The De Vinci Code: poll, did Christ father a child?

[Octavian]

I haven't read the book, but I saw an excellent and intriguing documentary I think on the History Channel, which summarized the De Vinci Code. I hope everyone familiar with the book or who has saw the documentary votes in the poll and posts their comments & opinions.

Oct

[Meh_Gerbil]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Christ fathered a child.
The Davinci code is FICTION.

[Barry Desborough]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Christ fathered a child.
The Davinci code is FICTION.

Eek! I find myself agreeing with the Demented Rodent!

It is fiction, based on the VonDanikenesque Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent. As reliable as Chariots of the Gods, UFOlogy, oh, and YEC. :wink:

[Meh_Gerbil]

Eek! I find myself agreeing with the Demented Rodent!

It is fiction, based on the VonDanikenesque Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent. As reliable as Chariots of the Gods, UFOlogy, oh, and YEC. :wink:

Yeah.. what he said...

...

...

.. hey, wait a second... he did one of those evilutionist mind tricks on me!

[Teallaura]

Bad fiction.... :brood:















































:grin: And you forgot ESCR! :hehe:

[Meh_Gerbil]

The thing that really, really bothers me is a Christian friend of mine called me up and started talking about the possiblity of Christ and Mary 'getting it on'. He'd read the book and found it compelling.

I'm at a loss that we live in a society embracing a admitted fiction as reality.

[Teallaura]

On the other hand, NBC ran a Dateline special that debunked the thing... Who knows, maybe there is hope for the world to turn around?....:shrug:


We already know that there is the One True Hope of the world.... :candle:

[Darth Executor]

It's not admitted fiction though. Brown's been trumpeting that it's all 100% fact as a publicity stunt. It worked...

[Teallaura]

Now that's sad - no one noticed it's almost 100% wrong facts?

[betzerg]

It's not admitted fiction though. Brown's been trumpeting that it's all 100% fact as a publicity stunt. It worked...

There you go, to prove the historically existence of jesus of Nazareth just tell all the skeptics and jews to read the DaVinci Code. Dan Brown has proven the case.

It seem strange that, on one hand people rant about their being NO historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus...but on the other hand seem to say...but if he did exist...he had a wife and a child. HMMMMMM.....

It's fiction.....and destructive fiction at that.

Shalom,

BETZER

[Teallaura]

There you go, to prove the historically existence of jesus of Nazareth just tell all the skeptics and jews to read the DaVinci Code. Dan Brown has proven the case.

It seem strange that, on one hand people rant about their being NO historical
evidence for the existence of Jesus...but on the other hand seem to say...but if he did exist...he had a wife and a child. HMMMMMM.....

It's fiction.....and destructive fiction at that.

Shalom,

BETZER

Now, you see, this is just the sort of thing skeptics complain about! :brood:

Don't you know that secret documents, allegedly lost for centuries, that only a few people saw, and didn't copy, and then lost again, which have never been examined either textually or forensically, automatically trump the Bible which has withstood the cover-to-cover scrutiny of Christian and skeptic alike for 2000 years?








The shifting sands of evidentiary standards.... sheesh! :no:

[NSMinistries]

by the way I got a bridge for sale & maybe some ocean front space as well.... :nsm:

[NeilUnreal]

I don't think an event like Jesus fathering a child could have been suppressed for two millenia, while simultaneously making it symbolically into nearly every work of art ever created.

-Neil

[Meh_Gerbil]

I don't think an event like Jesus fathering a child could have been suppressed for two millenia, while simultaneously making it symbolically into nearly every work of art ever created.

-Neil

RFLOL

[TheOneAndOnly]

I've read The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Dan Brown basically converted into a novel. I think it is impossible to ever find out whether he had a child or not. I do think it is likely that he was married. There's no reason why he shouldn't have been. I think a lot of the NT is made up by Paul and later overzealous "Christians" anyway. Nobody has yet told me how the church councils which formed the bibilical canon were so sure to get the right books in.
What we now consider Christianity embarked on a dirty war and annihilated all rivals so now they have a monopoly over who Jesus was.
Other writings such as the Nag Hamadi scrolls and various, recently found, gnostic works, paint a different picture of Jesus.

At the end of the day, it boils down to which story is more inspiring and better told. To have a secret history of European civlization buried beneath the surface of a corrupt and savage church (and yes, the church has been corrupt and savage) is much more inspiring than the orthodox account. There's nothing in the official gospels that compels me to believe them as true, and even less so for Paul's writings. There's no great evidence for either Jesus. But I'll stick with the more entertaining version.

The early church did embark on a campaign to destroy rival branches. For instance Clement an early Church leader wrote to a Theodore who complained of Gnostic teachings infiltrating his area. Clement wrote:
Such [men] are to be opposed in all ways and all together. For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them.

Clement went on to admit the existence of a secret gospel of Mark and carries on:
To them [the Caprocratians - a gnostic sect], therefore, one must never give way, nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. - HBHG

Hmmm... The Catholic Church has always been good at playing dirty and being deceitful. They launched crusade after crusade against people who disagreed with them and destroyed the Cathar culture in southern France. Why? They obviously feared something. The truth perhaps?

When the inheritor to the Holy Roman Empire's throne reveals himself, we will all bow down and the New Age will begin, as the decayed, rotten edifice that is the Roman Church will finally crumble.

Also, assuming the DVC is completely fictional, the Catholic CHurch sure seems to be going out of it's way to discredit it.

[Minnesota]

:offtopic:I hope everyone familiar with the book or who has saw the documentary votes in the poll and posts their comments & opinions.

None theists are pretty much forbidden to post in this forum, so if you really want their comments and opinions I suggest you request that your thread be moved to a forum where they are permitted.

[Teallaura]

Bob: <Some stupid, obviously false thing> :clueless:
Mike: No that's not true because, x,y, and z. :jaltus:
Bob: Then it must be true or you wouldn't have gone out of your way to discredit it. Besides, I think it's true. It sounds plausable. :argue:
Mike: If you ignore all the evidence! :eh:
Bob: See! You are trying hard to discredit it because you're biased and trying to protect your beliefs! IT MUST BE TRUE! :rant:
Mike: But it completely contradicts all the known facts! :argh:
Bob: But it 'could' have happened! :glare:
Mike: So what? The evidence says it didn't happen. :shrug:
Bob: You being unreasonable like all the other self-righteous jerks I know who believe what you do! You just can't handle a logical argument that challenges your shaky faith! :flaming:
Mike: What challenge? You haven't provided any evidence other than 'could have' and your opinion that it did! :huh:
Bob: I can't talk to you about this - you're too emotional and irrational. See ya! :rasberry:
Mike: Good grief! You're :lolo:
Bob: See! Now you're insulting me! :fight:
Mike: Telling me I am like the 'other self-righteous jerks' isn't insulting me? :hmph:
Bob: Now you're putting words in my mouth, ________________. Good bye! :rock:
Mike: :noid:

[Cynic Sage]

I haven't read the book, but I saw an excellent and intriguing documentary I think on the History Channel, which summarized the De Vinci Code. I hope everyone familiar with the book or who has saw the documentary votes in the poll and posts their comments & opinions.

Oct

I found an article debunking it here:

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

I also reccomend Sandra Miesel & Carl E. Olsen's The Davinci Hoax (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586170341/qid=1123353536/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5013394-8514267) as well as Ben Witherington's The Gospel Code (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/083083267X/qid=1123353708/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5013394-8514267).

Hope that Helps. :teeth:

[Octavian]

What about the contention that Roman power was great enough to have created anything they wanted to. They saw the end in sight & reacted by creating a religion, which could withstand the test of time. Perhaps the exsitance of a child of Christ would have brought down their house of cards? I think there's too many unanswered questions & mystery for a conclusive assertion that Christ did not father a child. Moreover, I think most of what I hear is ingrained Christian zealotry & not unbiased opinion based on reason!

Oct


Now, you see, this is just the sort of thing skeptics complain about! :brood:

Don't you know that secret documents, allegedly lost for centuries, that only a few people saw, and didn't copy, and then lost again, which have never been examined either textually or forensically, automatically trump the Bible which has withstood the cover-to-cover scrutiny of Christian and skeptic alike for 2000 years?








The shifting sands of evidentiary standards.... sheesh! :no:

[Yonkth'Plonk]

What about the contention that Roman power was great enough to have created anything they wanted to. They saw the end in sight & reacted by creating a religion, which could withstand the test of time. Perhaps the exsitance of a child of Christ would have brought down their house of cards? I think there's too many unanswered questions & mystery for a conclusive assertion that Christ did not father a child.

Personally, if I was going to create a religion, and knew that there was a child of the man I claimed was my God, I wouldn't hush it up. I'd get my paws on him/her or descendants thereof and make the child the figurehead of my new religion. Quite frankly the reassurance that Christ will return soon... um... real soon... um.... any time now... is a major hindrance to most Christians. We want a man here and now, and if a child had existed it is highly unlikely the DaVinci Code's fictional schemers would have been able to resist the temptation of an Honest to God Son of the Saviour.


Moreover, I think most of what I hear is ingrained Christian zealotry & not unbiased opinion based on reason!


No. Ingrained Christian Zealotry is more along the lines of "You sicken me, you and your perverted mind. How DARE you even suggest such a thing. You're going to hell, you foul blasphemous sinner. And other things along this vein, quoting the more scary verses about hell and such."
I haven't heard any of that.

What you're dealing with is Trained Rational Doubt. We're all very skeptical when a book's claim to truth is that it tells a "more entertaining version." One does not give much credence to paranoid conspiracy theories, even if they're page-turners. The supermarket tabloids are enthralling reads too, based largely on the premise that "Of course you wouldn't hear about the Alien Invasion...from the Official Sources, that is."

[Teallaura]

What about the contention that Roman power was great enough to have created anything they wanted to. They saw the end in sight & reacted by creating a religion, which could withstand the test of time. Perhaps the exsitance of a child of Christ would have brought down their house of cards? I think there's too many unanswered questions & mystery for a conclusive assertion that Christ did not father a child. Moreover, I think most of what I hear is ingrained Christian zealotry & not unbiased opinion based on reason!

Oct


Okay, let's try reason, shall we? :brood:

Argument:
1) You quoted my post regarding the 'evidence' for the Da Vinci Code theory. You did not, I notice, actually refute any of what I said factually So, basically, you are implying I am an unreasonable zealot because I do not accept evidence so poorly presented/documented and you conclude (presumably) that you are being reasonable in disregarding the facts surrounding the alledged evidence? So, irrespective of the facts regarding the alleged evidence - which is at best extremely tenuous, I might add - we should evaluate the evidence as if it were reliable and supportable? That's you're idea of employing reason?!

Opinion/Conclusion:
:hmph: I see a zealot all right - and it isn't me!

Argument:
2) Your analogy: 'house of cards' - have you never seen a real house of cards? Either you are flippantly using this analogy, have no clue as to why it is an appropriate analogy, or didn't reason this through very well at all!
Ever play 'Liar, liar'? To protect the original lie, you end up having to lie repeatedly - eventually tripping yourself up on one of an exponentially growing number of lies.

For the church to have accomplished such a HUGE deception would require cover up of cover up of cover up. Sure, you can have everyone killed who knows (if you work fast and no one moves to India) but then you have to kill the killers, and silence the families and friends of your growing number of bodies, then kill those killers and silence... you get the picture. Conspiracies work only on the small scale - they don't work if you are swimming in pools of blood and indirectly involving more and more people as you try to silence everyone who knows anything no matter how indirect. And yes, you have to if you employ murder as your primary means of silence - people are funny, they notice when their loved ones die violently or unexpectedly and they ask questions! The one thing you don't want to have happen if you are covering up something - especially a potential bombshell - is to get the rumor mills started and have people asking questions!

Lie covers lie covers lie - your analogy of a 'house of cards' to a genuine conspiracy is apt - your analysis is extremely poor, however. A house of cards never rests solely on a single card - it rests on many. There is no one 'key card' that you pull out to make it fall - any of the cards that the house rests upon can be used to topple it. Even cards higher up will topple it if removed. So, basically, for your model to work, no one for 2000 years can have even slightly rocked the boat. If you think that's true of church history, you are grossly misinformed.

Opinion/conclusion: Your own anti-Christian (establishment, maybe?) views (yeah, I know you're a Christian - but your bias is showing) are so clouding your reason that you are making absolutely ridiculous arguments and having the gall to deride others for their alleged 'zealotry'! :brood:

Argument:
3) Too many unanswered questions - funny, but every refute I've seen in print has been very thorough in debunking each point - some better than others,of course, but I know of no unaddressed point. Can you enlighten us here or is this pure supposition because you never bothered to pick up any of the books?

Opinion/conclusion: Pending, insufficient information at this juncture.

Implied argument
4) Rome was somehow 'all powerful' politically.
It's a given that Rome was indeed powerful and influential - but it's a total misrepresentation of both history and the nature of politics to believe that Rome's power was even close to absolute. Secular powers did use sectarian to support their reigns - but it wasn't until later in history that the support becomes even close to essential. As primers to political analysis, I suggest Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes Leviathan from the period and Morganthau's Politics Among Nations Then come back and tell me that these secular political leaders were all sheep. Please do - I could use a good laugh. Your entire argument rests on that premise - otherwise your conspiracy has some very powerful forces that would dearly love to find it and use it to bring down Rome. Hint: It makes it even less likely that such a conspiracy could succeed.

Opinion/conclusion: Rubbish.


Next time you throw around offensive (in context) words like 'zealot'. make danged sure you've presented a strong argument and haven't directed it at me during the wrong time of the month! :hmph:

[Berean Todd]

The De Vinci Code is pure and utter bollocks and has been shown to be time after time after time. Even the so-called "facts" in the book are almost all inventions of Mr. Brown's loony mind.

[Spinyn00bman]

I thought TDC was a good fiction read. I liked the story. But FICTION is all it is.

Only those who have other motives try to pawn it off as "truth".

[Spinyn00bman]

And hey....it got thousands of people talking about Jesus and the bible.



HOW can THAT be bad???

[Teallaura]

And hey....it got thousands of people talking about Jesus and the bible.



HOW can THAT be bad???

When they reject truth for fiction because they buy into the lie....

[RumTumTugger]

What about the contention that Roman power was great enough to have created anything they wanted to. They saw the end in sight & reacted by creating a religion, which could withstand the test of time. Perhaps the exsitance of a child of Christ would have brought down their house of cards? I think there's too many unanswered questions & mystery for a conclusive assertion that Christ did not father a child. Moreover, I think most of what I hear is ingrained Christian zealotry & not unbiased opinion based on reason!

Oct

Some one invented a religion and all the evidence from outside sources to prove it? Can you say Piso stupidity I thought you could.

That crazy theory was debunked here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.html)



actually our arguements against The da Vinci Code are based on reason. Browns so called facts aren't facts. See the article in Johnny ECs post for an answer to those so called facts.

and Octavian if you wanted other views then christians then why did you post this in Theology 201 hmm.

[FirstSunday33ad]

The De Vinci Code should actually be called "How to make a pile of cash by peddling horse dung to the gullible and stupid"

It is not only extremely poor theologically, it is bad history to boot. The author is little more than a conman. Its success is just one more indicator of how pathetically stupid our society has become. The west truly is a civilization in decline.

[Teallaura]

What he said...

I liked to dropped my teeth when NBC's Dateline (bastion of conservatism let alone Christianity, it ain't!) totally trashed the thing. They went to several of the physical locales Brown uses only to find that several of the contentions were physically impossible and in others that the details were way off base. (I loved the one where the murder was supposedly to have been in front of the altar - in a chapel that doesn't have an altar! :rofl:)

Dang, if even NBC can trash it...:no:

[Octavian]

I've read both The Prince & Hobbes. When I stated that IMO the responses are based on biased zealotry; I wasn't solely referring to yours, rather to almost everyone I've read. However, may I suggest Neitzche, or Freud????

I think I probably did put this question in the wrong forum. At anyrate, from examining what I've heard, I think there's some truth in the claims made in the Da Vinci Code (like there is even a little truth in the various Bibles throughout the world). Doesn't change the fact that it's all b/s. Anyway dued, I gotta get going.

Oct



Okay, let's try reason, shall we? :brood:

Argument:
1) You quoted my post regarding the 'evidence' for the Da Vinci Code theory. You did not, I notice, actually refute any of what I said factually So, basically, you are implying I am an unreasonable zealot because I do not accept evidence so poorly presented/documented and you conclude (presumably) that you are being reasonable in disregarding the facts surrounding the alledged evidence? So, irrespective of the facts regarding the alleged evidence - which is at best extremely tenuous, I might add - we should evaluate the evidence as if it were reliable and supportable? That's you're idea of employing reason?!

Opinion/Conclusion:
:hmph: I see a zealot all right - and it isn't me!

Argument:
2) Your analogy: 'house of cards' - have you never seen a real house of cards? Either you are flippantly using this analogy, have no clue as to why it is an appropriate analogy, or didn't reason this through very well at all!
Ever play 'Liar, liar'? To protect the original lie, you end up having to lie repeatedly - eventually tripping yourself up on one of an exponentially growing number of lies.

For the church to have accomplished such a HUGE deception would require cover up of cover up of cover up. Sure, you can have everyone killed who knows (if you work fast and no one moves to India) but then you have to kill the killers, and silence the families and friends of your growing number of bodies, then kill those killers and silence... you get the picture. Conspiracies work only on the small scale - they don't work if you are swimming in pools of blood and indirectly involving more and more people as you try to silence everyone who knows anything no matter how indirect. And yes, you have to if you employ murder as your primary means of silence - people are funny, they notice when their loved ones die violently or unexpectedly and they ask questions! The one thing you don't want to have happen if you are covering up something - especially a potential bombshell - is to get the rumor mills started and have people asking questions!

Lie covers lie covers lie - your analogy of a 'house of cards' to a genuine conspiracy is apt - your analysis is extremely poor, however. A house of cards never rests solely on a single card - it rests on many. There is no one 'key card' that you pull out to make it fall - any of the cards that the house rests upon can be used to topple it. Even cards higher up will topple it if removed. So, basically, for your model to work, no one for 2000 years can have even slightly rocked the boat. If you think that's true of church history, you are grossly misinformed.

Opinion/conclusion: Your own anti-Christian (establishment, maybe?) views (yeah, I know you're a Christian - but your bias is showing) are so clouding your reason that you are making absolutely ridiculous arguments and having the gall to deride others for their alleged 'zealotry'! :brood:

Argument:
3) Too many unanswered questions - funny, but every refute I've seen in print has been very thorough in debunking each point - some better than others,of course, but I know of no unaddressed point. Can you enlighten us here or is this pure supposition because you never bothered to pick up any of the books?

Opinion/conclusion: Pending, insufficient information at this juncture.

Implied argument
4) Rome was somehow 'all powerful' politically.
It's a given that Rome was indeed powerful and influential - but it's a total misrepresentation of both history and the nature of politics to believe that Rome's power was even close to absolute. Secular powers did use sectarian to support their reigns - but it wasn't until later in history that the support becomes even close to essential. As primers to political analysis, I suggest Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes Leviathan from the period and Morganthau's Politics Among Nations Then come back and tell me that these secular political leaders were all sheep. Please do - I could use a good laugh. Your entire argument rests on that premise - otherwise your conspiracy has some very powerful forces that would dearly love to find it and use it to bring down Rome. Hint: It makes it even less likely that such a conspiracy could succeed.

Opinion/conclusion: Rubbish.


Next time you throw around offensive (in context) words like 'zealot'. make danged sure you've presented a strong argument and haven't directed it at me during the wrong time of the month! :hmph:

[Spinyn00bman]

Ahh...I see....so we shouldnt talk about these things at all because some choose to follow the lie. I know many who haven't.

You see the glass half empty....I see it half full.

When they reject truth for fiction because they buy into the lie....

[Teallaura]

Ahh...I see....so we shouldnt talk about these things at all because some choose to follow the lie. I know many who haven't.

You see the glass half empty....I see it half full.
Nothing of the sort - I answered the question directly. You asked how it could be bad, remember? I said absolutely nothing about whether or not we should or should not discuss the topic. You haven't anywhere near enough evidence to ascertain my worldview from a simple direct answer to what I took to be a simple direct question.

:hmph:


Next time, if you want to discuss 'should', just say so!

:brood:

[Teallaura]

I've read both The Prince & Hobbes. When I stated that IMO the responses are based on biased zealotry; I wasn't solely referring to yours, rather to almost everyone I've read. However, may I suggest Neitzche, or Freud????

I think I probably did put this question in the wrong forum. At anyrate, from examining what I've heard, I think there's some truth in the claims made in the Da Vinci Code (like there is even a little truth in the various Bibles throughout the world). Doesn't change the fact that it's all b/s. Anyway dued, I gotta get going.

Oct


Nietsche and Freud aren't political philosophers. Try to stay on topic.

Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a zealot? Please!

Can't support an argument, can't provide an example, so your answer is to cast aspersions at Scripture? Charming - I can see why I should take you seriously... er, wait, no I can't.

Total waste of time - and you misspelled 'dude'.

[DustinBTX]

The thing that I don't understand is that IF the premise for the book is true, then there really is a Priory of Sion (Their responsibility was to protect the secret that the "Holy Grail" was really Mary Magdalen's womb, which supposedly held the blood of Christ in offspring form). The Priory of Sion, if it is really as influential as Brown and HolyBlood, HolyGrail make it out to be, then neither of them would have been able to write their books. The religion they promote is of secret knowledge (gnosticism), and Brown's tactics don't correspond to the whole idea of this "secret" knowledge. I believe what Scripture says. Christ did not become incarnate to procreate; He came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst. (1 Tim. 1:15)

[Sheepdog]

I've read The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Dan Brown basically converted into a novel. I think it is impossible to ever find out whether he had a child or not. I do think it is likely that he was married. There's no reason why he shouldn't have been. I think a lot of the NT is made up by Paul and later overzealous "Christians" anyway. Nobody has yet told me how the church councils which formed the bibilical canon were so sure to get the right books in.
What we now consider Christianity embarked on a dirty war and annihilated all rivals so now they have a monopoly over who Jesus was.
Other writings such as the Nag Hamadi scrolls and various, recently found, gnostic works, paint a different picture of Jesus.

At the end of the day, it boils down to which story is more inspiring and better told. To have a secret history of European civlization buried beneath the surface of a corrupt and savage church (and yes, the church has been corrupt and savage) is much more inspiring than the orthodox account. There's nothing in the official gospels that compels me to believe them as true, and even less so for Paul's writings. There's no great evidence for either Jesus. But I'll stick with the more entertaining version.

The early church did embark on a campaign to destroy rival branches. For instance Clement an early Church leader wrote to a Theodore who complained of Gnostic teachings infiltrating his area. Clement wrote:
Such [men] are to be opposed in all ways and all together. For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not agree with them.

Clement went on to admit the existence of a secret gospel of Mark and carries on:
To them [the Caprocratians - a gnostic sect], therefore, one must never give way, nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. - HBHG

Hmmm... The Catholic Church has always been good at playing dirty and being deceitful. They launched crusade after crusade against people who disagreed with them and destroyed the Cathar culture in southern France. Why? They obviously feared something. The truth perhaps?

When the inheritor to the Holy Roman Empire's throne reveals himself, we will all bow down and the New Age will begin, as the decayed, rotten edifice that is the Roman Church will finally crumble.

Also, assuming the DVC is completely fictional, the Catholic CHurch sure seems to be going out of it's way to discredit it.

:ahem: it's amazing you can write so coherent for one who's brain has fallen out of his skull.

[fleur-de-lis]

Reading the 'Da Vinci Code' is just a total waste of time. I recently had a talk with this self confessed intellectual friend of my sister's who insisted that I would believe the 'facts' as presented by the book, once he presented those to me. Not being one who likes arguing, I listened anyway... and what I have realised that it has made people talk more about Christ, but more in a demeaning way.

[TheOneAndOnly]

So much hostility for a book that can only be found in the fiction section of a bookstore. Just some of the comments from posters here:

The De Vinci Code is pure and utter bollocks and has been shown to be time after time after time. Even the so-called "facts" in the book are almost all inventions of Mr. Brown's loony mind.

and

The De Vinci Code should actually be called "How to make a pile of cash by peddling horse dung to the gullible and stupid"

It is not only extremely poor theologically, it is bad history to boot. The author is little more than a conman. Its success is just one more indicator of how pathetically stupid our society has become. The west truly is a civilization in decline.

and

Reading the 'Da Vinci Code' is just a total waste of time. I recently had a talk with this self confessed intellectual friend of my sister's who insisted that I would believe the 'facts' as presented by the book, once he presented those to me. Not being one who likes arguing, I listened anyway... and what I have realised that it has made people talk more about Christ, but more in a demeaning way.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Arguably not very well written, but it is fiction. People need to get over it. Don't blame Dan Brown for the poor education our government's provide.

it's amazing you can write so coherent for one who's brain has fallen out of his skull.

I'd say the chances of a first century rabbi being married and having children is greater than him being a god. Have you read HBHG? If so, let's face it, the intricate story it tells is much more fascinating than the dry biblical narrative. Which was my point. It doesn't matter whether it's true. As long as the ideas are there and they inspire people then that's what counts.

[fleur-de-lis]

Of course, it is total fiction but there are some who convince themselves that it is true.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Of course, it is total fiction but there are some who convince themselves that it is true.

The same can be said for a great many books, wouldn't you agree?

[Teallaura]

Sorry, SN, I lost my temper and I shouldn't have.

My apologies as well to you Oct, I shouldn't have been so rude. I still think you are way out of line with the zealotry accusation, though.

[Meh_Gerbil]

The same can be said for a great many books, wouldn't you agree?

TOAD:

Dan Brown intended his book to be understood as fiction whereas the authors of the Bible intended the book to be an accurate recording of the truth. So the first problem you have in intent. The DaVinci Code was not intended to be understood to be the truth.

Now you might believe them both to be fiction but if you believe the DaVinci Code to be fiction that is in line with the authors intent whereas to believe the Bible is fiction is in opposition to the authors intent.

Stop being silly.

[Sheepdog]

So much hostility for a book that can only be found in the fiction section of a bookstore. Just some of the comments from posters here:

yeah, because people are idiots and take some of its claims seriously.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Arguably not very well written, but it is fiction. People need to get over it. Don't blame Dan Brown for the poor education our government's provide.

except i've seen university level students take it seriously.

and why should we blame them. the book starts out with a disclaimer that while the story is fiction, all the history, rituals, etc. presentes are real and presented accurately. :ahem:

I'd say the chances of a first century rabbi being married and having children is greater than him being a god.

and the chances of a first century rabbi being God are greater than you making a decent argument.

Have you read HBHG? If so, let's face it, the intricate story it tells is much more fascinating than the dry biblical narrative. Which was my point. It doesn't matter whether it's true. As long as the ideas are there and they inspire people then that's what counts.

meh. if i want to be inspired, i'd watch a movie.

and who decides whether it matters if somehting is true? who died and made you arbitrator of what matters and what doesn't?

[Spinyn00bman]

Nothing of the sort - I answered the question directly. You asked how it could be bad, remember? I said absolutely nothing about whether or not we should or should not discuss the topic. You haven't anywhere near enough evidence to ascertain my worldview from a simple direct answer to what I took to be a simple direct question.

:hmph:


Next time, if you want to discuss 'should', just say so!

:brood:

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape?

I just don't understand how Christians with a view to share the TRUTH with the world rent their clothing everything something as ridiculous as this WORK OF FICTION comes about. Dan Brown's little piece of fiction has opened up many streams of conversation with people about Jesus Christ with people who would NEVER want to discuss the topic in any other light.

Is is "bad" that people are lead astray by these ideas? Yes. But what an OPPORTUNITY we have to help show them the TRUTH.

I am not attacking you, so have a glass of red wine and relax. I have made no judgements about you or your "worldview". I don't even KNOW you.

I simply don't understand why so many christians are AFRAID of or ANGRY at Dan Brown.

The book is shelved in the FICTION section of a bookstore for a reason.

[Minnesota]

So much hostility for a book that can only be found in the fiction section of a bookstore.

I had the very same thoughts. It's as if they fear their religion can't stand up to it. That some Christians are so stupid--but not so stupid as to miss finding Christianity in the first place--that they will abandon their faith, or, god forbid, q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n it!!! By all that's holy, the faithful must be protected from their ability to think. Which speaks to Sheepdogs view of the whole matter:




So much hostility for a book that can only be found in the fiction section of a bookstore. Just some of the comments from posters here:
yeah, because people are idiots and take some of its claims seriously.

And if there is one thing Christianity needs is its idiot believers. :lmbo:


(edited to add: This one is going into my collection, Sheepy. Just a superb set up :thumb: Thanks.)

[Spinyn00bman]

I had the very same thoughts. It's as if they fear their religion can't stand up to it. That some Christians are so stupid--but not so stupid as to miss finding Christianity in the first place--that they will abandon their faith, or, god forbid, q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n it!!! By all that's holy, the faithful must be protected from their ability to think. Which speaks to Sheepdogs view of the whole matter:





And if there is one thing Christianity needs is its idiot believers. :lmbo:


(edited to add: This one is going into my collection, Sheepy. Just a superb set up :thumb: Thanks.)

See what I mean Teallaura?

[Teallaura]

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape?

I just don't understand how Christians with a view to share the TRUTH with the world rent their clothing everything something as ridiculous as this WORK OF FICTION comes about. Dan Brown's little piece of fiction has opened up many streams of conversation with people about Jesus Christ with people who would NEVER want to discuss the topic in any other light.

Is is "bad" that people are lead astray by these ideas? Yes. But what an OPPORTUNITY we have to help show them the TRUTH.

I am not attacking you, so have a glass of red wine and relax. I have made no judgements about you or your "worldview". I don't even KNOW you.

I simply don't understand why so many christians are AFRAID of or ANGRY at Dan Brown.

The book is shelved in the FICTION section of a bookstore for a reason.
You told me I said we 'shouldn't' discuss it - I had merely pointed out what could be bad about it - I never said discussion was inherently bad - you read that into what I'd said.

Then you told me I saw the glass as half-empty - the description of a pessimist - which is a reflecion of worldview. But it was an erroneous conclusion based on an over reading of what I'd said.

I'm neither afraid nor angry at Brown - but I do call a spade a spade and the thing is basically tripe. And as SD pointed out, the book makes some truth claims - a number of which are false before you even get to its conclusion. NBC trashed its accuracy (which still strikes me as funny) - what, we have to have discussions where we don't get to point out the flaws in the alleged evidence? That's not a discussion and certainly not the kind that you seemed to be hoping for.

You jumped to a conclusion - a false one. I don't think discussing the book and its off the wall 'evidence' is necessarily bad overall. but your question had been specific - 'what could be bad about that'. I answered specifically - why couldn't you see that?

I apologized for getting so ticked, but you really annoyed me by evidently implying that I was unwilling to examine evidence contrary to my faith - or that my faith is so shaky that it can't take that kind of challenge. Frankly, there are some things not worth the time to consider - the stupid book has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly - how is being unwilling to go through round 97 on a stupid discussion of nonexistant 'evidence' evidence itself that someone is unwilling to discuss at all? I'd already done it with Oct! (albeit impolitely). Been there, done that - sick of it now.

Basically, if you don't take it seriously, you're dodging - but if you do you're over reacting to a work of fiction - that's what you seem to me to be saying. Which translates to I can't win no matter what I say... sheesh!


And I don't drink...

[Spinyn00bman]

And I don't drink...

Well I do, so I will have the glass for both of us. :teeth:

Like I told you, I think it was just a semantical disagreement. If you thought I was putting words in your mouth, I apologize. That was never my desire nor my intent.

People who will be lead astray by the terrible historical scholarship in this work of fiction (isnt that a contradiction?) would be lead astray by something else surely if not by this. I only meant to convey that I think this whole affair has opened more doors for me to discuss my faith then it has closed them.

If I said that poorly, I apologize.

We are basically in agreement here.....truce?

I would hate to have hard feelings between myself and any fan of Marvin.

:spiny3:

[Sheepdog]

I had the very same thoughts. It's as if they fear their religion can't stand up to it. That some Christians are so stupid--but not so stupid as to miss finding Christianity in the first place--that they will abandon their faith, or, god forbid, q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n it!!! By all that's holy, the faithful must be protected from their ability to think.

that begs the question that the droning stupidity of Duh DuhVinci Code would actually cause someone to think in the first place. Or at least think sensibly. More often than not, it is just fodder for atheist evangelists (I've actually seen DaVinci Code "scholarship" passed as Gospel by some). Sure, some Christians may be caused to doubt -- until they read one of the many disembowelments of the book's "facts."

Which speaks to Sheepdogs view of the whole matter:

And if there is one thing Christianity needs is its idiot believers. :lmbo:

Yeah, idiots like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantiga, Robert Morey, F. F. Bruce, Craig Blomberg, Norman Geilser, and a mountain of other Christian thinkers who would crush you under foot, Minnie.

please.



and aren't you both atheists or at least nontheists, Minn, OneAndOnly?

[TheOneAndOnly]

and the chances of a first century rabbi being God are greater than you making a decent argument.

I wasn't making an argument as such. I was simply pondering out loud why we should believe that a certain first century rabbi, Yeshua, wasn't married? Because the bible says so? Well, no it doesn't. Other ancient texts, the Nag Hamadi scrolls I believe, paint Jesus' relationship with Mary in a different light to the canonical gospels. You think it's more likely he was a god than he was married?

meh. if i want to be inspired, i'd watch a movie.

Good. I here Tom Hanks is in it.


and who decides whether it matters if somehting is true? who died and made you arbitrator of what matters and what doesn't?

I was speaking only for myself. I don't think it matters whether the HBHG hypothesis is true. It inspires people and makes for fascinating reading as well as getting people to look at history that bit more. To be honest, of course it's not true, in it's entirety, but then neither is the bible. It doesn't stop it from giving inspiration and new ideas to people.

[spiritmech]

I find it humorous that someone so skeptical of Christianity could just hop in headfirst for some of the assertions of this book.
sm

[Teallaura]

Well I do, so I will have the glass for both of us. :teeth:

Like I told you, I think it was just a semantical disagreement. If you thought I was putting words in your mouth, I apologize. That was never my desire nor my intent.

People who will be lead astray by the terrible historical scholarship in this work of fiction (isnt that a contradiction?) would be lead astray by something else surely if not by this. I only meant to convey that I think this whole affair has opened more doors for me to discuss my faith then it has closed them.

If I said that poorly, I apologize.

We are basically in agreement here.....truce?

I would hate to have hard feelings between myself and any fan of Marvin.

:spiny3:
:yes: Apology accepted - can't have the Paranoid Android Fanclub breaking up, now can we? :teeth:

[Sheepdog]

I wasn't making an argument as such. I was simply pondering out loud why we should believe that a certain first century rabbi, Yeshua, wasn't married?

well, it is at least plausible, as there was precedent for teachers of the law who remained celibate. marriage was generally expected of young men. but it was more of a rule of thumb, and some concluded that for them, marriage would be an unneeded burden on their studies or ministry.

Because the bible says so? Well, no it doesn't.

i generally don't care for arguments from silence, but the Bible's silence on this is deafening! if Jesus was married prior to the events in the Gospel accounts, where was she throughout the whole ministry? we'd expect her to at least be around for emotional support and such. was me married after the fact? Acts and a couple of the Gospels report that he ascended shortly after the Resurrection. which brings up another point: the crucifixion of Jesus was probably the best attested fact about Him, speaking from a Historian's point of view. and please tell me you are not one of those fruitcakes that believe he faked it or survived the crucifixion? :hrm:

furthermore, if Jesus was married at any time, Paul never brought it up. Now granted, Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' life at great length, and if we were left at that, his silence wouldn't be noteworthy. However, Paul does talk about morality in regards to spouces. if Jesus was married, we'd expect him to tell husbands and wives to emulate the examples of him and his wife. And in fact, Paul does use Jesus as an example! but rather than appeal for Jesus' love for his wife as an example, he appeals to Jesus' love for the church (Eph. 5:25-28). Paul's silence speaks volumes.

Other ancient texts, the Nag Hamadi scrolls I believe, paint Jesus' relationship with Mary in a different light to the canonical gospels.

you mean the Nag Hammadi texts, of which we can only find manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Nag_Hammadi). The Gospel of Thomas, which is among these texts, i know off hand probably was written in the mid-2nd century, and no serious writer on the subject has pinned it to any earlier time frame.

You think it's more likely he was a god than he was married?

no. but i think it is more likely that the Bible represents accurate history about Jesus than the Gnostic Texts i'm aware of. for one, it is better attested that the gospels were written earlier (we found a fagment of John from 130AD, and many other fragments from the second century. first complete manuscripts that i'm aware of are dated around 200). Furthermore, we at least have some evidence that the New Testament documents were written by contemporaries of Jesus, if not the authors they were attributed to. I have not seen any comparible evidence in regards to the Gnostic works.

Good. I here Tom Hanks is in it.

meh, i was talking about movies in general. i'm more into science fiction, actually. i may watch the Davinchi Code movie, but only to laugh at the misconseptions.

I was speaking only for myself.

then you may want to just want to keep your thoughts to yourself and not act like you are trying to persuade anyone else. that is, if you want to be consistent, of course.

To be honest, of course it's not true, in it's entirety, but then neither is the bible.

:ahem: yeah, i'm sure you are prepared to give a full defense of that assertion regarding the Bible.

It doesn't stop it from giving inspiration and new ideas to people.

:ahem: it doesn't matter if something is true if it gives people new ideas.


"You can drive 100 miles per hour in a snow storm." That's a new idea. But i don't expect anyone to be "inspired" by it. And in fact, i hope no one is inspired to actually make the attempt. (I've driven in snow storms... trust me, you want to go slooooooooooow.) You see, here in this unfortunate plane of existance we call reality, ideas have consequences. Some have good consequences, many have bad.


i wonder if you would be "inspired" by the idea in the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, that a woman has to become a man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas114.html). I'm sure the feminists would just love that one.

[TheOneAndOnly]

i generally don't care for arguments from silence, but the Bible's silence on this is deafening! if Jesus was married prior to the events in the Gospel accounts, where was she throughout the whole ministry? we'd expect her to at least be around for emotional support and such. was me married after the fact?

Well, you are making the big assumption that the writers and redactors of the "official" biography of Jesus wanted to portray him as a married man, or of being a sexual being at all. Jesus is portrayed as eerily asexual in the gospels. And if you read my first post again, it clearly shows Clement, an early church father, admitting there are extra, or missing pieces of the gospel of Mark. Are you sure what you have now in your NIV bible is the definitive account of Jesus' life, or just the edited version?

Acts and a couple of the Gospels report that he ascended shortly after the Resurrection. which brings up another point: the crucifixion of Jesus was probably the best attested fact about Him, speaking from a Historian's point of view.

The crucifixion isn't too relevent as Jesus could have had kids prior to the crucifixion.

and please tell me you are not one of those fruitcakes taht believe he faked it or survived the crucifixion?

No, I'm one of the fruitcakes who belives he didn't come back to life three days later and spook his old friends.

furthermore, if Jesus was married at any time, Paul never brought it up. Now granted, Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' life at great length, and if we were left at that, his silence wouldn't be noteworthy.

What does Paul know? He never even met the man?

However, Paul does talk about morality in regards to spouces.

Paul's ideology is his own. I don't believe he had any contact with Jesus, regardless of whether Jesus had children or not. Paul is not a very reliable witness IMHO.

if Jesus was married, we'd expect him to tell husbands and wives to emulate the examples of him and his wife. And in fact, Paul does use Jesus as an example! but rather than appeal for Jesus' love for his life as an example, he appeals to Jesus' love for the church (Eph. 5:25-28). Paul's silence speaks volumes.

Speaks volumes about what? Paul never even met Jesus.


you mean the Nag Hammadi texts, of which we can only find manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Nag_Hammadi). The Gospel of Thomas, which is among these texts, i know off hand probably was written in the mid-2nd century, and no serious writer on the subject has pinned it to any earlier time frame.

Fair point. But here's the thing. Since orthodox Christianity basically destroyed gnostic and mystical sects, you wouldn't expect them to leave behind much of their written work. The orthodox Christians would at the very least take better care of the canonical works (I'm still wondering how the councils decided which works to slap together into the bible) than the works of a deceased sect. And more probably they'd go out of their way to destroy heretical writings.

no. but i think it is more likely that the Bible represents accurate history about Jesus than the Gnostic Texts i'm aware of. for one, it is better attested that the gospels were written earlier (we found a fagment of John from 130AD, and many other fragments from the second century. first complete manuscripts that i'm aware of are dated around 200). Furthermore, we at least have some evidence that the New Testament documents were written by contemporaries of Jesus, if not the authors they were attributed to. I have not seen any comparible evidence in regards to the Gnostic works.

Well I'm no biblical scholar (in case you hadn't guessed) but to me, and to others, the four gospels are inconsistent in various parts. And isn't the modern scholarly consensus that Matthew and Luke plagiar... umm.. copied large chunks of Mark's gospel? I don't trust the writings of Paul. I see no reason why he should be any authority on Jesus' life.


then you may want to just want to keep your thoughts to yourself and not act like you are trying to persuade anyone else. taht is, if you want to be consistent, of course.

Uhh.. this is a discussion forum. Not a keep your mouth shut if you disagree forum. Or have the rules changed?

it doesn't matter if something is true if it gives people new ideas.

In the context of religion historical and scientific truth doesn't matter.


i wonder if you would be "inspired" by the idea in the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, that a woman has to become a man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yeah that's sure whacky. Not like a man dying, popping back to life, running around showing everyone his scars and floating off to heaven. All the while forgetting to tell anyone that he is the son of God.

[Octavian]

In reality I think the DeVinci code is probably mostly not true. Moreover, I'm wholly unprepared to offer an argument defending a book that most commentators I heard opine is mostly untrue (I'm studying for my law school finals right now & I'm bunkered up in my room doing outlines....fun fun). However, most of the commentators I heard on the documetary offered unconvincing proof that Christ could not have fathered a child. Additionally, I remain unconvinced that it's John the Baptist in DeVinci's last supper & not a female.

The idea that DeVinci was part of some cult that believed in equality between the genders is certainly not outside the range of reason, however, I am unconvinced by the authors proof; and it seems like pure conjecture based on insufficient evidence. It appears to be good reading, but fictional reading. My charge of zealotry was based on prior posts which offered no rebuttal; rather mere unsupported charges of falsity (with the exception of one that shared a link to an article debunking the book).

Your post at least offered a logical rebuttal (notwithstanding the, I think, unreasonable attack on my charge of zealotry....which again I based on the several posts attacking the book with no reasoned arguments, except arguments like: "it's hogwash." Hardly an argument from the scholastic hall of fame). Anway, if anyone is still reading this thread, I'm glad it stirred some interest (kind of a surprise to me actually).

In conclusion, I would state for the record that my Christian bias can only be described as a "pro-Christian" bias. While critical of religion and skeptical of the veracity of many Biblical events, my belief in the tenants of Christianity and unbending support for all that is Christian, whether it's pro-Christian legislation, pro-Christian judicial opinions, or promotion of Christian lifestyle, has always been staunch. I believe (like it or not) that America is a "Christian Country" and should always remain that way. From my support of Bush's faith based inititiatives (it really pisses me off when I hear people who balk at Christian organizations receiving equal treatment under the law.....and they're always non-Christians....go figure?), to my anger when the Supreme Court holds that a Christmas display in a park violates the establishment clause, I have always been on the side of Christians, because I am one and will always be one (notwithstanding my view that non-literal interpretation of the Bible is the proper method....since I am convinced that a literal interpretation will not withstand scientific discovery).

Oct


Okay, let's try reason, shall we? :brood:

Argument:
1) You quoted my post regarding the 'evidence' for the Da Vinci Code theory. You did not, I notice, actually refute any of what I said factually So, basically, you are implying I am an unreasonable zealot because I do not accept evidence so poorly presented/documented and you conclude (presumably) that you are being reasonable in disregarding the facts surrounding the alledged evidence? So, irrespective of the facts regarding the alleged evidence - which is at best extremely tenuous, I might add - we should evaluate the evidence as if it were reliable and supportable? That's you're idea of employing reason?!

Opinion/Conclusion:
:hmph: I see a zealot all right - and it isn't me!

Argument:
2) Your analogy: 'house of cards' - have you never seen a real house of cards? Either you are flippantly using this analogy, have no clue as to why it is an appropriate analogy, or didn't reason this through very well at all!
Ever play 'Liar, liar'? To protect the original lie, you end up having to lie repeatedly - eventually tripping yourself up on one of an exponentially growing number of lies.

For the church to have accomplished such a HUGE deception would require cover up of cover up of cover up. Sure, you can have everyone killed who knows (if you work fast and no one moves to India) but then you have to kill the killers, and silence the families and friends of your growing number of bodies, then kill those killers and silence... you get the picture. Conspiracies work only on the small scale - they don't work if you are swimming in pools of blood and indirectly involving more and more people as you try to silence everyone who knows anything no matter how indirect. And yes, you have to if you employ murder as your primary means of silence - people are funny, they notice when their loved ones die violently or unexpectedly and they ask questions! The one thing you don't want to have happen if you are covering up something - especially a potential bombshell - is to get the rumor mills started and have people asking questions!

Lie covers lie covers lie - your analogy of a 'house of cards' to a genuine conspiracy is apt - your analysis is extremely poor, however. A house of cards never rests solely on a single card - it rests on many. There is no one 'key card' that you pull out to make it fall - any of the cards that the house rests upon can be used to topple it. Even cards higher up will topple it if removed. So, basically, for your model to work, no one for 2000 years can have even slightly rocked the boat. If you think that's true of church history, you are grossly misinformed.

Opinion/conclusion: Your own anti-Christian (establishment, maybe?) views (yeah, I know you're a Christian - but your bias is showing) are so clouding your reason that you are making absolutely ridiculous arguments and having the gall to deride others for their alleged 'zealotry'! :brood:

Argument:
3) Too many unanswered questions - funny, but every refute I've seen in print has been very thorough in debunking each point - some better than others,of course, but I know of no unaddressed point. Can you enlighten us here or is this pure supposition because you never bothered to pick up any of the books?

Opinion/conclusion: Pending, insufficient information at this juncture.

Implied argument
4) Rome was somehow 'all powerful' politically.
It's a given that Rome was indeed powerful and influential - but it's a total misrepresentation of both history and the nature of politics to believe that Rome's power was even close to absolute. Secular powers did use sectarian to support their reigns - but it wasn't until later in history that the support becomes even close to essential. As primers to political analysis, I suggest Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes Leviathan from the period and Morganthau's Politics Among Nations Then come back and tell me that these secular political leaders were all sheep. Please do - I could use a good laugh. Your entire argument rests on that premise - otherwise your conspiracy has some very powerful forces that would dearly love to find it and use it to bring down Rome. Hint: It makes it even less likely that such a conspiracy could succeed.

Opinion/conclusion: Rubbish.


Next time you throw around offensive (in context) words like 'zealot'. make danged sure you've presented a strong argument and haven't directed it at me during the wrong time of the month! :hmph:

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Christ fathered a child.
The Davinci code is FICTION.

Yes, the Davinci code is fiction, but . . .

Considering the gospels simply as they are written in the context of the world of the time, it is most likely true that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and very possibly had a family himself. The Gospels only gives glimpses of the Life of Jesus. The total narrative in the gospels that tells of the life of Jesus only a mounts to a few years of a thirty some year old man when he died.

[EvoUK]

What's so funny about all the Christian/Catholic bellyaching, is anyone believing Jesus's parentage and his mommy's perpetual virginity, just for starters, has no business criticizing the possibility that Jesus married.

[Octavian]

Agreed. Although I am a Christian, it's more for my love of Christian culture & of course because everyone in my family is Christian, and not because of my belief that there was actually an "immaculate conception." As to the neysayers, who think it improbable that the Roman Church would have covered up something like Christ having a child, the idea of a Virgin Mary & a Christ pure of any sexual relations was (and still is) central to Catholic thought. Thus, of course they would have did anything to cover it up, including murder (for God's sake, they almost hung Gallileo for revealing scientific fact????).

Oct


What's so funny about all the Christian/Catholic bellyaching, is anyone believing Jesus's parentage and his mommy's perpetual virginity, just for starters, has no business criticizing the possibility that Jesus married.

[jesusfreak]

i can't stand the de vinci code it is such a load of crap i can't stand it. i read the book to see why people where going crazy over it. it is the dumbest thing i have ever read and i fell dumber for reading to load of crap.

[shunyadragon]

i can't stand the de vinci code it is such a load of crap i can't stand it. i read the book to see why people where going crazy over it. it is the dumbest thing i have ever read and i fell dumber for reading to load of crap.

The DaVinci code is fiction, but the weak foundation in the documentation of the life of Jesus and the basis for the gospels leads to speculative novels like this. Still you have to remember the gospels only give glimpses into a few years total of the life of Jesus. The rest is unknown.

[Cynic Sage]

i can't stand the de vinci code it is such a load of crap i can't stand it. i read the book to see why people where going crazy over it. it is the dumbest thing i have ever read and i fell dumber for reading to load of crap.
People will respect your opinion more if you use proper punctuation and grammar, JF.

[Cynic Sage]

What's so funny about all the Christian/Catholic bellyaching, is anyone believing Jesus's parentage and his mommy's perpetual virginity, just for starters, has no business criticizing the possibility that Jesus married.

But then again the bigger problem I have is with the people who say that Jesus was married because he had to ber or else he would have been breaking hebrew law. Then I point out to them that one of the Rabbis who most vociferously promoted marriage lived a celibate life himself.


1. The rabbinic literature--which is what people sometimes use to argue that celibacy was a capital offense(!)--notes and gives rules for exceptions to rules which were themselves non-binding:



"Celibacy was, in fact, not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God's displeasure. Postponement of marriage was permitted students of the Law that they might concentrate their attention on their studies, free from the cares of support a wife. Cases like that of Simeon be 'Azzai, who never married, were evidently infrequent. He had himself said that a man who did not marry was like one who shed blood, and diminished the likeness of God. One of his colleagues threw up to him that he was better at preaching that at practicing, to which he replied, What shall I do? My soul is enamored of the Law; the population of the world can be kept up by others...It is not to be imagined that pronouncements about the duty of marrying and the age at which people should marry actually regulated practice." [HI:JFCCE: (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#HI:JFCCE)2.119f]



Notice that this famous Rabbi was celibate because of his devotion to the Law and to studying, following, and preaching it--a situation not unlike that of Jesus and certainly in keeping with His dictum in Matthew 19.10:



His disciples said to him, “If that is the relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth getting married!” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this saying, except those to whom celibacy has been granted. 12For some men are celibate from birth, while others are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.



source (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html)

[shunyadragon]

well, it is at least plausible, as there was precedent for teachers of the law who remained celibate. marriage was generally expected of young men. but it was more of a rule of thumb, and some concluded that for them, marriage would be an unneeded burden on their studies or ministry.

The number of celebate Rabbis were few and far between. Given that Christ's annointed call to ministry came late after the 'missing years', it is quite possible Christ was married and had a family. Celebacy itself was more an option, as stated in the Bible and not a sacred obligation.

i generally don't care for arguments from silence, but the Bible's silence on this is deafening! if Jesus was married prior to the events in the Gospel accounts, where was she throughout the whole ministry? we'd expect her to at least be around for emotional support and such. was me married after the fact? Acts and a couple of the Gospels report that he ascended shortly after the Resurrection. which brings up another point: the crucifixion of Jesus was probably the best attested fact about Him, speaking from a Historian's point of view. and please tell me you are not one of those fruitcakes that believe he faked it or survived the crucifixion? :hrm:

Arguments form silence are justified when we only have snipites of Christ's life that amount to only a few years in time at most. Neither would it be only fruitcakes who believe Christ survived. It is indeed possible, despite how unlikely the case may appear to be. Many people with their logical feet firmly on the ground think it is fruitcaky to believe in miracles like the resurrection when there is no evidence that such miracles exist.

Arguments from silence are common among Christian apologists too. Most will argue that because the Biblical God of miracles is silent today does not mean he does not exist, or the fact that all the other historians being silent during Christ's life does not mean the NT is not true.

furthermore, if Jesus was married at any time, Paul never brought it up. Now granted, Paul doesn't talk about Jesus' life at great length, and if we were left at that, his silence wouldn't be noteworthy. However, Paul does talk about morality in regards to spouces. if Jesus was married, we'd expect him to tell husbands and wives to emulate the examples of him and his wife. And in fact, Paul does use Jesus as an example! but rather than appeal for Jesus' love for his wife as an example, he appeals to Jesus' love for the church (Eph. 5:25-28). Paul's silence speaks volumes.

Paul did not know Christ or his life personally, and as you say Paul's purpose was on other issues. I believe a more complete consideration of the gospels would indicate that Christ did address the issue.

you mean the Nag Hammadi texts, of which we can only find manuscripts from the 3rd and 4th centuries? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Nag_Hammadi). The Gospel of Thomas, which is among these texts, i know off hand probably was written in the mid-2nd century, and no serious writer on the subject has pinned it to any earlier time frame.

Serious writers have pinned it earlier. Your off hand assertion may be applied to most if not all of the gospels.

no. but i think it is more likely that the Bible represents accurate history about Jesus than the Gnostic Texts i'm aware of. for one, it is better attested that the gospels were written earlier (we found a fagment of John from 130AD, and many other fragments from the second century. first complete manuscripts that i'm aware of are dated around 200). Furthermore, we at least have some evidence that the New Testament documents were written by contemporaries of Jesus, if not the authors they were attributed to. I have not seen any comparible evidence in regards to the Gnostic works.

Based on the evidence the gospels cannot be definitively dated any earlier than the Book of Thomas. You may think the Bible presents an accurate history, but based on the evidence this belief is more grounded in faith not facts.


i wonder if you would be "inspired" by the idea in the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, that a woman has to become a man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas114.html). I'm sure the feminists would just love that one.

Would there be any reason this could not be interpreted metaphorically, as in 'you must become as a child again to enter the kingdom of heaven'?