. By the end of WWII, critical scholars again . . .University disciplines wanted to ensure that dogmatic considerations not be permitted to intrude into scientific and historical research. The fundamentalists were forced, as a consequence, to found their own Bible colleges and seminaries in order to propagate their point of view. . . One focal point of the raging controversies was who Jesus was and what he had said. "
So all history subject to Inquisitional events is relevant, because it all stems from the same underlying fear of religious liberty.

[Pilgrim]

Did she just tell JP that he had a little work to do and that she had an "advantage?" Hardly.

At any rate I just finished Davinci Code...it is poor fiction. Yes he nods to the short attention span of this culture by making the chapters, on average, 3 pages each. That's a neat trick for making folks feel like they are really reading now!

The story was weak and the supposed scholars of the boo, a cryptographer and symbologist, are just plain stupid. Seriously, at each new clue I figured out the answer in the space a few seconds. I mean come on, "An ancient word of Wisdom" and it took them like 4 chapters to figure out that it meant "Sophia cum sofia."

It's only benefit is that it has gotten some people thinking about other issues. Unfortunately those other issues are pretty shallow.

[margec]

Well, there are many other mansions that need my attention, so adios; may your biased "scholars" keep you sustained enough to prevent you from causing too much unlove in the world!! Some people never listened when I said "Seek and ye shall find!!" The freemasonic's exhort their people to seek in the ancient mysteries. Be at Peace!!

[Pilgrim]

Yep, when confronted with minds way out of ones league it is typically best to just stop talking.

[jpholding]

margec:
I'm checking on your Henry Kamen. The reviews weren't 5 star on him generally, but I'll keep you posted as to where it looks like he stands in the lineup of so called "scholars". So far all I noted was he was a "revisionist" on the Spanish Inquisition.


Good point Pilgrim. The manifest idiocy of this statement about a scholar of Kamen's prestige speaks for itself.

[Pilgrim]

The way I see it, Jp, is that there are folks out there who think that if it's in a book it must be scholarship and the sad thing is they have never been presented with true scholarship and critical learning so they have a hard time distinguishing between the two and don't really have an understanding about which books they should be reading in the first place.

It's like that great scene in "Good Will Hunting," when Will looks at his thearpist and says, "The problem with most people is that they're not reading the right books." He's talking about the phenomina of folks just putting anything on their shelves in an attempt to seem learned and nor really trying to discern if the contents of the book are crap or not.

[Taffsadar]

Who cares about Mary Madelena?

What I want to know is if DeeDee is married.... :teeth:

[Jeannot]

What really happened is that Jesus and Mary Mag landed in Southern France, where they spent some time lolling on the Riviera beaches, but in a seculded nook where they would not be recognized. They did take some trips to Monte Carlo, where Jesus would wear sunglasses in the casinos, and Mary Mag was clad in a burka. Mary of Bethany baby sat.

[Faramir]

What really happened is that Jesus and Mary Mag landed in Southern France, where they spent some time lolling on the Riviera beaches, but in a seculded nook where they would not be recognized. They did take some trips to Monte Carlo, where Jesus would wear sunglasses in the casinos, and Mary Mag was clad in a burka. Mary of Bethany baby sat.:lmbo: That was funny :rofl:


But........





















Not funny enough to excuse digging up :digup: a thread that was better left burried. :rant:

:whack:





:doh: This is archeology.


Never mind.


:wink:

:grin:

[romepunk]

The worse thing about The DaVinci Code isn't its easily disproved web of heresies and blaspehmies. It's just a really stupid book. It's poorly written, with carboard characters, and annoying golly-gee-whiz moments when a character discovers some new "fact" that any educated reader would see coming a mile away. Now for anyone thinking I'm bashing this book simply for what it says about my faith, take note that my favorite novel of all time is Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. And what really makes me mad, is now that the Code will be made into a movie, the Pendulum probably never will be. Oh, cruel fate.

The DaVinci Code is the Left Behind of post-modern, anti-christian conspiracy fiction. It has the same sub-pulp writing style and embarrasingly bad proselytizing.

[Minnesota]

"The worse thing about The DaVinci Code [is that] It's just a really stupid book"

What a preceptive and incisive observation :rofl:


Now for anyone thinking I'm bashing this book simply for what it says about my faith, take note that my favorite novel of all time is Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.

And we're suppose to conclude that just because you enjoyed one book involving Italian/European History, the Templars, Free Masonry, and the occult, that this somehow absolves you of possible prejudice toward another book? Come now. It isn't the subject that puts people into such a foul mood that they strike out, it's the context of the subject and the way it's dealt with.

And it is obvious that you came out swinging precisely because of the context and message: "a really stupid book," is hardly a brilliant analysis. "Web of heresies and blaspehmies," is only relevant to a mind passionately defending a very cherished issue. And, "The DaVinci Code is the Left Behind of post-modern, anti-Christian conspiracy fiction." is no more than paranoid yelping at a self-serving fundi bogyman. And, of course, the derogatory comparison to "sub-pulp writing style," is simply silly hyperbole. But "bad proselytizing"? Really? Hmmm. Obviously this part and parcel of the same insidious anti-Christian conspiracy fiction plot. :lol:

Come on Romey, you've cooked up all these Freshman English criticisms, (apologies to those Freshman English students who DO know better) not because they're true, but because the conclusion was so abhorrent, and so many people have loved it and the story that brought it to light.

Sure it was a light weight read: it didn't pretend to be anything but. Did you find fault with Foucault's Pendulum or Name of the Rose because they were not on par with Hamlet? Did you find the characters lacking and cardboard because they failed to match those of Tennessee Williams or Chekhov? But, as I said, I realize why you say what you do, hatred and disgust of what was said, not how it was said.

[romepunk]

"The worse thing about The DaVinci Code [is that] It's just a really stupid book"

What a preceptive and incisive observation :rofl:You quote that as if it were all I said. I obviously said more since you responded to it. :huh:


And we're suppose to conclude that just because you enjoyed one book involving Italian/European History, the Templars, Free Masonry, and the occult, that this somehow absolves you of possible prejudice toward another book?No, but since the book involves similar themes (it also works in the Rennes la Chateau theory) it shows its not the subject matter that I hated about this book.


Come now. It isn't the subject that puts people into such a foul mood that they strike out, it's the context of the subject and the way it's dealt with.If you mean silly, poorly written, poorly researched context. Then I guess you're right.


And it is obvious that you came out swinging precisely because of the context and message: "a really stupid book," is hardly a brilliant analysis.Nor was it all I said.


"Web of heresies and blaspehmies," is only relevant to a mind passionately defending a very cherished issue.Conceded. But that wasn't really what bothered me. It was just a boring, poorly written book. A movie like Stigmata wasn't too Catholic-friendly either, but I found it quite enjoyable. I thought it was well written and well acted. Even though I disagree that the Gospel of Thomas and its conclusions are authentic. And who knows, Ron Howard, brilliant director that he is, might take this poorly written book and make an exciting movie.


And, of course, the derogatory comparison to "sub-pulp writing style," is simply silly hyperbole.Not really, but maybe you don't read as much literature as I do.


Come on Romey, you've cooked up all these Freshman English criticisms, (apologies to those Freshman English students who DO know better) not because they're true, but because the conclusion was so abhorrent, and so many people have loved it and the story that brought it to light.Simply not true. A well written book involving the same subject matter would be a fascinating read. Rennes la Chateau wasn't central in Eco, but it was there. Katherine Neville has written on the same themes too, and has done it better than Brown.


Sure it was a light weight read: it didn't pretend to be anything but.I'm not so sure about that. It's gotten alot of publicity casting it as a superbly researched, intellectual thriller, on par with Eco, Borges and other real writers :wink:


Did you find fault with Foucault's Pendulum or Name of the Rose because they were not on par with Hamlet? Did you find the characters lacking and cardboard because they failed to match those of Tennessee Williams or Chekhov?Are you saying I can't call Eco a better writer than Brown, because Shakespeare is better writer than Eco? There is good writing and there is bad writing. Eco, while not the best author of all time, is a brilliant writer. His books are well researched, his characters are well developed. Brown is not a good writer. I don't say this because I disliked the plot of Davinci Code, a lot of the books in the Christian Fiction section of my bookstore contain values that I would sympathize with and absolutely horrible writing. These authors are bad writers with poorly written books as well.


But, as I said, I realize why you say what you do, hatred and disgust of what was said, not how it was said.Nope. I wish you would stop trying to read my mind and realize that this was an honest opinion. The DaVinci Code was just a horrible book.

[Jeannot]

>>>Sure it was a light weight read: it didn't pretend to be anything but.

Okay, but some/many readers believe that stuff. And I believe that Brown has made remarks supporting the conspiracy theory in the book. I have no objection to people spinning fantasies, but they should be presented as such--as was done in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

[Donotbeafraid]

Let's face it. All these books are just tripe written to make money out of a gullible public desperate for another dose of sensationalism.

[JillPole]

This is actually something I deal with on a daily basis. It's somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. Dan Brown wrote a fiction book... was he trying to convince people it was truth? No. It is openly ficticious. The Dewey Decimal System proves my point. The Da Vinci code is located where, at your library? Is it in the 200's section with all the fact books on religion and theology? No. Is it in the 900's with biographies and history? No. Take a longer shot, is it in the 300's with books on myths? No. It's in the Fiction section, it has no Dewey number, indicating it has no fact to it. Why do people insist on quoting a book that isn't trying to be fact? It's like reading Lewis Carroll and then quoting him to prove cats can talk or mushrooms can make you shrink. On a side note... Dewey does provide for works of fiction, it's the 800's section. However, you won't find Brown there either, he doesn't even classify as classic fiction yet.

[NeilUnreal]

Oh pu-leez, next thing you'll be asking us to believe Harry Potter can't really do magic. :lol:

-Neil

[Pilgrim]

This is actually something I deal with on a daily basis. It's somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. Dan Brown wrote a fiction book... was he trying to convince people it was truth? No. It is openly ficticious. The Dewey Decimal System proves my point. The Da Vinci code is located where, at your library? Is it in the 200's section with all the fact books on religion and theology? No. Is it in the 900's with biographies and history? No. Take a longer shot, is it in the 300's with books on myths? No. It's in the Fiction section, it has no Dewey number, indicating it has no fact to it. Why do people insist on quoting a book that isn't trying to be fact? It's like reading Lewis Carroll and then quoting him to prove cats can talk or mushrooms can make you shrink. On a side note... Dewey does provide for works of fiction, it's the 800's section. However, you won't find Brown there either, he doesn't even classify as classic fiction yet.
I alomost agree with you but Dan Browns prface and introduction indicate that while the characters and the story immediately surrounding htem are fictisious he believes that the underlying facts are real. Or at least diserve consideration as to their realness.

Lot's of writers do this. They take real episodes or facts and then fictionalize the characters around them. The result is fiction of course but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[JillPole]

Hm, ok the copy I have of the Da Vinci Code doesn't have that preface and introduction. I'll look into that. What my copy does have as an introduction is him setting up the places and professions in the book. In my opinion, he's setting up his story, not claiming fact. But again, there are so many versions of the book out already, if you have one with a different introduction, I'd like to know.

[Minnesota]

My first printing, hardbound edition says:


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 Scion, including
Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo,
and leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus
Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
sect that has been the topic of recent
controversy due to reports of brain-
washing, coercion, and a dangerous
practice known as "corporal nortification."
Opus dei has just completed construction
of a $47 million World Headquarters at
243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals in this novel
are accurate

[Donotbeafraid]

This is actually something I deal with on a daily basis. It's somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. Dan Brown wrote a fiction book... was he trying to convince people it was truth? No. It is openly ficticious. The Dewey Decimal System proves my point. The Da Vinci code is located where, at your library? Is it in the 200's section with all the fact books on religion and theology? No. Is it in the 900's with biographies and history? No. Take a longer shot, is it in the 300's with books on myths? No. It's in the Fiction section, it has no Dewey number, indicating it has no fact to it. Why do people insist on quoting a book that isn't trying to be fact? It's like reading Lewis Carroll and then quoting him to prove cats can talk or mushrooms can make you shrink. On a side note... Dewey does provide for works of fiction, it's the 800's section. However, you won't find Brown there either, he doesn't even classify as classic fiction yet.I think that you're assuming that everyone has your level of intelligence and discernment. They don't. Many people want to believe that Christianity is rubbish and because this book is about real people and (some) real events they can easily forget that it is fiction. Also, this rubbush had been put out as fact by several other authors, e.g. Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh which is even more confusing for some people.

[JillPole]

My first printing, hardbound edition says:


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 Scion, including
Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo,
and leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus
Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
sect that has been the topic of recent
controversy due to reports of brain-
washing, coercion, and a dangerous
practice known as "corporal nortification."
Opus dei has just completed construction
of a $47 million World Headquarters at
243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals in this novel
are accurate

Thats what mine says too.... In my opinion, he's building up the intrigue and mystery to his book. He's still playing the part of the fiction writer. Again, my opinion... nothing more.

[blackfrog]

he.he... are you sure?

[TheOneAndOnly]

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 Scion, including
Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo,
and leonardo da Vinci.

Unfortunately this was debunked over 20 years ago.

http://home.graffiti.net/prioryofsion/posmis.html