The Davinci Code, Busted! [Archive]

jpholding

November 6th 2003, 07:52 PM

Heya Jaltus,

What I had in mind was stuff like this:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa082499.htm

The Trinitarian bishops prevailed. Emperor Constantine was not himself a Christian. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria. Constantine's friend Eusebius, who eventually withdrew his objection but still wouldn't sign the statement of faith, and a neighboring bishop, Theognis, were also exiled -- to Gaul. Constantine reversed his opinion about the Arian heresy, and had the two bishops reinstated three years later (in 328). At the same time, Arius was recalled from exile.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

This would obviously affect Brown's attempt to make Constantine the bad guy as he wants...thoughts? Should it be more precise?

Jaltus

November 6th 2003, 10:06 PM

He brought the Arians back because of political pressure and he wanted to leave behind a united church. He was baptized by an Arian in order to show that they were worthwhile as practicioners.

Also, he was already a Christian. The guy I quoted is a if not the leading patristics scholar.

jpholding

November 7th 2003, 12:51 PM

Jaltus:

He brought the Arians back because of political pressure and he wanted to leave behind a united church. He was baptized by an Arian in order to show that they were worthwhile as practicioners.

Also, he was already a Christian. The guy I quoted is a if not the leading patristics scholar.

OK. That still sure does not fit the picture of him Brown is trying to foist (as if it helped that he didn't even get the purpse of the Nicean Council right, much less the vote tally!). If anyone inquires I'll keep that in mind.

Here's a link to the interview I did:

http://kfuo.org/Issues_Main_page.htm

I'm on the first hour. Little new in it if you've read the article, other than Brown's claim to be a "Christian"!

Whipartist

November 9th 2003, 11:36 PM

J.P.

The code is such pure garbage! Given that so many people love eating garbage, it's nice to have something to give to them that proves it. Thanks for busting the code!!!

Queen

November 10th 2003, 04:01 AM

Gee.....fiction!!!!!! The woman is right, it is just fiction. Have you ever read a book of Robin Cook? Do you really think all these things happen in hospitals? Or ever read a science fiction book. Watched Star Trek on the telly? FICTION!!! That why it is called fiction...You don't believe all you read, I hope. A writers prerogative to let his/her imagination go wild. Artistic freedom....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

Socrates

November 10th 2003, 04:36 AM

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277079#post277079)
Queen:

Gee.....fiction!!!!!! The woman is right, it is just fiction. Have you ever read a book of Robin Cook? Do you really think all these things happen in hospitals? Or ever read a science fiction book. Watched Star Trek on the telly? FICTION!!! That why it is called fiction...You don't believe all you read, I hope. A writers prerogative to let his/her imagination go wild. Artistic freedom....

JPH's point was correct -- even in a fiction work, it is irresponsible to have a fictional historian presenting false history as though it were fact. Similarly, it would be totally irresponsible to make a Star Trek episode where they go back in time and discover, say, that the Holocaust was a fabrication. It would be equally wrong to have an episode where the leading historian of the United Federation of Planets is protrayed as knowledgeable and a many of complete integrity but claiming that the Holocaust never happened.

jpholding

November 10th 2003, 10:47 AM

Queen:

Gee.....fiction!!!!!! The woman is right, it is just fiction. Have you ever read a book of Robin Cook? Do you really think all these things happen in hospitals? Or ever read a science fiction book. Watched Star Trek on the telly? FICTION!!! That why it is called fiction...You don't believe all you read, I hope. A writers prerogative to let his/her imagination go wild. Artistic freedom....

I thought I was on Ignore! :rofl: Cook et al however doesn't preface his books with "FACT" and sentences, "All medical claims in this book are correct" and put false statements about medicene in the mouths of doctors.

"Artistic Freedom" -- the standard excuse for being irresponsible. Given her behavior in the other thread, I wonder if Queen would tolerate writers who came out with fiction books that said rape was a good thing...

I will be loading an updated version from the Passantinos today, that will also have an appendix with a link to this discussion, and new information from a couple of assistant researchers....

Queen

November 10th 2003, 05:39 PM

"Artistic Freedom" -- the standard excuse for being irresponsible. Given her behavior in the other thread, I wonder if Queen would tolerate writers who came out with fiction books that said rape was a good thing...

JP, you can adres me personally.... And my behavior was not that weird or even irresponsable. I reacted from the heart. I even have send you a personal pm also from the heart, asking you to understand my problems with this.....I guess you never read that pm.

I know you think you are very religious, but how religious is it to make fun of other people's trauma's. I hope one day you will feel your religion in your heart as well. Jesus is a good example to learn compassion from.

JP and Soc,

Artistic freedom is important because it is an artist prerogative to change and adapt reality with fantasy. As a painter I use that a lot. I even made a collage once about rape. I also made one about suicide. I saw paintings about rape, suicide, movies comedies that made rape look hilarious and so on. Sometimes I can handle it, other times not. Depends on the things I see. But I would never judge the artist for expressing their artistic views.

Star Trek has time travel......THAT in it self is unrealistic! We can't travel through time, heal every disease, repair damaged DNA and so on. Yet it all happens in Star Trek. I saw a episode about a millenium tower...it was never build, yet there was this whole story about the millenium. I saw many episode about evolution. It is a wellknown fact....evolution...It is true according to Star Trek. Even the ships and the alien species are just fantasy.......If they changed history a bit (which would not happen on this level you are talking about, soc) that would be fine by me.

Books, even if not correct are beautiful. The words that you see on the page open a world of fantasy, the sentences make you feel the atmospere and the chapters lead you to the end that satisfies your fantasy. That is why these books are called fiction. And if you have read i.e. "Brain" by Robin Cook.....we are not able to install a human brain into a computer.........that is still.....rubbish, a vision of the future from a man in the past of that future....It may be medically correct......yet the rest s based on pure fantasy.

There are rappers who rap about all kinds of horrible things, sometimes from the perp's POV....Who am I to say that they are wrong to express their emotions and feelings and fantasy? We should not hold artistic freedom back. It is the beauty of the humanoid brain....fantasy and fiction.

Lots of love and sunshine and JP, may you heart find the warmth that I admire so much in Jesus,
Queen

jpholding

November 10th 2003, 08:11 PM

JP, you can adres me personally...

How could I if I was on Ignore? :eww: OK, since you're listening...

I even have send you a personal pm also from the heart, asking you to understand my problems with this.....I guess you never read that pm.

Never got it, actually. You can try again.

but how religious is it to make fun of other people's trauma's

Trauma's in the possessive? I do not mock any trauma; I make fun of your inconsistency....which is a direct result of your constant reaction "from the heart". You don't so much as bother to check yourself for consistency.

Star Trek has time travel......THAT in it self is unrealistic! We can't travel through time, heal every disease, repair damaged DNA and so on.

And again: Star Trek does not preface its episodes with commentary labelled FACT and comments like, "All depictions about time travel, medicene, and genetics in this TV show are true."

Have you or have you not read DaVinci Code?

Have you or have you not seen Brown's prefatory statement declaring that he thinks the background claims are true?

Have you or have you not seen him on national television profess to be a believer in the "facts" he presents in the book?

Would you accept a book that used the mantle of "fiction" but presented as "fact" that:

* Rape victims were deluded into thinking they were being harmed and deserved what they got? Your rappers may go from POV but are they actually claiming something of rape victims that is not true?
* A certain race was inferior genetically and in intelligence?
* Stalin's purges were actually out of the kindness of his heart?
* Cancer can be cured by doings situps?

In order to break you out of your reverie it is necessary to flag these images before you. Let me remind you as well that no one wants to ban DVC or any book here -- we do no more than exercise our OWN right to critically appraise it.

Have you seen the reviews on Amazon and in Publisher's Weekly that think Brown is reporting accurate history?

Lots of love and sunshine and JP, may you heart find the warmth that I admire so much in Jesus,

My heart is nice and warm, thank you. But that doesn't mean by brain goes cold. :thumb:

Queen

November 12th 2003, 06:18 AM

Hello JP,

Why is it that emotions can't be used in debate? What is that? Why do we have to act cold and rational to a topic that lies near to our heart?

What is so inconsistent about me. I may write down things chaotic, but I don't believe that I that when I say 1 I mean 2.....but maybe it is because english is not my native language and I use the wrong words to express certain opinions........I dunno

No, I haven't read the book yet....it is not available here yet, I believe....but I will read it.....I love these kinds of books.

What I am defending is artistic freedom.....You can take all you read too seriously. It is just a book....words on paper, no more no less. Like paint on a canvas, words and notes in a song. Often people can express their whole being in art. And books are art......even the books based on true stories/lives...it is still the interpretation of the writer, the artist with words.

So-called facts may not be correct, but that doesn't mean that you can condemn it. Art enriches the lives of people.......if I paint purple people I am giving a wrong picture of people......so what?

That is all.

The thing that irritated me in your first answer was the fact that you used my trauma to make me look ridiculous. Maybe you did not meant it in that way, but it still hurts like hell....I can't handle that at this moment in my life. You should realize that. You mocked me being raped with these words:

"Artistic Freedom" -- the standard excuse for being irresponsible. Given her behavior (Queen: What the.....) in the other thread, I wonder if Queen would tolerate writers who came out with fiction books that said rape was a good thing...

THAT is what I don't like about your replies. Those little viscious remarks. I asked you in the pm to understand my feelings about this subject and to understad why it is so difficult for me to shut down my emotions........and to respect that. I am in therapy right now to cope with this, and that is hard. You will never understand how I feel, because you haven't experienced this (and I really hope you never will). That is what I pm-ed. Where that pm is gone I dunno. My puter crashed so maybe it went to oblivion..... :hrm:

I respect your opinion about the book, I honestly do, but Ibelieve that you are encouraging people to read it......even more because they want to read what you find wrong. Brown gets free advertising and he is the only one that will profit from it.....You made me want to read the book..... :wink:

Anyway, I hope you understand how I feel about certain things....it's the words that hurt me.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

dizzle

November 12th 2003, 08:53 AM

Queen, you still have not addressed JP's points. I am sorry but this is becoming a pattern. You make an emotional argument that is filled with internal inconsistencies (and inconsistencies with other views you have and have expressed) and when it is pointed out you never resolve them but make another emotional response.

I can assure you that JP was not belittling any personal trauma that happened to you, nor would I ever. Any personal trauma that happened would not be an issue for public discourse if you did not make it so, personally I am very uncomfortable with it being such a public issue becuase any comments towards it by someone else can be interpreted by you as being a dig when it was not intended to be. However, I understand that speaking publically can be very cathartic and helpful to others for the same reasons I am very open about my struggles with depression. However, if you are going to engage in debate threads, in rational debate, you need to start using some reason, and not simply raw emotion. In the points you made above, you are simply reiterating things you said that have been rebutted by JP. The next step for you is not to simply repeat them but to rejoin them. You have failed to do that. Case in point. JP has ad nauseam refuted your "artistic freedom" argument. It would be useful if you would engage the argument rather than repeating rebutted points.

markporter

November 12th 2003, 09:47 AM

Great to hear your voice JP.

Queen

November 12th 2003, 10:12 AM

Dee Dee,

I am sorry that you get sort of irritated by my replies, but I didn't start about rape........JP did. I don't know if you read between the lines, but that remark was rather insulting.....

Let me repeat myself again.... :egad:

Artistic freedom...that is all I have to say about this article. I believe that this is just looking for a reason to spread idea's somehow....and some of us use every oppertunity that comes along, even fictional books.......I wonder when a movie like the "End of the Days" or any other religious based fiction is used in these kind of articles. Looking foreward to read that.

I guess I am too emotional, too creative and think too much with my heart, so I kindly step back from this thread and let the ' rational' people "fight" about this......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

jpholding

November 12th 2003, 01:15 PM

Queen:

Why is it that emotions can't be used in debate?

Use 'em all you want. Just don't expect to gain any respect for answering, "Why is X act immoral?" by shouting, "BWAAAAAHHH!" :bawl:

What is so inconsistent about me.

You defend contrary positions:

1) We should respect literary freedom! Well --

2) Except for Deuteronomy! :doh:

As has been noted by Dee Dee, you did not address a word I said but merely repeated the same points over and over again as if nothing had been said. I'm still wondering if you'd play this "it is still the interpretation of the writer, the artist with words" game if someone let loose with a book that, for example, portrayed you as a Nazi and said it "enriched the lives" of people to do so. Would you just shut up and let it be? Would you claim that addressing it "advertises" for the book that says this?

The thing that irritated me in your first answer was the fact that you used my trauma to make me look ridiculous

In other words, I showed that you were inconsistent. So why don't you fix the problem of your inconsistency and stop spreading around confusion? Why don't you actually answer the arguments?

but Ibelieve that you are encouraging people to read it......

Do you think I care? I *want* people to read this sort of material. Hiding behind ignorance is not a virtue.

Brown gets free advertising and he is the only one that will profit from it.....

Not if I recommend people get it from their public library or a used bookstore. :wink:

Anyway, I hope you understand how I feel about certain things....it's the words that hurt me.

Hmm. Yet you don't think Brown's words could be hurting people, or is something that should have comments made on it....uh huh. Inconsistency. Now how about some understanding from your corner, hmmm? :smile:

markporter:

Great to hear your voice JP.

Better than Donald Duck's, I hope. :teeth:

dizzle

November 12th 2003, 01:26 PM

Today @ 09:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281764#post281764)
Queen:

Dee Dee,

I am sorry that you get sort of irritated by my replies, but I didn't start about rape........JP did. I don't know if you read between the lines, but that remark was rather insulting.....

I can assure you that he certainly did not mean it so. This is what I mean about why I am uncomfortable about this public airing of a private trauma. You bring it up frequently in debates to support points. You truly cannot expect others not to bring it up to test the consistency of your views, in other words, if it is so offensive for you, please do not make it a subject of support for debate points. The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I am truly sad for what happened to you. I know you are wounded by it, but it is unfair to bring it up as support for points, and not be expected to be consistent with your points. If I thought for a second that anyone was belittling your trauma or purposefully being spiteful to you over it, I would smack them faster than you can imagine.

Let me repeat myself again.... :egad:

That is the problem Queen! You simply repeat yourself and NEVER here interact with the points made. Frankly that is a tad bit disrespectful to your discussion participants. It means you are not interested in interaction, only in making your point, not defending it.

Artistic freedom...that is all I have to say about this article.

The author claims the historical information is accurate! That is NOT TRUE. That is NOT artisitic freedom Queen, how come you cannot see that? HOw come you refuse to deal with that point? It is quite odd.

LOLAS back at ya.... remember though this is a discussion and debate forum, that requires rational discourse in which persons interact with each other's points. You are doing that with Solly in the "evil" thread.

Pate

November 12th 2003, 02:51 PM

Not that this is "my business", but a few comments anyway...

Howdy, JP.

While I agree that Queen hasn't interacted with your arguments and your position on this issue is rationally much more defensible than hers, I do think that the point you were making could have been done without mentioning the rape thing. I don't mean this as an offense or anything, just an observation. When you deal with people like Farrell Till, Stevie Carr etc, it's very understandable that the first thing in your mind is not how you'll avoid offending them. I've myself got a little bit of experience about that with Stevie. :wink: Thus, when you do it a lot, I guess that inevitably shows in your general discussion style.

Hello, Queen.

I agree with Dee Dee that JP didn't mean to offend. It's just that he regularly gets to heated discussions when he defends Christian worldview against those that attack it. As you've said yourself, no one is perfect. It may be that you have a tendency to bring a bit too much of emotions to a "rational" discussion (not that being emotional is somethin bad in and of itself), while the opposite may be true of JP to some extent. You both have something to improve upon. Don't we all? This is just an indication that we all are unique individuals and differ from each other in some respects. And overall, that's a great richness.

jpholding

November 12th 2003, 05:08 PM

Pate:

While I agree that Queen hasn't interacted with your arguments and your position on this issue is rationally much more defensible than hers, I do think that the point you were making could have been done without mentioning the rape thing.

I make it an issue only because of the extended discussion we had in the "God Approves of Rape" thread. As Dee Dee has noted, Queen uses it as a support for points, so it seems fair to do the same as a reply. Her sentiments in the message above match my own.

Queen

November 12th 2003, 05:52 PM

Oh Man....I seem to be the subject of a thread that supposed to be about a book and the facts that seem to be wrong...

Well, we could start a new thread about me and my horrible debating skills......maybe I will learn something from it. :ponder:

I am just me. For the first time in my life I am going to defend myself. But not right now....I will, tomorrow....it is way past bedtime here and I can't think...

Really strange.....sometimes people's words annoy :noid: me here, but I like everybody :flowers: ...I just disagree with certain POV..... :eek:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

Socrates

November 13th 2003, 01:27 PM

11-12-2003 @ 11:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281720#post281720)
markporter:

Great to hear your voice JP.

:hrm: Wow, JP has an American accent :wink:

Sher

November 13th 2003, 01:36 PM

"what accent?" :wink:

Fourty-Two

November 28th 2003, 01:19 AM

11-10-2003 @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277085#post277085)
Socrates:

JPH's point was correct -- even in a fiction work, it is irresponsible to have a fictional historian presenting false history as though it were fact.

Yet you base your entire world view on such fiction.

jimbo

November 28th 2003, 02:27 AM

Queen,

Here is a bit of helpful advice: Don't allow religious fanatics like Mr. "Holding" to upset you. Mr. "Holding" is desperately trying to protect a comforting delusion, and part of the way he does this is by angrily insulting those people who disagree with him. He apparently believes that if belittles those who disagree with him, then he can safely disregard their ideas. Getting upset by "Holding's" childish outbursts is every bit as pointless as getting upset at the rantings of Tourett syndrome sufferers, who uncontrollably spew curse words without understanding why.

Cheers,

Jimbo

dizzle

November 28th 2003, 06:45 AM

Jimbo you added nothing to the conversation. If you wish to take up a personal issue with JP, the Locker Room is your oyster. The area for the Sister Sites is under heavier moderation and while aggressive debating is fine, posts that are sheer and obvious personal issues are not going to be allowed. Thanks.

jpholding

November 28th 2003, 08:54 AM

Fourty-Two:

Yet you base your entire world view on such fiction.

The trolls take their morning walk, I see. :lmbo:

Ryan Dallion

December 1st 2003, 09:24 AM

Hi JP,I really liked your critique,however Dan Brown makes an error I think you might have missed.His claim that the Shekinah is the female consort of Yahweh,you said you had no idea where he got that information,he got it from the Kabbalah there is a school of though within the Kabbalah that veiws the Shekinah as the feminine aspect of deity see here http://music.acu.edu/www/iawm/pages/sabbath.html However according to Hexham's concise dictionary of Religion the Kabbalah is "a medieval JEWISH mystical system based on the BIBLE but drawing on PLATONISM and a variety of philosophic traditions."The Catholic encyclopedia here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08590a.htm states that the Kabbalah began to play an important part among the Jews after the 10 century AD.So what Brown is doing is taking a very late school of thought and acting as though it was reflective of the ancient Israelites.

jpholding

December 1st 2003, 03:10 PM

Thanks for the info. That reflects even worse on Brown than just making it up, actually! Let me keep that in mind for the article...I can't change it now because it was done for Answers in Action and is their property, technically...and they're still mourning the loss of Bob Passantino, so I'd rather not bother them. :smile:

Ryan Dallion

December 3rd 2003, 06:25 PM

I understand,I was suprised by Bob Passantino's death.Here when you do modify the article you may find what comes up number two helpful http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=kabbalah+divine+feminine it's very detailed,however it's kinda hard to navigate.

Blake Reas

December 5th 2003, 12:23 AM

The sad thing is there was a guy in my church reading this. I am not against reading, just books that waste time when you could be reading scripture, biblical studies, or Cervantes:doh: . That is the sad state of the Christian mind today. We read books that dog on YHWH's shekinah glory!

Blake

ephphatha

December 10th 2003, 03:28 AM

I was reading a thread on another web page (http://www.quarterlifecrisis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2341&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) and it was apparent to me that two people, Pisces, and MetFanL, had read The DaVinci Code and bought into the "facts" hook line and sinker. Reading their posts convinced me that JP's critique was extremely appropriate.

ephphatha

kehunnah

December 10th 2003, 10:49 AM

What's say it the fuel for the fire of the "half-unconvinced" that are looking for a reason NOT to believe. This polutes the whole apologetical process...but maybe it really serves to spark the whole conversation anew. I'm all the more convinced that we MUST be ready to have a reason for the hope that we have in Christ.

c0bra

January 5th 2004, 04:12 PM

11-06-2003 @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274036#post274036)
jpholding:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa082499.htm

The Trinitarian bishops prevailed. Emperor Constantine was not himself a Christian. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire.

Not to get off on a tangent, but this is part of the debate a friend and I are having. Is this article wrong? I was under the impression that Constantine merely legalized Christianity and Theodosius made it the official religion 70 years after Constantine in 381.

jpholding

January 5th 2004, 08:43 PM

c0bra:

Not to get off on a tangent, but this is part of the debate a friend and I are having. Is this article wrong? I was under the impression that Constantine merely legalized Christianity and Theodosius made it the official religion 70 years after Constantine in 381.

It's not my area of expertise...anyone know?

TWells

January 7th 2004, 10:16 PM

It was Theodosius, he was also responsible for the repression of Arianism decreeing that all profess the faith of the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome. Then he moved on to paganism.

Lazy Agnostic

January 11th 2004, 08:18 AM

12-10-2003 @ 09:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332960#post332960)
kehunnah:

What's say it the fuel for the fire of the "half-unconvinced" that are looking for a reason NOT to believe. This polutes the whole apologetical process...but maybe it really serves to spark the whole conversation anew. I'm all the more convinced that we MUST be ready to have a reason for the hope that we have in Christ.
Less yakking and more doing might be helpful.

SNUsc

April 29th 2004, 03:55 PM

the article that you wrote was very well written and i have to say pretty right on...

i am currently writing a paper for my theology class about the relationship b/t jesus and mary magdalene...that is what led me to this site...anyway i was very impressed with everything you said...

we seem to live a in Jesus/Christianity haunted culture...but at the same time the people are for the most part incredibly biblically illiterate....that combination in itself is very dangerous...people will so often take many things out of context and make them fact....that is a dangerous thing...it is an incredible sad thing that people are buying into these arguments that Brown writes about....but at the same time some of the arguments that support this belief are quite humorous...i think that if they even took a step back or even did a little bit of research they would laugh at the accusations that they are bringing to the table....i guess it says a lot about our culture...we are a sex, gossip and scandal driven society...knowing that and acknowledging that makes it very easy to understand why these type of arguments that are presented as "facts" come about....

thank you for your article...it was a nice break from finding all sorts of information on the "real" jesus

Jezz

July 5th 2004, 03:05 AM

Not to get off on a tangent, but this is part of the debate a friend and I are having. Is this article wrong? I was under the impression that Constantine merely legalized Christianity and Theodosius made it the official religion 70 years after Constantine in 381.

It's not my area of expertise...anyone know?
Sorry that this is so late... I happened to stumble across this and thought that I could offer some insight (better late than never... :smile:) I studied early Church history recently and spent some time on Constantine.

The above statement by cobra is not 100% correct, but no 100% incorrect either. At least, by my understanding.

The process of Christianity changing from outlawed to sole permitted religion was a gradual one that (from memory) went in the following stages:

1. Constantine comes to power in the West.
2. Constantine issues "Edict of Toleration" (311). Christianity changes from illegal to tolerated religion.
3. Constantine becomes sole emporer in 313.
4. Constantine makes Christianity the official state-sponsored religion.
5. Nicene Orthodoxy established at First Council of Nicea (325).
6. Arianism gains ascendency over Orthodoxy under Constantine's successors (->361)
7. Constantine's nephew, Julian (aka "the Apostate") becomes sole emporer, and make paganism the official religion again - persecuting Christianity (361-363).
8. Various Arian emporers restore Christianity (Arian variant) as official state religion after Julian's death (-> ~379)
9. Theodosius becomes joint-emporer with Gratian (in the East) in 379.
10. Theodosius and Gratian issue an edict stating that all of their subjects must adhere to the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Februrary 380) - thereby making Christianity the sole permitted religion in the Empire and outlawing paganism and Arianism.

Constantine tolerated other religions (given that paganism was still the religion of the majority when he became emporer, this was probably the shrewd political decision). But other religions were still tolerated (indeed, became the state-sponsored religion for periods) up until the time of Theodosius.

Regarding the earlier discussion of Constantine being an Arian - I think Jaltus pretty much nailed it. Although Constantine was eventually baptised by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (not the same Eusebius who wrote Church History, who was from Caeserea) on his death bed, he was pretty much a Nicene (ie, orthodox) Christian. I think that what Jaltus said (he was baptised by an Arian as a show of unity) is probably a good assessment.

It was Constantius who was sympathetic to Arianism (probably under the influence of the aforementioned Eusebius), and it was under him that Arianism gained ascendency over Nicene orthodoxy. Constantius was the Eastern successor to Constantine. In answer to Jaltus' question: Constantius was Constantine's son, not his nephew. The nephew that Jaltus probably had in mind was Julian (son of Constantine's half-brother) - aka "the Apostate", because he tried to reinstitute paganism during his brief reign as sole emporer.

Also, on the claim that Constantine wasn't a "real Christian": this claim is, I think, usually based on the fact that he wasn't baptised until on his death bed - in which case it is wide of the mark, I think. If politics were his sole motivation, then Christianity was the wrong choice (because as I said, paganism was still the majority religion when he became emporer). Delaying baptism until shortly before death did not mean he was not a genuine Christian: this was common in those times, especially for people in positions that might require them to carry out or order unsavoury acts. In contrast to the claim that this meant Constantine wasn't a real Christian, it seems to indicate that he took Christianity (and especially baptismal regeneration) seriously. Undoubtedly Constantine was a shrewd politician, but I don't think his actions are fully explained by the assertion that his motives were political.

Anyway, none of this impinges directly on your article - I just thought I would offer it FYI. I found your article was well-directed and to-the-point, as usual. :smile:

moshepat

July 5th 2004, 12:22 PM

In general, an excellent repudiation of poorly researched material. Long ago, I read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and found it interesting, but on reexamination, the ideas were based more on inuendo than verifiable facts. In other words, a good place to BEGIN, not to end. The DaVinci Code struck me as virtually stealing the concepts in the earlier book, without any further scholarship to support them.

On the other hand, using the lack of other source material to criticize the general concept of alternative views of Jesus and his life seems a poor argument. That such were not included in your New Testament (I am Jewish) only (or I should say may) argues that the concensus opinion was against their conclusions or implications. Considering the vast amount of ancient literature for which we have references in quotes but whose texts are now lost, it hardly seems a stretch to imagine other material lost or deliberately destroyed. In fact, when considering the long and often brutal reign of the Roman church and its popes, the loss of any documents which would offend their sensibilities (and yours) is highly likely. For instance, what do we know of Celsus except the arguments against him? And other history, such as the banning and burning of the Talmud should not require further verification for you. In fact, wasn't the Catholic church once opposed to any laity owning copies of the Bible --for fear that they would misinterpret it (as defined by the church)?

In general, it is difficult to conclude with certainty from absence.

On a second issue, which in no way is conclusive, normative behaviour at that time was for teachers to be married. Single men were considered too immature to hold such positions of authority. Also, men did not travel with unmarried women unless they were related, because of implications of loose morals. A conclusion drawn that Mary Magdalen was thus possibly the spouse of Jesus (and thus drew no comment from his followers or the crowds to whom he preached) can reasonably be drawn -- but certainly not conclusively.

Thirdly, you have commented on the difficulties inherent in linguistics. Translation of idiomatic phrases, of which you cite several, require in depth understanding of both languages. Unfortunately, we are now working at a significant disadvantage in this regard, given the extreme distance of time involved. I have some knowledge of biblical and modern Hebrew, but there are certainly many words in the Pentateuch for which the meaning is uncertain. In fact, in English, the word 'gay' until several decades ago merely meant happy. I have read Chaucer and found it relatively easy -- with the exception of a few words, but Old English or Anglo-Saxon, as in the Exeter gnomes or Beowulf,would be completely opaque to a modern speaker of English, however fluent, and that is only the course of one millinium. Even having phrases in several languages may not be helpful, for then we obtain two more layers of possible confusion -- the lack or understanding or usage of one tongue and the personal prejudices of the translator. Still, it would seem that this at least gives us some reference on which to proceed.

Lastly, I thoroughly enjoyed your discourse regarding the timing of Daniel. It was a civil, intellectually stimulating exercise. It would be interesting to have your thoughts regarding Daniel's predictions of the end of days. Both our religions uphold the idea that God's reign on earth could begin at any moment, and yet Daniel appears to give very specific time information. My readings have led me to believe this may be a 'no later than' statement. In other words, if events or our actions (wickedness or repentance, I suppose) are sufficient, the end may come at any time, but NO later than the assigned date. Like a ship sailing, it should arrive no later than a given day, but fair winds and easy seas may speed it.

Sacrificial Ram

August 6th 2004, 05:00 PM

Why are you trying to debunk a piece of FICTION? It is FICTION, and does not pretend to be otherwise.

Trying to debunk it just gives it more validity.

Piebald

August 6th 2004, 05:49 PM

When you've encountered 15+ people in chatrooms and on Internet forums who think it contains legitimate information, you'll understand!

Cynic Sage

August 6th 2004, 08:00 PM

Why are you trying to debunk a piece of FICTION? It is FICTION, and does not pretend to be otherwise.

Trying to debunk it just gives it more validity.
But you see, in the books preface, Dan Brown (the author of The DaVinci Code) claims that although the characters are fictional, all depictions of History, Art, Architecture (misspelling, my bad:blush: ), History, and Secret Rituals are 100% accurate.

Speaking of which, we should try to invite Dan Brown to post in this thread and defend his position. Y'know, WATCH HIM SQUIRM! :grin: MUWAHAHAHAHA!

jpholding

August 7th 2004, 09:29 AM

Speaking of which, we should try to invite Dan Brown to post in this thread and defend his position. Y'know, WATCH HIM SQUIRM! :grin: MUWAHAHAHAHA!

Brown won't even allow for feedback on his site, and has consistently refused to accept engagements facing his critics, so you'd be better off hoping to see swine getting aerodynamic.

Obviously Mr. Ram needs to get out more. For those who think fiction is just fiction and has no effect, I have three words: Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Sacrificial Ram

August 7th 2004, 03:35 PM

Brown won't even allow for feedback on his site, and has consistently refused to accept engagements facing his critics, so you'd be better off hoping to see swine getting aerodynamic.

Obviously Mr. Ram needs to get out more. For those who think fiction is just fiction and has no effect, I have three words: Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Well, Mr Holding. I know the effect that fiction can have on people. Many claims are made about subjects that are not backed up with scholarship at all.

{Tim}

August 9th 2004, 05:47 AM

Many claims are made about subjects that are not backed up with scholarship at all. Was this intended to refer to The DaVinci Code or to Mr Holding's response (since I'm not sure yet of your views)? Or were you perhaps talking of fiction in general? Well, if you meant the first of these, I would agree with you.

BUT, you said:It is FICTION, and does not pretend to be otherwise.However, the problem (as already pointed out) is that it does pretend otherwise.

Tim

dizzle

August 13th 2004, 07:10 PM

Also the fact is that Brown has claimed in his interview on Good Morning America was that if he were to write a nonfiction book on this subject it would be basically the same. He believes he is writing fiction based on historical fact.

jpholding

August 16th 2004, 11:16 AM

I may take up a suggestion to read Brown's book Angels and Demons to see if he makes the same kind of blunders there too.

Twilly Spree

August 17th 2004, 11:39 AM

I don't understand getting upset about his books or Harry Potter books. They are works of fiction. This a work of adult fiction, it was a fun read. Both the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, he's not very nice to Catholicism in either but I'm not griping the book was a fun, fast paced read. I love thriller novels and this one was quite good. Are there problems with it historically? Yes, but that's the fun of ficiton.

Raptor

August 17th 2004, 11:45 AM

It seems that some are taking his work as more fact than fiction. I'm not sure if he's just trying to sell books or if he truly believes what he said. His allusions to his "facts" is where the problem comes in.

Twilly Spree

August 17th 2004, 11:51 AM

Eh it matters very little if he really believes that, they're fun books. I don't really care if believes them or not, that's all him.

jpholding

August 17th 2004, 02:23 PM

I don't understand getting upset about his books or Harry Potter books.

Why does correcting blatant errors equate with being "upset"?

Twilly Spree

August 17th 2004, 03:23 PM

I mean that's fine but its just fiction.

Piebald

August 17th 2004, 03:36 PM

I don't understand getting upset about his books or Harry Potter books. They are works of fiction.

You know it. I know it. But Johnny-Shops-at-the-"metaphysics"-section-of-Borders absoloutely refuses to accept it. I suppose we'd have to do the same thing if people picked up Alice in Wonderland and started celebrating Unbirthdays....

Twilly Spree

August 17th 2004, 03:39 PM

jpholding

August 18th 2004, 02:05 PM

Like I said...

I mean that's fine but its just fiction.

...so was Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Being fiction does not stop something from causing massive social upheavel -- for good (as with UTC) or for evil.

gpinvestor

March 20th 2005, 09:32 PM

Cynic Sage

March 21st 2005, 05:35 PM

The Davinci Code is a fairly easy thing to thwart. Consider the source. The same people that promoted things like the last temptation, Jesus Christ Superstar. The book people that own the book company (not a Christian company if that gives you a clue) These are the very same people that the bible talks about that are opposed to us for the gospels sake. I see it every day. These are the same people that planted phony gospels after Diaspora. I don’t know why people are so surprised at the flak comes from that direction. We are trying to be thwarted in every way by these people. No prejudice. Just plain Bible truth. If you do not think this is true. Well come over and I will try to deprogram you. Your in a culture. That in this very very day what the bible said is true is still true. That is cause for joy in my opinion. Blesssed are you when they persecute you and call you evil for my names sake. That’s a good thing. When they stirred people up in Greece against Paul. All thats changed is the medium. Rejoice and be glad

Take a deep breath and relax, nobody's out to get you. Now please wait in front of your computer for another hour, I am sending a... er... friend, yes, a friend, wearing a suit, tie, and dark sunglasses, to pick you up.

:lol:

Well, seriously, I believed you used a bit of an ad-hominem fallacy (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#100) in dealing with your criticim of the Da Vinci Code (your whole "not a Christian book company") argument. If I were you I'd go straight for it's "jugular artery" of poor reasearch and dismal non-scholarship.

And JP doesn't really fret much source-wise about "bias", he frets more over things like sound scholarship and Historical accuracy. I reccomend you read his articles "Navigating the Information Jungle (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=962273)" and "Calculated Contempt (http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html)" .

The Empty Hours

September 19th 2005, 08:24 AM

.........there's nothing wrong with unbirthdays

I guess I just don't see the point. I mean I see the point in after reading researching Da Vinci but to make a big show of it. I dunno maybe it's just me.

Apparently, 1 in 8 Americans have read Da Vinci Code, and get this -- it's the highest-selling adult-fiction book in history. The main problem is a foreword page which basically claims that although it's a work of fiction, all the history in the book is correct. It has caused all sorts of ruckus - shaken faith in some Christians, confirmation about the invalidity of Christianity for unbelievers, all because the book gives the impression it's being honest about its history. I can see all the reason in the world to debunk the false claims in such a popular and widely-read novel.

anewlife

September 22nd 2005, 11:45 AM

Holy Toledo Batburb

It's 1938 HG Wells flying fantasy circus once again. Step right up folks and see the codes er um I mean flying barnicles.

Murdock (Acharya S) and Brown should get together sometime and go bowling.

:blush:

Arthur

November 6th 2005, 08:05 AM

The article is interesting, and well supported. But I'm a trifle puzzled by how quickly the author leaves behind the subject of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

(Quick note - according to recent reports Brown is now citing "The Templar Inheritance" as his primary source.)

On the very first page after the "Acknowledgements" and title page, Brown lists three alleged facts, the first of which reads:

"The Priory of Sion -
a European secret society founded in
1099 - a real organization."

This claim, although it forms an important part of the foundation for "Holy, Blood, Holy Grail," and thereby an important part of "The da Vinci Code", simply is NOT TRUE.

The whole Priory of Sion fantasy is based on the work of a pro-Nazi, anti-semitic Frenchman/forger/all-purpose looney who claimed he was the rightful king of France (no kidding) - Pierre Plantard - who created the relevant "historical" documentation and arranged for it to be planted in the Biblotheque Nationale in Paris.

In reality the Priory of Sion cannot be traced back further than 1956! And even Plantard (in 1989) revised the date of it's foundation to 1681.

So not only is Brown's theological research up the proverbial creek - he can't even keep up with recent history. But then again, did he ever try?

Well, allegedly so, because there is now a new "Special illustrated collector's edition" of "The Da Vinci Code" which, according to the publisher's blurb:

"... allows the reader behind the scenes of the novel, which now incorporates over 159 photographs and illustrations throughout the text, showing the rich historical tapestry from which he drew his inspiration."

And does any of this matter in a work of "fiction"?
Going by a recent TV programme in the UK I'd say the previous writer who claimed it influenced people's views, even those who thought of themselves as Christians, was 'spot on.'

Three people who were all avid fans - including a Christian theology student - were taken around Europe and Britain to view the various locations mention in the book and to meet people who had relevant background knowledge.
It was quite clear that all three people, all of at least average intelligence and commonsense (IMO) had assumed that ALL of the so-called facts in the book were indeed true.

Having said which, it seems to me that the real cause for sadness is not that books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code" exist, but the fact that the teaching of basic reasining and questioning skills is virtually non-existent in schools today so that so many people know no better than to be persuaded that such drivel has any basis in fact.

:sigh:

Best wishes

Arthur

JonathanB

January 28th 2007, 03:41 AM

JP,

I just wanted to make a couple of points. First one is in regards to sexual practices in the Temple (in worship of Shekinah). There might be a shred of truth to that. I recall the book mentioning this going on during Solomon's time. The Bible describes Solomon being lured away from the Lord due to his many foreign wives and their gods. So it is possible some may have participated in such a blasphemous act, though it was obviously not common Jewish practice as Brown seems to suggest.
Second, the marriage customs in Judaism. Suppose just for a moment that marraige was a must in Jewish customs and Jesus did marry. Even if He did at the age that Brown states it was long before Mary ever came into His life. So though these false ideas seem to argue for Jesus being married, they actually refute the notion that Mary was His wife. At first I would've been surprised that Brown missed this but logic doesn't seem to be a virtue of his.

jpholding

January 29th 2007, 10:08 AM

So it is possible some may have participated in such a blasphemous act, though it was obviously not common Jewish practice as Brown seems to suggest.

Yes -- I'd say idolatrous practices aren't what he had in mind.

Second, the marriage customs in Judaism. Suppose just for a moment that marraige was a must in Jewish customs and Jesus did marry. Even if He did at the age that Brown states it was long before Mary ever came into His life. So though these false ideas seem to argue for Jesus being married, they actually refute the notion that Mary was His wife. At first I would've been surprised that Brown missed this but logic doesn't seem to be a virtue of his.

Many have said it would not have been a problem for Jesus to have been lawfully married. I can go along with that, but your point is a good one. Any marriage would have been arranged at age 14.

BurntOffering

January 29th 2007, 11:22 AM

And what if Jesus refused to marry, until our father in heaven gave him a wife just like God provided Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and even Joseph his step father. I do not believe Jesus was married to Mary Mag, because of what Bathsheba's husband did. Knowing that He would die on the cross, I dont believe Jesus would have taken a wife. Of course that's not to say the Bridegroom to Come will not have a wife of his own.

JonathanB

February 5th 2007, 04:25 AM

I don't believe that Jesus was married because he is married to the church. I'd say the time he spent on earth was the engagement period. I don't see him focusing his love like that on one person because his love is for all of us. Plus, I think he was too focused on the Kingdom of God and mankind's salvation to support a wife (much like Paul)

LilPunkishOfTerror

February 6th 2007, 09:52 AM

Jonathan,

I'd like to ask how Jesus was engaged to an institution that, during his lifetime, did not then exist (the church began at Pentecost)?

I agree with your point that His bride is the church though.

BurntOffering

February 6th 2007, 10:45 AM

Very good question! Which is why I said although the Bride is the Church, the Bride is also a Real Woman, Wife and Queen for the Son of God, Lord of Lord and King of Kings. Jesus had to wait until Our Father in Heaven gave him a wife; just like God provided Adam, Abraham, Moses, Joseph etc. I believe when Jesus died on the cross and the gruard opened his side with the spear, that the water and blood that fell to the ground, defeated the powers of Satan. Then just like with Adam God used the Earth, Water and Blood to make Jesus a Wife of His own, who is now Satan, Risen, Reborn, the Sister Spirit and Bride of Jesus Christ. :blush:

Peace out

February 6th 2007, 06:58 PM

God used the Earth, Water and Blood to make Jesus a Wife of His own, who is now Satan, Risen, Reborn

:huh:

BurntOffering

February 7th 2007, 12:47 PM

I am suggesting that God used the same principle to make Eve as S/He did with making a Wife suittible for Jesus. As Jesus slept on the cross, or died, God used the Water, Blood and Earth to create Jesus a wife. This is why his wife could not be Mary Mag.

The death of Jesus on the cross overcame Satan's powers, then Satan as the Queen like Jesibell was cast into a Bed, told to play dead for 1000 years until Jesus allowed Her to Rise, Speak, and send out the invitation to a Wedding designed to end all creation.

It is this marriage that was planned by God from the Start and these are the failthful and true sayings of God.

Peace out

JonathanB

February 12th 2007, 05:26 AM

Jedi Punkish,

Ok, that's a good point. My bad. I was trying to find a way to say that his time on earth was not meant to include a wife.

BurntOffering

February 12th 2007, 11:07 AM

Exactly, God made Jesus wait a long time for a wife, just like S/He did with Adam, and Joseph, because although Mary was marryied to Joseph he could not touch her until after the child was born. The bible says; when Jesus was presented to the temple he was met by a Prophet and A Prophetess.... Male and Female, but even the Prophetess remained a virgin 7 years after her marriage.

As such Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom to Come will Return for his Bride (a real woman) and S/He is the one who will send out the invites, in His name and in Honor to GOD our Father AND Mother.

Peace out

JonathanB

February 19th 2007, 09:14 PM

Why would Jesus return for an actual woman if the church is His bride? He also said there was no marraige between man and woman in heaven.

BurntOffering

February 20th 2007, 01:48 AM

Why?...WHY?....Y you ask? Oh let me count the ways. How about:

1) It is for this cause the Man is to leave his father and his mother to cleave unto his wife?
2) If he is returning to EARTH, than the marriage would not be in Heaven!
3) It is not good for the Man, Son of Man, Son of God, King of King or Lord of Lords Not to have a Help Meet, Woman, Soul Mate or Queen of His own.
4) If the Father is made in Our dna Image of Xy and Mother is XX, than the Y or Son of God, or He in the 3 Xs is the only Reason not to mention the X is his Beta half, Double You and Double the Alpha. The FeMale part of himself which is also His Sister and Daughter of God's but a Woman just like Eve and the Virgin Mary was.

Like I said, I believe the Wedding between Jesus and a real woman was planned by God; but that Jesus was Not married to Mary Mag, because Jesus knew it would take a very long time for God almighty to provide Him with a Wife. I just think that wife is Satan, God's Angel, Daughter, and Jesus' Treacherous Sister, who is considered the least of the kingdom. But that Jesus had to make a wife suitable for himself, and that's what he did, when he died on the cross. That God used his water and blood that fell to the ground to make him a wife. That Jesus Christ is the one who came looking for the 1 in 100 lost Black Sheep (Satan), Washed her with His Blood, Picked her up and put Her up on his Shoulders and Yes Is very Glad to Marry Her.

Please tell us Why; Jesus would not deserve a Wife of His own, just like God provided Adam, Joseph, Moses, Job, etc....

Have ye not read in the beginning God said Male and Female made he them. If Jesus is the Christ and Satan is the Anti Christ, now Reborn; I really would like to know the Theology or reason anybody can say; Jesus Christ will not have a real woman or wife of His own. :eek:

Come Hither, I will shew you the Bride the Lamb's wife, (said the Angel, in the body of a real Christian woman) and How come you aint glad, rejoiceing or giving Honor to Him; when the Wife hath made herself ready to send out the invitation to a Wedding designed to end all time?

Peace out

BurntOffering

February 20th 2007, 01:53 AM

Why?...WHY?....Y you ask? Oh let me count the ways. How about:

1) It is for this cause the Man is to leave his father and his mother to cleave unto his wife?
2) If he is returning to EARTH, than the marriage would not be in Heaven!
3) It is not good for the Man, Son of Man, Son of God, King of King or Lord of Lords Not to have a Help Meet, Woman, Soul Mate or Queen of His own.
4) If the Father is made in Our dna Image of Xy and Mother is XX, than the Y or Son of God, or He in the 3 Xs is the only Reason not to mention the X is his Beta half, Double You and Double the Alpha. The FeMale part of himself which is also His Sister and Daughter of God's but a Woman just like Eve and the Virgin Mary was. So the X(yX)X shows the Father and Mother as One. A FeMale Goddess with its seed in itself or Her Holy Womb. So Devinci Code is part true.
It shows a Trinity Goddess XX with a Son Y and Daughter X inside Herself just like the Earth

Like I said, I believe the Wedding between Jesus and a real woman was planned by God; but that Jesus was Not married to Mary Mag, because Jesus knew it would take a very long time for God almighty to provide Him with a Wife. I just think that wife is Satan, God's Angel, Daughter, and Jesus' Treacherous Sister, who is considered the least of the kingdom. But that Jesus had to make a wife suitable for himself, and that's what he did, when he died on the cross. That God used his water and blood that fell to the ground to make him a wife. That Jesus Christ is the one who came looking for the 1 in 100 lost Black Sheep (Satan), Washed her with His Blood, Picked her up and put Her up on his Shoulders and Yes Is very Glad to Marry Her.

Please tell us Why; Jesus would not deserve a Wife of His own, just like God provided Adam, Joseph, Moses, Job, etc....

Have ye not read in the beginning God said Male and Female made he them. If Jesus is the Christ and Satan is the Anti Christ, now Reborn; I really would like to know the Theology or reason anybody can say; Jesus Christ will not have a real woman or wife of His own. :eek:

Come Hither, I will shew you the Bride the Lamb's wife, (said the Angel, in the body of a real Christian woman) and How come you aint glad, rejoiceing or giving Honor to Him; when the Wife hath made herself ready to send out the invitation to a Wedding designed to end all time?

Peace out

BurntOffering

February 20th 2007, 11:10 AM

Yeap; Satan as the Queen of the South, or Lady of the Lake was told be play dead for 1000 years, then Rise and Come in the name of the Lord as His little mrs, and wife. Jesus raised Satan from the dead, just like he did with the daughter of the ruler of the synogoge and this is why Jesus made them the synogogoes of Satan.

JonathanB

February 27th 2007, 10:21 PM

Is this some kind of a joke? Are you serious about this stuff? It's an interesting theory, but where can you back it up with scripture? The only bride ever mentioned in there is the church. Do you think that if a woman was made for Christ's return (especially if it is Satan!), that it would at least have a passing mention in the bible? Satan is merely an angel, a created being, not a begotten daughter of the Father. Satan is not the antichrist, either. The antichrist is a man who will work for the devil to persecute Christians (or Jesus's real bride). This same Satan whom you say will be washed cleaned and prepared for marriage to Jesus will be cast into the Lake of Fire in the end. On one last note, you will see there is no marriage in Heaven in the traditional sense, because we will be married to God.

BurntOffering

February 28th 2007, 10:20 AM

Thank you for your reply, and Yes I am very serious about what I wrote. Unfortunately you Miss Understand the bible, probably because youre not a woman. From the very beginning God said "It is for this cause the Man (even Jesus) is to leave his( Father AND his Mother aka Both) to cleave unto His wife (a woman, live eve, the virgin mary or mary mag) You are also wrong that the bible only refers to the church as the bride. Just as Jesus is a Man and called the Bridegroom to come, Does Not Mean He Wont Have A Wife of his own. There are too many scriptures to refer this, such as when the 10 virgins were called went out to met him; but only One got in. The anti Christ is ANYONE who say they dont believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, was the son of God, died on the cross and alll that stuff, which could be any of US male or Female. Look at it this way, there is only One Jesus Christ so anybody else could be the Anti Christ. The anti Christ Is His Opposite, since Jesus is a Male than the Anti would be Female.

Satan is a creation of God's and an Angel, but remember Jesus was made lower than the Angels and the Angels were the ones who Ministered to Him. If Jesus is the Alpha, than Satan as the Beta or 2nds is Twice as powerful than Him. This is why Satan, as a Dark Mysterious Woman, and Angelic Daughter of Gods' was sent to Test, and Tempt Jesus when He was in the wilderness.

The Satan,the Devil, the Dragon or Serpent is the wisest of All beast God made. So if you look at rev. 17:6 "The woman drunken with the blood of saints" is the same one possessed by Satan, who is God's Angel and Gods Daughter. The difference between the X=Female and Y= Son,

Its not that the Scriptures dont support what I am saying the Do Literally, but Men have blinded themselves to Not see It, there ears have waxed gross so they Cant Hear it; when the Answers to God's mystery and Book has been write in front of our face all alone.

It all rest upon the phrase "Male and Female made He them" and most prophets, or people that talked with God always mentioned coming from GODs womb, we We all Do, but only female have those.

Peace out

JonathanB

March 5th 2007, 12:22 PM

First off, your comment that I misunderstood because I'm not a woman could be turned on you. Maybe you're going off the deep end because you are a woman. Forget it. Just because Jesus said man will leave his parents to join his wife doesn't necessarily mean he was talking about himself.
The 10 virgins story was a PARABLE and was a comparison to the kingdom of heaven telling us to be prepared for its arrival.
The anti-christ is specified as a single person (and male at that).
Rev. 20:10 says, "The Devil who decieved them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (HCSB). Satan will be punished, not wed to Jesus.
You were right in saying that Satan is a created being, not begotten like Jesus. Jesus is not just the alpha, he is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. There was none before Him, and there will be none after Him.
When Hebrews speaks of Jesus being made lower than the angels was Jesus humbling himself on earth to suffer for man. That was for a time. Phillipians states that because of Jesus's obedience He was greatly exalted by God and given the name that is above every name.
Rev 17:6. This woman is Babylon; verse 18: And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth (KJV).The very next chapter speaks of her downfall.
"Male and female He made them"? The male and female genders each represent a part of God. But Jesus IS God.
It's funny that you accuse us (men) of blindness, but my own wife has heard some of your theories and is disturbed by them. And she ain't the only woman who would find this absurd (I suppose you're gonna say men have blinded them. Whatever.)
Satan (or devil) is never referred to as she in the bible.
You say Satan is Jesus's opposite that is because Satan rejects everything that is of God. He hates the Lord and has done everything he can to destroy His name.
We are His bride, His only bride. He did not come for just a woman, but for you and I.
That's all I have for now. Take care and God bless you (and I do mean that).

BurntOffering

March 5th 2007, 02:53 PM

1st let me say thanks for your reply, then secondly let me say that maybe you are Right about me going off the deep end because I Am A Woman and Woe of Man. Remember everything God made was for God's good cause and that includes Eve, the Virgin Mary and Mary Mag.

3rd I agree the Bride is the Church, and that We are all members of His (Jesus) Body, Family, but its the Woman who is the Bone of His Bone and Flesh of His flesh as the 2nd Adam sent by God in the form of a Man or Son of Man aka Jesus Christ. But like with any Wedding or Marriage, Both families attend, and although the Bridegroom is standing in front with the preacher waiting for His bride, Nobody Rises or Stands until the Music begins to Play "Here Comes the Bride". Therefore, You have NO EVIDENCE that Jesus Christ will not Wed a Real Woman or Have a Wife of His own, just like God provided Adam, David, Moses, Joseph and Job.

4th the Anti Christ is and can be anyone who is Not Jesus Christ, and the Anti Christ can repent, and can also be Reborn once they claim the Salvation of Blood of the Lord that was shed for all.

The tale of the 10 virgins is not just a Parable; and all Scripture is put their for an Example. This is why Jesus said; to US All; What Man among you would leave the 99 and go off looking for one that was Lost? Then when he comes home gathers his friends around saying Look I have found my Lost Sheep, My lost Second Son or the Least of the Kindgom aka Satan. Satan or the Devil has not been thrown into the Lake of Fire YET; and 1st Satan, as a S/He must Rise, declaring that It Time. God always used Satan, the 7th Angel who has a Loud Voice to Speak to Us, just like when Jesus was first Baptised; A Voice from Heaven, Said this is my Son; Hear Him

You say" opposite that is because Satan rejects everything that is of God. He hates the Lord and has done everything he can to destroy His name. SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE THAT ITS SAYS THIS! The above is what you have been taught; But its not in the Book, therefore You are Wrong! And I never said the only reason Jesus came was just for a woman, I agree he came for You and I; and that Yes One Day He will have His Own Wife.

So in closing maybe your wife is Upset with the things I say, because She settled for You and didnt Know being the Wife of Jesus Christ was Possible. So now please let me know why you think Jesus would not have a wife of His own. He is worthy is He not? So when the Wife comes forth as Satan in the Flesh, Reborn, Risen and Washed Clean by Him, then Satan would then be the Daughter of God's and Gods' Daughter In Law; just like GOD planned from the very start when GOD told Adam and All Men in Eph. "It is for this cause the Man is to Leave his Father and His mother to Cleave unto HIs wife (and there is a difference between a Bride and a Wife) because you can be a Bride but never get married if left at the ALTER!

GOD Bless You Too; God Bless Us All; and I'm sure If God could begot a Son, God could begot a Daughter, But Either Way, GOD still would have to Use a Woman because Men don't give Birth; and that includes Jesus!

Peace out

JonathanB

March 6th 2007, 11:59 PM

I justed wanted to add a couple of things that I forgot to mention in my last post:
1. I said before that Satan is never referred to as she. Here are some words spoken by Jesus himself. John 8:44: "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father .He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. " (NASB) Matthew 25:41: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and HIS angels. (NIV) (emphasis added)
2. I would like to add to what I said about the parable of the 10 virgins from Matthew 25. It doesn't say that one was selected, but the 5 wise ones that brought oil for their lamps.

JonathanB

March 7th 2007, 12:30 AM

I just read your recent post and you asked to show you in the bible where Satan has contempt for God. Jesus said that He was the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. Jesus walks in truth and in obedience to his Father, fulfilling the Law. I then refer you back to John 8:44.
2nd, yes, God COULD have a daughter, just as He COULD have midget saimese twins, but that doesn't mean He did.
3rd, the anti-christ i am referring to is the false prophet, who will perish in the end with the devil and the beast, AS IT IS WRITTEN.
4th, Matthew 22:30: At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven (NIV). Their is no woman that will be prepared for Jesus because like I said, THE CHURCH IS HIS ONLY BRIDE.

BurntOffering

March 7th 2007, 12:58 AM

Again I say, You have NO Evidence that the Bride will not also be a Real Woman, a Real Wife. Nor did you anwser our contention taht Satan Hates God and all of that other bull stuff you mentioned. The only thing God ever made that was not Good is A Man alone; so you have No evidence that God did not send Jesus Christ to make a wife presentatble for himself; nor that the only Wife eligble is not Satan, as the Agnelic Daughter of God,

This was all a part of God plan from the Start; for a Grand Wedding, Weeding, and ReUnion after S/He splt the Adam. No there will be No marriage In Heaven, but there will be a Marriage On Earth.(Mother Earth)..which God loved even more than the Son.

JonathanB

March 7th 2007, 03:15 AM

This is obviously an exercise in futility, because nothing, even scripture, will change your perverted view of God's Word. Either you're completely insane, screwing with everybody (which isn't funny), or (and this I believe) you have been completely decieved by Satan. Now I will bow out. You can pat yourself on the back and mark this one as a victory, I don't care. You're beyond reason. I feel like a fool for dragging this out as far as I did. But I will make one final arguement about John 8:44: If God is truth, and Satan does not stand in truth, he is going against the things of God. I know that's hard to swallow seeing as you're blinded by your love and reverence for Satan, which is exactly what the devil wants. All I can say now is God help you.

BurntOffering

March 7th 2007, 11:05 AM

Johnathan; I have not been deceived by Satan. You have been deceived by a Lye Man has kept going since the beginning of Time! Yes Satan part in the game of Life is to be a Liar, a Deceiver and even an escape goat for man to blame their sins on although they thought up the sin all by themsefl. Satan takes Her direction from God, such as when God sent Satan to Job, like when GOD sent Satan to Test, and Tempt Jesus when he was in the wilderness.

Satan get He/r directives from GOD and Satan could always do whatever she wants. She could go to an fro, walk up and down in the earth, and even get away with Murder. Jesus role was to do the will of GOD, but Satan's job was to do the will of Man.

The Serpent or Satan is said to be the wisest of all the beast that God made, because All Satan had to do was Remain Silent, Let People believe whatever they Want, but Nowhere in the Bible will you find, God giving "man" the instruction to kill, crush, or destroy Satan.

So just like in the Davinci Code movie; the WOMB V is the most important part and where All people come from including Jesus Christ, because GOD almighty might not have a Human body, but She definately has Two Arm, Two Legs, Two Hands and Two children aka Male and Female. I don't believe Jesus married Mary Mag, but I do believe A Real Wedding on Earth Was Planned, Prophesized and Written in the Scriptures

Rev.22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine Angel to testify these things unto you....And the Spirit and Bride Say Come", Because the Angel, Spirit and Bride are all one in the Same A Female or Woman. Also you missed the scripture I posted Rev. 17:6-9

And I saw the Woman, drunken with the blood of Saints and martrys of Jesus; and When I saw Her I wondered with Great admiration. And the Angel said; Why do you marvel, I will tell the the mystery of the Woman and of the Beast......God prepared a special place for the Woman, and gave HER both wings of a Great Eagle to Fly into Her Place, which is the seat right next to Jesus, as His Wife, Bride and Sister.

Peace out

JonathanB

March 7th 2007, 11:16 PM

Isaiah 14:12-16:How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;(KJV) Ezekiel 28:13-19Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (KJV) You see, Satan rebelled and angered God and was cast down. He will be punished for his transgressions. He has no chance for salvation because he has seen God in all His glory. These verses are the words OF THE LORD.

BurntOffering

March 8th 2007, 12:44 AM

Very Good Johnathan, you looked good; but lets review

1) How did I fall; cause I said "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

So what wrong with wanting to be LIKE the most High, (Jesus Christ)? So do yall; or most christians even the Pope.

2) Yep, I was Perfect and as an X aka FeMale and other Half of Him Xy Jesus Christ, iniquity was found in me, as well as a whole bunch of other things, but that does not mean
that Satan, once in the flesh of a Woman, Couldnt admit Her Defeat, or Escape Her Fate
because it was for this cause S/He was made.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (KJV) You see, Satan rebelled and angered God and was cast down

Yeah I defiled the Sancutaries; just as the Pharisess did; so what at least I amited my mistakes and if the Truth be told; that was just Satan doing her god given Job.

Yes Satan was Cast down, but Satan obviously rises in revelations declaring times almost up.; I shall be No More (anti christ) cause I chose to give up the anti and be with Christ who even saved my life.

Yea Satan was cast down with Great Anger by God; but God wasnt mad with Satan; God is mad at Yall, and always used Satan to do the Dirty work...in the Body of a Woman, because S/He is the fearest of beast in protection of her children.

Peace out

dizzle

March 8th 2007, 12:47 AM

:looney:

JonathanB

March 8th 2007, 09:37 PM

Darth Xena, seem just as confused as any sane Christian. BO, here it is. Satan said he will be like the Most High, because he was arrogant before the Lord and thought he would rule. Some Christains try to be like the Most High but look at Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
2) Yep, I was Perfect and as an X aka FeMale
So, because Satan was perfect he's really a woman?
Yeah I defiled the Sancutaries; just as the Pharisess did; so what at least I amited my mistakes and if the Truth be told; that was just Satan doing her god given Job.
Where in those verses was Satan admitting his mistakes? Does any of that sound like repentance? That was God speaking of the devil. Even if those words were Satan's, it means nothing. I could kill a man and say I did it, but it doesn't mean I'm sorry, I could just be bragging. On a second note, so what if the Pharisees did the same, they were not righteous men (though they thought otherwise). You say Satan will rise up and be saved in the end? What does scripture say? Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (KJV) Your precious Satan will burn, and if you remain with this attitude, so will you.

JonathanB

March 8th 2007, 10:40 PM

I want to apologize for that last comment. That was too harsh. I got a little excited.

BurntOffering

March 8th 2007, 11:12 PM

Well personally, I prefer the Heat of the sun/son as opposed to ice and the hoary frost of heaven in Job. 38:29 when GOD referred to Her Womb and even question you about "Who Gendered it" . As a woman and GOD's lunatic daughter my body is governed by the Moon, seasons and tides.

As Satan, a Woman like the Virgin Mary was and GOD's Angel I too am A fellow servant, and I don't want you bow down and worship me, because it would be a Crime (Rev. 19:7-10). You just dont understand that although "It is more blessed to Give than to Receive" Jesus and I had different missions or jobs. He came to give his life as a ransom for yall; and I get the benefit by Receiving ALL as his little Mrs or Miss Takes:ahem: These are the Faithful saying of GOD, and you should feel blessed to be invited to our wedding, but for some reason you still dont think its possible when its clearly written in the bible.

Now tell me this: WHEN In ALL History has anyone come forth Claiming to Be Satan, the Daughter of God, Sister Spirit and Espoused Wife of Jesus Christ?

The bible says; Satan, or the Devil will Rise, and that the Devil knows Time is Short. What are you expecting Satan to be saying. Free At Last Free At Last, Thank God almighty I am Free and the LAST which shall be the first to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. I already admited my defeat at Calvary, How happy I am that Jesus Christ found and saved a wretch like me from a terrrible fate. God give Jezibell space to repent so why wouldnt God do the same for a reborn christian woman, such as myself ?

Now don't expect me to be sorry for Man blaming their sins on me; when I (Satan) had nothing to do with it and they thought up most of that stuff by themselves. God gave me the job to persecute woman and I did what I was told. Satan persecuted Job, and even tried to Tempt the Lord when he was in the wilderness, but again I was just doing my god given job.

So now as my reward for I (Satan) will get a New Heaven, A New Earth, A Kingdom, A Mansion, with lots of maids,servants and a Big ole Ring to wear as the Queen to the King of Kings all because I said Yes to the Lord and was found in prayer in fasting; when he came home.

Peace out

JonathanB

March 9th 2007, 03:17 AM

Alright, I'm done (for real, this time). It's been a great laugh, but just like the devil, this lady has convinced herself of something that goes against scripture, so using it is repetitive and futile. I've seen misuse of the Word before, but this is truly stunning. I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or continue to stare at the screen with a stupid look on my face. I do feel sorry for you, but your theory or whatever it is is truly laughable, even painful. Don't bother retorting with the same 2 verses,or any other crap about poor Satan, it's repetiive, tedious, and a perversion of the Lord's Word. If this is Satan I've been talking to, leave this woman now! She doesn't need you, only Jesus. Jesus, please save her! Romans 16:20
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. (KJV. Not that this verse will open your eyes or anything).

Peace Out

BurntOffering

March 9th 2007, 12:21 PM

:lol: Johnathan you should be Laughing, and Letting God wipe those tears from your eyes. What have I been saying that Goes against Scipture? This is very important, so dont' stop now because this is how WE get to the Truth by looking in the Good Book!

Just so you know; that stupid look on your face, is a Frown aka the mark of the beast and I'd bet its exactly where the bible said it would be. On your forehead, in between your left and right Ear; On Your Temple and In Your Mind!

You quoted Rom. 16:20 regarding satan being bruised; Whell thats what happens to Twin in a Womb. Look at this way Jesus is the male son and Man given the number of 6, but the Woman who was made later is a 9 which looks the same as a Man and "M" except Upside down. The woman made 2nd is A Double You "W" as the Beta to the Alpha. Jesus and Satan are just like the Twins in One Womb, of which ONe's Hand came out first but was actually but was actaually born second.

In closing I really appreciate your prayers and blessings. I extend the same to you as well as Hope GOD will take the scales from your eyes; so you can see and read scripture clearly.

Plus I'm still looking for the answer to this question "Now tell me this: WHEN In ALL History has anyone come forth Claiming to Be Satan, the Daughter of God, Sister Spirit and Espoused Wife of Jesus Christ? because just like in Isa. 42:14 "I have long time holden my peace. I have been still, and refrained myself; NOW Will I cry like a Travailing Woman; I will destroy and devour at once" but I'm just talking about your Fragile Male Ego.

Peace out

OldManZangetsu

March 10th 2007, 05:13 AM

:twitch: :eww: Wisdom doesn't always come with age

BurntOffering

March 11th 2007, 02:04 AM

Gee Old man me think you are right! According to the Bible Wisdom is assigned to Her, as already quoted in Prov. 9. The problem with old men is that they gave up childish things live Believing becasue they thought being a Man was somehow better than being a Child of Gods, always needy and asking questions like Why.

Since the Davinci code mentioned the mystery is revealed due to the womb of Woman, I suggest you Remember the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom; and the knowledge of the holy is understanding....Come eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled, when I sat at the Last Supper with Jesus Christ and in rememberance of Him.

Oh, I forgot as a good Christan Man, you probably dont drink alcohol anymore which for the record again is in DisObedience to him.

Peace out