Da Vinci Code: Historical or Historical Fiction?

[franko]

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?
  
• What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?
  
• Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?
  
• What is Opus Dei?
  
• Does the Priory of Sion really exist?

And the main question: is there a conspiracy of some sort to hide the truth (I feel an X-Files commercial coming up now).

What think?

And can we keep discussion civil? Can we cite sources?

[Skilly]

The thing I liked about the Da Vinci Code is not that I thought any of it to be true, but nobody can totally refute that it is possible that we do not know everything there is to know about Jesus.

One of the lastest editions of either Time or MacCleans now has an article on Opus Dei. I never read it, but from what I hear the gist is that they can not be so secretive anymore.

The Priory of Sion was supposedly a fabricated joke. I don't know enough about it to comment.

I guess for me the thing that makes me think about "religious history" is why the Vatican has so many secrets. Secret sects, secret libraries, no women, ... the list is endless ... do they think that we are all so fragile minded that we can not hear the "truth" and still keep our faith.

I gave up on the church a long time ago (Boston priest scandal, and the Mount Cashel scandal here in my home province). But it is not only the catholic church that has these "rogues" as we see a myriad of other denominations in similar situations. But just because you give up on the church does not mean you give up on faith.

I would love to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful, and what their implications are. But I was always of the opinion that the Bible was one big fable made up by man to show man a version of how to live. So the Gnostic Gospels would probably not sway me.

I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange?

[Cranky]

skilly said:

I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange?

How can one believe anything about anything when EVERY copy could be rewritten sligthly.....or grossly in some cases. Agendas upon agendas upon agendas......written by man in guilded robes.

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

skilly said:

I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange?

How can one believe anything about anything when EVERY copy could be rewritten sligthly.....or grossly in some cases. Agendas upon agendas upon agendas......written by man in guilded robes.

Exactly ... and this is the one of the many reasons I consider the Bible a good story, and not the word of god, nor the word of god written by man. It is like the old game "Gossip" - have 10 people and tell the first person a few sentences and then that person whispers it to the next and so on ... when it gets to the end it is very rarely the same as when it began. Or type something into an internet translator. Try typing some paragraph in English, get it translated into French, then into some other language (Spanish?) then back to English .... it will not be the same.

The good thing about the Da Vinci Code and the Bible for that matter, is that it sparks intellectual debate. Fanatics will protest the movie and book as sacrilege and blasphemous, but I applaud Franko for trying to encourage debate. There is nothing to be afraid to sit down and see why someone thinks one way and respect that person at the end of the day for having a different outlook on something.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?
  
• What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?
  
• Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?
  
• What is Opus Dei?
  
• Does the Priory of Sion really exist?

And the main question: is there a conspiracy of some sort to hide the truth (I feel an X-Files commercial coming up now).

What think?

And can we keep discussion civil? Can we cite sources?

I confess, as some of you have observed, that I have a lot of difficulty expressing thoughts about the Da Vinco code. I will state that the gullibility, credulity, naievete and astounding lack of knowledge of all of western history leaves me almost breathless. It's almost a compelling argument for the existence of a diabolical mind that toys with mankind.

Jesus the crucified celibate married to Magdelen? And the apostled killed witnessing to his rising....what...forgot? I can't think of words to describe how absurd this is.

Opus Dei an obscure, secretive cult?

Priory of Sion ... a weirdo group tied to of all people, the poor old Knights Templar?

Great vaults of Vatican Secrets and plots?

Gnostic cults and their weirdo, derivative add-on agenda nonsense deep theological treatises worthy of a half-hour of anyone's time?

And all of this ...I can't find a word for it...based upon a forged document from Plantard, the French actor who wanted to believe that he descended from Charlemagne.


It is very difficult for me not to be extremely dismissive of buying into this incredible compilation of slanderous, ridiculous, malicious, deceptive unadulterated horseship that dares to present itself as having included "Facts" on a facts page. The phenomenon is utterly astounding.

I am truly astounded at my fellow man's gullibility, dirth of knowledge, and willingness to believe the most slanderous nonsense of others.

Having recently witnessed the sales packaging job done by National Geographic conderning Judas, however, I should feel some real sympathy for my fellow citizens. It was a slickly packaged bit of slop, right up their with other sales jobs to keep you hooked and viewing.

It's all so extremely dumb --oops there goes Elvis again---that I can scarcely contain myself.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

How can one believe anything about anything when EVERY copy could be rewritten sligthly.....or grossly in some cases. Agendas upon agendas upon agendas......written by man in guilded robes.

Exactly ... and this is the one of the many reasons I consider the Bible a good story, and not the word of god, nor the word of god written by man. It is like the old game "Gossip" - have 10 people and tell the first person a few sentences and then that person whispers it to the next and so on ... when it gets to the end it is very rarely the same as when it began. Or type something into an internet translator. Try typing some paragraph in English, get it translated into French, then into some other language (Spanish?) then back to English .... it will not be the same.

The good thing about the Da Vinci Code and the Bible for that matter, is that it sparks intellectual debate. Fanatics will protest the movie and book as sacrilege and blasphemous, but I applaud Franko for trying to encourage debate. There is nothing to be afraid to sit down and see why someone thinks one way and respect that person at the end of the day for having a different outlook on something.

Sorry, Skilly, but this post is borderline....

I'll start over. Have you ever read any even semi-scholarly studies on the reliability of the Bible in general and the historicity of the new testament in particular? May I recommend that you try some. It will shed a little light on the matter of their hisorical reliablity. I will post a title or two that should be helpful if you have any real interest in the subject.

Be encouraged however, that of the hundreds of thousands of serious scriptural scholars over the last couple of thousand years, including a quite a few of the great intellects of mankind's history, their ability to source derivitve, non-source gnostic "gospels" and filter out gossip, was pretty good.

While some will indeed consider the DaVinci garbage blasphemous, I believe blasphemy formally requires that the blasphemer be aware of the divine nature of the subject, and I don't think Dan Brown knows much beyond how to sucker in a whole culture.

If however the crucified and celibate Christ were in fact exactly what he claimed to be as reported by men and women who died testifying to what they had seen and heard, and if Brown did in fact know this, then he would indeed, in my opinion be guilty of blasphemy.

It is far from fanatical to see the blasphemy and sacrilege entailed in this sorry business, and it's mostly about business, and a small failing to not draw the above consciousness distinction.

That Christians might take immense exception to the crucifed Christ who called for celibacy from those who would follow him most closely, being presented as a ludicrous fraud, that His closest followers who lived every day with him for years and who attested to spending more than a month with him after he was crucified; that these guys who also were mostly murdered for their faithful witness, were in the end, just moronic dupes of the most pitiful variety imaginable, spreadiing unconscienceable lies and distortions is a depiction so slanderous and repugnant that it surprises me that it takes explaining to anyone.

We're talking about all of our European history and the major and most significant entity and personage in world history. Just how jaded are we as a culture?


It is not in the least fanatical to take immense exception to this trashing of not only Christ, and his apostles, but also the very real people of the church, and especially her preiest and religious who have given up wives, husbands, children and property to attempt to follow in his footsteps and take up their cross one day after another till death. I am utterly astounded that this needs explaining.

There is very little, if any good in the Da Vinci code. It's strength has been in it's lying to a gullible and credulous population that thinks itself sophisticated. It was the claim to "facts" that are lies, that gve it its' legs. It appeals to that ever-suspicious, conspiracy-paranoic uneducated base of readers , in this case, gullible women in their mid-thirties who buy formulaic fiction.

Of course the appeal to anti-catholic bigotry is self-explanatory, so presenting this moronic thesis as somehow even remotely plausible in one's wildest flights of irrational fantasy, is, though it's hard for a sane person to accept of his fellow man, lamentably understandable.

It's truly funny that some people have difficulty believing in the resurrection of Christ, but can believe in the Da Vinci idiocy. And this in a culture where the guy who wrote the forged document on which the junk is based has actually been interviewed on tv decades ago admitting to the hoax. God help us.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

The thing I liked about the Da Vinci Code is not that I thought any of it to be true, but nobody can totally refute that it is possible that we do not know everything there is to know about Jesus.

One of the lastest editions of either Time or MacCleans now has an article on Opus Dei. I never read it, but from what I hear the gist is that they can not be so secretive anymore.

The Priory of Sion was supposedly a fabricated joke. I don't know enough about it to comment.

I guess for me the thing that makes me think about "religious history" is why the Vatican has so many secrets. Secret sects, secret libraries, no women, ... the list is endless ... do they think that we are all so fragile minded that we can not hear the "truth" and still keep our faith.

I gave up on the church a long time ago (Boston priest scandal, and the Mount Cashel scandal here in my home province). But it is not only the catholic church that has these "rogues" as we see a myriad of other denominations in similar situations. But just because you give up on the church does not mean you give up on faith.

I would love to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful, and what their implications are. But I was always of the opinion that the Bible was one big fable made up by man to show man a version of how to live. So the Gnostic Gospels would probably not sway me.

I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange?

A great tragedy, is that people are actually using the Da Vinci code as a point of departure for some supposed interest.

But, I'm curious...what relevant iformation about Jesus, his life, his teaching, his church do you think is lacking. As the most considered, studied person in all of human history, Im quite certain that I could read relevant, important material till the day I died, and not have but the tiniest fraction covered.

Quote: I guess for me the thing that makes me think about "religious history" is why the Vatican has so many secrets. Secret sects, secret libraries, no women, ... the list is endless ... do they think that we are all so fragile minded that we can not hear the "truth" and still keep our faith.

As one who considers himself to be a not so fragile-minded Catholic and having many friends and family members who might also be quite fairly considered not fragile of mind, I am amused by the above quote. It's exactly the kind of thing Da Vinci code breakers say.

What secret sects, secret libraries, and what on earth do you mean by no women..if you mean the priesthood, the church does not see herself as authorized to do this, and this is not at all a bad or wrong thing. The church was foremost in the west in insisting upon both the married and religious dignity of women who were the heads of entire orders. Very countercultural. Still is.

What "truth" do you imagine being hidden? Pulp fiction. (Bugs Bunny can be heard in the background saying D-D-D-D-D-dat's all folks!)

As to the gnostic gospels, there are a few really good sites on the net dealing with these guys. The gnostic gospels are so-called because they usually are odd ball cults whose members have a secret "gnosis" or knowledge that ordinary blokes like you and me don't have access to. Scholars.....real live scholars...have very little trouble eliminating (as did Christ's actual followers and their successors) sifting out the the stuff, most of which were borrowed true bits with goofy stuff added on. The recently superhyped Judas bit will prove to be of the same ilk. It's an old bit of nonsense that producers seeking money and sponsors who want to sell you even more crap will line up to hype for you.

A great many, for their own particular reasons not at all related to history will continue to seek delight in imagining the church and her popes and prelates as not the successors of the apostles who with few exceptions, in all human frailty seek to offer all they have and are to follow Christ, but rather as a deceitful, misogynistic brood of evil derelicts of history
trying to spoil everybody's fun. Dan Brown appeals to many in this crowd.

If anything the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has been very, very clear in delivering her truths, and long may she so do.

[franko]

My one concern about starting this thread was that it might degenerate (as have far too many of our religious-based threads) into mere personal thought (I believe therefore I'm right) . . . which is why I asked

franko said:

And can we keep discussion civil? Can we cite sources?

Part 1: done, so far. Part 2: sadly lacking.

btw, this is not just a Catholic discussion -- it stricks to the root of Christianity, period.

[Skilly]

Part 1 done?

I think I will take my "fragile mind" out of the discussion with one poster. I will discuss anything with anyone but I am not going to be insulted in the process.

Franko: There is a lack of sources because this is just the "possible" opinion of a few. The vast majority of the population (myself included btw) view the Da Vinci Code as fiction that intertwined loose facts and intertwined them together to make a good story. hmmmmm just like the Bible. What loose facts? Opus Dei does exist. Are they like Brown says? Well he probably put his own spin on it. But he didnt make them up .... the Vatican library does exist, stuff like that are factual but then he spins it. I have no trouble admitting that.

The main source of information on Jesus' life is the Bible. Now I have all but said I dont believe the Bible. Why? Because it is ambiguous and it lies. If we can take Brown's book and quite rightly prove it to be fiction by dissecting what he claims to be fact ... such as the glass pyramid has 666 panes of glass because Mitterand demanded it when it is mathematically impossible for that to be true (so if he stretched the truth here than the book as a whole should be questioned)..... then why can't the same hold for the Bible. To me the Bible, or any reference for that matter, has to be taken as a whole to judge its validity. The Old testament says the world began with Adam and Eve. Did it? If it did then why does the Bible also say "Thou shall not commit adulery, or covet thy neighbours wives?" Seems to me the Bible is promoting incest, and not only once but twice since according to the Bible the world was totally destroyed except for Noah's family and 2 of every animal ... so twice the world was populated by incest according to the Bible. And speaking of the great flood. Any geologist will tell you that it is scientifically possible to determine if a 40 day great flood occured by looking at the rock strata. Yet we can not find any evidence of it. It all falls back to the age old arguement that God does not want us to find it.

Do I believe it God? You are damn skippy I do ... but to me that does not mean I have to accept the Bible as a true version of history, just like I do not accept Brown's novel as fact. But the way some people overreact to someone's book makes you wonder why they are so upset ....

Why is it so hard to believe that something written on paper can not be based on fact? We have taken a document written less than 5 years ago and shown it to be fiction, why is it so hard to take the next leap and say it is possible (notice I didnt say that it is, but rather that it could be possible) that a document written by man from stories /accounts over 2000 years ago could not be entirely true? The four apostles themselves (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) give slightly differnet accounts of the same time period.

To me the fun of the Da Vinci Code is in "what if it is true ....." . I enjoy the intellectual excercise of exploring that angle. Much like what if Montreal beat Carolina .... could this have happened? Recently on CBC Newsworld they interviewed this guy in Nova Scotia who claims he discovered a settlement that is similar to Chinese settlements, he is claiming that the Chinese discovered North America in 1412 not John Cabot in 1492. Sometimes the smallest piece of information can alter how we perceive history ... and if the Bible is not actually factual (some believe it is, and some dont) then to me it is fun to discuss "what if's". Somewhere in another thread I believe I mentioned to you about the "missing years" of Jesus' life in the Bible ... it has a huge account of the years leading up and after his birth and then there is a huge gap until the years leading up to his death. For a man who people believed to be "king" at birth, I would think they would have followed his entire life closely. I remember you responded and I wasnt sure if you gave me a link to other sources discussing those missing years or not .....

[jkr]

skilly said:

Part 1 done?

I think I will take my "fragile mind" out of the discussion with one poster. I will discuss anything with anyone but I am not going to be insulted in the process.

This is why I don't take part in these discussions.

Posters may not intend that their words come out a certain way, it's hard to tell. But some of the responses do seem condescending. I've seen it a lot in this section of the forum.

[Toronthab]

The Da Vinci code is most specifically bent upon impugning, deriding and casting absurd and incredibly stupid but nonetheless now well-circulated lunacy concerning the Catholic church. That is portrays Christ as a hypercritical fraud, the people who were with him as idiots, fools or liars, and that this widens the issue to other Christian religions is true, but the book IS about Catholicism and this thread is about the book.

Skilly's question concerning the reliability of books, and once again Dan Brown originally and particularly in his "fact " page presented his book as a fact-based and plausible conjecture on Western history. I know many reading my comments will wonder, "WHy is he so angry about this?" My question back is how can people not be appalled at the cavalier abuse of our entire heritage to sell books. If he had come out with a very clear statement that his work was entirely fictional and and so intended as an exercise in an outrageous hypothesis, one could be a lot freeer in treating of this stuff.

And what if, just what if, Christ really was who he claimed to be. What if as his apostles claimed he really did rise from the dead after his crucifixion. What if human beings aren't exclusively bioligical and what if human free will, consistent with the indeterminacy of of quantum events indicate is spirit as well as flesh.

What if the idea of eternity and reuniting with one's loved ones, or sacrificing one's life for another aren't just pie in the sky when you die wishful thinking, but are rather the likeliest explanation of life and its meaning? What if doing the right thing is actually the whole point of the game and everything else is passing and ephemeral? In other words, the core issues of what it is to be human are not insignificant and to be trivialzed for profit from gullible populations.

Some things aren't supposed to be rendered fodder for money-grubbing and deceitful literary frauds and the "entertainment" shareholders.

Christianity is founded upon a very real historical person whose very acts and words set off the most dynamic force for good in the history of the known universe, and this force is far from spent. The denigration of this for some pieces of silver is a trivialization of human endeavour itself. We should have a lot more respect for ourselves.

[Toronthab]

jkr said:

skilly said:

Part 1 done?

I think I will take my "fragile mind" out of the discussion with one poster. I will discuss anything with anyone but I am not going to be insulted in the process.

This is why I don't take part in these discussions.

Posters may not intend that their words come out a certain way, it's hard to tell. But some of the responses do seem condescending. I've seen it a lot in this section of the forum.

It's also hard for me to determine who intends what in posts including this one.

I'll try to be clear here. Presenting, as is fashionable in certain circles of questionnable intent, the Catholic church, that is, the real honest to God flesh and bones church of which I am a member as are most of my family and quite a few friends as perpetrators of a two thousand year fraud, and an organization of "secret societies' (Opus Dei is only a secret if one doesn't read much and there is nothing at all "secret" about it.) The Priory of Sion is a small religioius organization of little significance that is incidentally suing the Da Vinci code production to include a disclaimer acknowledging that they have usurped a real group and thrown it into their "fiction".

That, again, all of this idiocy is based upon an ACKNOWLEDGED FORGERY FROM A FRENCH ACTOR AND HIS BUDDY, A PLAYWRITE WHO HAS EVEN BEEN INTERVIEWED ON TV ACKNOWLEDGING THE FRAUD, on a program that has been on several times already and that its still being treated as some kind of serious work, illustrates something about our "culture" that I don't fine too appealing.

If it sounds like I don't have a lot of respect for the content of certain posts, I most certainly do not, and would ask, why should I?

Many of them are casting considerable aspersions on not only the integrity of all of human history, Christ , my church and me, but do so on the most laughable grounds imaginable.

I don't know if others have ever tuned into talk radio at night and listened to some incredible turkey named Bell I believe who goes on about the " Illuminati" and the secret conspiracies that actually rule the workd. Incidentally, Dan Brown's other laugh book is "angels and Demons" . It's right up there with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" as forgive me if I sound condescending, moron fodder. Open-minded does not mean paranoid.
Open mindedness does not mean the same thing as gullible. Open mindedness does not mean unable to think clearly or recognize unutterable nonsense and declare it so.

The level of gullibility, lack of knowledge of either history or human nature and its ways that is requisite to buying into this garbage is trully mind boggling and one should not suffer fools lightly. Short of beginning a course of study in how to think , history, philosophy and how to speak with integrity and honesty, assuming that the spiritual will to subject oneself to what are in fact moral principles exists, laughing at the laughable is a fitting response. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance.

It is a good thing to investigate and consider argument and counterargument and this is the particular evil of defrauders like Dan Brown, who make fraudulent claims of historicity
and why? Because he believes them to be plausible, as he has presented himself in interviews? No. To take your money. And if he has to slander, calumnize , and insult human history and a quarter of the world's current population to do it, then his love of money, which I am reminded Christ held to be "the root of all evil" will override his love of truth and respect for others.

When Christ was asked to sum up the point of life, his answer was to love God with your whole heart, mind and strength, and your neighbour as yourself. In this instance the meaning is that the mind must subject itself only to what is true, worthy and good. Loving one's neighbour is not to be confused with adoration and sycophantism.

It has been my infrequent pleasure and unearned honour to have had some small acquaintance with a couple of the bishops of the Catholic church, and I must report that I have found them to be some of the most caring, intelligent and courageous persons I have ever met. I find this to be generally true of Catholic clergy was well. So when I read ascribed to these men of intelligence, learning and extraordinary integrity, who participate in the councils of the worldwide church, the kind of ....what can I call it....paranoid junk....that seeks to pass forfair comment, I am quite given to defend my freinds from such scurilous and unjust attack; even attacks that border upon the theatre of the absurd, like Brown's con job.

I also have an abiding concern and even an interest in the mental health of my fellow man.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?
  
• What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?
  
• Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?
  
• What is Opus Dei?
  
• Does the Priory of Sion really exist?

And the main question: is there a conspiracy of some sort to hide the truth (I feel an X-Files commercial coming up now).

What think?

And can we keep discussion civil? Can we cite sources?

Jesus was not "married to mary Magdalene"

The gnostic so-called "gospels" are non-witness, derivative add-ons to the eye-witness -based recognized gospels. Written a couple of hundred years later, they were usually nonsense seeking credibility by association with the real historical church that actually was in immediate touch and relationship with the actual person who was Christ. They and their immediate successors were commanded to, authorized by Christ to and did protect authentic revelatiojn from mind pollution and the ridiculous.

Other groups, non-apostolic did respond to the fact of Jesus and are specifically mentionned in the bible. Quite a few protestant groups today believe that they are derived from some of these contemporaneous groups. There is very little evidence for this claim.

Opus Dei is a group of particularly focussed individuals who in essence try particularly to live holy and productive lives in response to God's grace. There is absolutely nothing secret about them. That the culture at large is ignorant of them does not make them secret. Ever hear of Dominicans, Trappists, or the Sisters of Charity? Secret...God spare me.

The Priory of Sion is an actually existing small priory in Europe somewhere invente byu Plantard, the convicted fraud. They are completely unrelated to the Knights Templar who have absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Grail, which itself, was probably earthenware.

Also. though you did not ask, the Holy Grail, is in fact the cup with which Jesus drank the wine of his blood at the last Supper. It is not as Brown claims, the "sacred feminine" in the person of Mary Magdelane (the target sales audience was gullible women in their thrties), the horrible secret that nasty old men on hard benches in the Vatican ( a real place incidentally) have successfully kept from us dupes for ...get this...over 2000 years. And Dan Brown says that this is reasonablae conjecture based upon facts!!! Cool, eh?

Lastly, there is indeed a conspiracy to hide the truth. It is with Dan Brown and the publishing industry, news media and A &E type producers looking for sponsorship money and lots of people who have little or no interest in truth.

The Catholic church has been preaching the same truth, in season and out of season for two thousand years. It is made up of fallible human beings, but is the central, primary and most positively infliential institution of western civilizsation, and indeed, all of world history and remains so incidentally.

www.livescience.com/history/050524_davinci_code.html


Alas, the whole basis of The Da Vinci Code—the "discovered" parchments of Rennes-le-Château, relating to the alleged Priory of Sion—were part of a hoax perpetrated by a man named Pierre Plantard. Plantard commissioned a friend to create fake parchments which he then used to concoct the bogus priory story in 1956. (See Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, 2004.)

Of course, Dan Brown—with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation—was also duped by the Priory of Sion hoax, which he in turn foisted onto his readers. But he is apparently unrepentant, and his apologists point out that The Da Vinci Code is, after all, fiction, although at the beginning of the novel, Brown claimed it was based on fact. Meanwhile, despite the devastatingly negative evidence, The Da Vinci Code mania continues. Perhaps Brown should go on his own quest—for the truth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Nickell is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and "Investigative Files" columnist for the organization’s science magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.

[franko]

Ah, well . . . I tried.

It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie.

We have Torothab, our resident Catholic apologetic.
I was willing to continue my role of resident Protestant apologetic.
I figured that Skilly, our resident agnostic, would chime in, as would HA, the hell-bent one, and others in this cast of thousands.

All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.

Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) .

And that's without even quoting a real book!

This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis.

Ah, well . . . I tried.

[franko]

toronthab said:

www.livescience.com/history/050524_davinci_code.html

(See Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, 2004.)

Joe Nickell is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and "Investigative Files" columnist for the organization’s science magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.

Now was that so hard? ;D

[Toronthab]

Though not directly starring in a movie house near you, The Catholic Church and her members were in fact up to a couple of things other than deception, mayhem, and the slaughter of infidels if one's faith in A&E can be suspended for the shows following the DAWG and other feasts for inquiring minds.


How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.




Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.

By far the book’s longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church’s alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church’s role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.

It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.

The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun’s apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.

I’ve tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public.

www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the late Scholastics – mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians – in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954). "t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to having been the ‘founders’ of scientific economics." In devoting scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century, including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and Alejandro Chafuen.

The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University of Paris described as the "new Athens" – a designation that calls to mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope Innocent IV (1243–54) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church," and Pope Alexander IV (1254–61) called them "lanterns shining in the house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight."

As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:

t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.

"cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."

Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:

What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.

The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world…though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."

Here, then, are just a few of the topics to be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I’ve been asked quite a few times in recent weeks what my next project will be. For now, it’ll be getting some rest.

May 2, 2005

Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia. His books include the New York Times (and LRC) bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, and the just-released How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

Thomas Woods Archives

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

[jkr]

toronthab said:

jkr said:

This is why I don't take part in these discussions.

Posters may not intend that their words come out a certain way, it's hard to tell. But some of the responses do seem condescending. I've seen it a lot in this section of the forum.

It's also hard for me to determine who intends what in posts including this one.

I wasn't trying to single anyone out and should have been clearer. I was referring in general to this Non_Hockey forum. The topics arouse more passionate responses than anything I have seen on the hockey side of this board.

If you felt slighted, I apologise.

I'll stay out of this thread now. I have not even read this book and don't plan on it.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

The thing I liked about the Da Vinci Code is not that I thought any of it to be true, but nobody can totally refute that it is possible that we do not know everything there is to know about Jesus.

One of the lastest editions of either Time or MacCleans now has an article on Opus Dei. I never read it, but from what I hear the gist is that they can not be so secretive anymore.

The Priory of Sion was supposedly a fabricated joke. I don't know enough about it to comment.

I guess for me the thing that makes me think about "religious history" is why the Vatican has so many secrets. Secret sects, secret libraries, no women, ... the list is endless ... do they think that we are all so fragile minded that we can not hear the "truth" and still keep our faith.

I gave up on the church a long time ago (Boston priest scandal, and the Mount Cashel scandal here in my home province). But it is not only the catholic church that has these "rogues" as we see a myriad of other denominations in similar situations. But just because you give up on the church does not mean you give up on faith.

I would love to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful, and what their implications are. But I was always of the opinion that the Bible was one big fable made up by man to show man a version of how to live. So the Gnostic Gospels would probably not sway me.

I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange?

Skilly. You mentionned being insulted, and quote your own "feeble minds" comment about church members on the basis of some supposed "secrets" and secret societies that unfortuantely exist only in your own (and the rest of the "conspiracy" cult types) imagination.

It is you who insult both the intelligence and integrity of Catholics like myself and some 2000 years of both saints, sinners and scholars. And it is to these insulting characterizations that I respond.

And on what are these supposed observations based. Goofball gnostic nonsense and a fraudulent book that masquerades as truth. And some wonder that I take considerable exception to this cult phenomenon, and the media BS that keeps the suckers hanging on.

If you don't quite get how calling Christ a fraud and the church a perpetrator of this incredibly stupid idea as a gross insult to most members of western history, then I suggest that you and others stop and think for just a moment.

I have made my points rather clearly. It's not my fault that lots of people, including a reviewer goof at the New York Times who found the research "impeccable" to quote the silly a$$, have bought Brown's fraudulent vehicle for bigotry and the absurd as in any way defensible. If he had declared it to be not factual at the start, it would simply be a book in very, very poor taste, and not one twisting minds across the world.

Just look at the content on this board!

Elvis hasn't quite left the building yet, but I'm certainly trying to help him along.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Well, I don't mind talking about this, Franko. Thanks.

First, I found the Da Vinci Code a pretty entertaining novel. Dan Brown freely admitted that his book was just that, a novel.

But, Brown has done some research on this and it really does show. So much so, that I've done some poking around myself.

franko said:

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?

Well, there seems to be evidence to suggest that there was an intimate relationship of some kind. For instance, in Kilmore Church in Scotland there exists a beautiful window painting of Jesus and Mary standing together. Note that Mary is quite pregnant.
The caption below the artwork reads as follows:

"Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her"

As the link says, this was taken directly from the Gospel of Luke, ch.10 v.42, this is a quote from Christ himself. Please see The intriguing mystery of a stained glass window in Kilmore.

[/li][li]What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?[/quote]
Many have had that question as well, Franko. Why were there only four gospels chosen for the bible? Or, why were the remaining Gospels left out? Were they a thread in some way? If so, why?

I'll go one step further. One of the most extensive Christian libraries has been and remains today, out of bounds to the public. That is the Vatican library. Why is this?

[/li][li]Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?[/quote]
Apparently this is the theory as to why there were only four gospels published. I can't remember who it was who ultimately decided that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John would be the only four gospels. But, it was he who decided that the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, et al, should not be included in the current version of the bible. As soon as I do have a name, I'll post it as well.

[/li][li]What is Opus Dei?[/quote]
CBC did a very good story on Opus Dei. Please see Opus Dei.. It gives a very good overview as to what Opus Dei is and their mission. Dan Brown took some literary ficticious liberties with Opus Dei. But, it made for a pretty good addition to the story he was telling.

[/li][li]Does the Priory of Sion really exist?[/li][/ul][/quote]
By his own admittance it was a hoax created by Pierre Plantard.

And the main question: is there a conspiracy of some sort to hide the truth (I feel an X-Files commercial coming up now).

Henry Lincon, co-author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" says that if one has faith, one has a true gift. Through his research, Lincon has basically pointed out clues that lead to "something." He hasn't quite figured it out and freely admits that in the video I saw a few weeks ago.

One mystery he delves into is the natural geometry of Rennes le Chateau, St-Just and Le-Bezu, Bugarash, Lac de Barrenc, Serres, Cassaignes and Coustaussa. You'll see what I mean right here.



Yet, if you read this page, and it will take you some time, you'll read that there is a theory or myth about the Priory of Sion even in lieu of Plantard's revelation.

Coming full circle on you, Franko, I think Dan Brown wrote a very entertaining novel. He, himself, has admitted to that. However, there's too much information available nowadays to take people "at their word."

I think this thread is a good starting point for an excellent discussion. People of the past have gone through a lot of effort to convey something they would like us to know. However, when guys like Henry Lincon go searching for clues, some of those places are soon deformed or destroyed thereby errasing whatever message they wanted to convey.

Why?

Cheers.

[Toronthab]

jkr said:

toronthab said:

It's also hard for me to determine who intends what in posts including this one.

I wasn't trying to single anyone out and should have been clearer. I was referring in general to this Non_Hockey forum. The topics arouse more passionate responses than anything I have seen on the hockey side of this board.

If you felt slighted, I apologise.

I'll stay out of this thread now. I have not even read this book and don't plan on it.

Thanks for the post JKR. I really didn't know who you were talking about.

This is like the twilight zone for me, and as I posted elsewhere, this Da Vinci (Da Vinci deserved better, as did Christ than to be defamed as a goof in Brown's book) Code phenomenon is an astounding illustration of just how tenuous is the link with reality that is at the core of the human mind.

It's a valuable exercise if just for that.

If you'll bear with me for a second, I will tell you something you may find really, reallty strange and I may be asking too much of both myslelf and you to try to present it in a very short item like this.

I believe in the spiritual. I believe that there is in human beings an active principle or powers, specifically free will and functions of the intellect that do not reduce completely to the neural or biological level.

I believe that I myself, me, the person, and not a bunch of playful genes having their way with me, am freely choosing to and writing these words just as you (if you still are!) have freely chosen to read them and that your intelligence, which I do not identify as being exactly the same thing as your brain, its organ, transcends mere epiphenomenalism or physicalism as a philosophical stance.

There is nothing at all unscientific about this claim of mine incidentally. Dogmatic materialists would insist (with no grounds) upon denying this. Of course if they were right, they would have had no choice but to do so, but they don't generally see how funny that is and that undirected random mutation doesn't have "truth " as a primary goal. But I digress.

I wish to speak of morally evil acts and their necessary cause. If one's acts of the will which we know can be morally good or evil, are indeed free or not determined by biology or physics, but rather are spiritual, which means an active power that is not reducible to the physical, then, if every action must be caused by a prior action commensurate with the effect, then spitiual or mental acts mus also have an underlying casuative agent just like a ball on a pool table must be set in motion by something already in motion.

In short mental/ spiritual acts must have mental/ spiritual causes....My point? All of this Sa Vinci nonsense has provided more evidence of a positive, ( for evil has no self existence but can only take away from the positively existing) spritual source for the immense confusion surrounding the banality of one greeedy and unprincipled writer's flabby little mind. The devil didn't make him do it however. (Now this should stir up some genuinely interesting stuff.)

It's logically consistent.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

Ah, well . . . I tried.

It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie.

I think we still can. Maybe continue the discussion down below starting with my post. It has nothing to do with organized religion at this point. Just some of Henry Lincon's discoveries.

All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.

Yep. He, himself, said it was a ficticious novel. Should explain everything. However, he did do some very good research. We have to give him credit for that.

Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) .

And that's without even quoting a real book!

Someone's interpretation of the Gnostics perhaps?

This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis.

Actually, it wouldn't be all that hard to keep the discussion going at all.

Cheers.

[Toronthab]

disgruntled70shab said:

Well, I don't mind talking about this, Franko. Thanks.

First, I found the Da Vinci Code a pretty entertaining novel. Dan Brown freely admitted that his book was just that, a novel.

But, Brown has done some research on this and it really does show. So much so, that I've done some poking around myself.

franko said:

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?

Well, there seems to be evidence to suggest that there was an intimate relationship of some kind. For instance, in Kilmore Church in Scotland there exists a beautiful window painting of Jesus and Mary standing together. Note that Mary is quite pregnant.
The caption below the artwork reads as follows:

"Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her"

As the link says, this was taken directly from the Gospel of Luke, ch.10 v.42, this is a quote from Christ himself. Please see The intriguing mystery of a stained glass window in Kilmore.


Many have had that question as well, Franko. Why were there only four gospels chosen for the bible? Or, why were the remaining Gospels left out? Were they a thread in some way? If so, why? Here is a list of gospels, et al, I found earlier today.

I'll go one step further. One of the most extensive Christian libraries has been and remains today, out of bounds to the public. That is the Vatican library. Why is this?


Apparently this is the theory as to why there were only four gospels published. I can't remember who it was who ultimately decided that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John would be the only four gospels. But, it was he who decided that the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, et al, should not be included in the current version of the bible. As soon as I do have a name, I'll post it as well.


CBC did a very good story on Opus Dei. Please see Opus Dei.. It gives a very good overview as to what Opus Dei is and their mission. Dan Brown took some literary ficticious liberties with Opus Dei. But, it made for a pretty good addition to the story he was telling.


By his own admittance it was a hoax created by Pierre Plantard.

And the main question: is there a conspiracy of some sort to hide the truth (I feel an X-Files commercial coming up now).

Henry Lincon, co-author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" says that if one has faith, one has a true gift. Through his research, Lincon has basically pointed out clues that lead to "something." He hasn't quite figured it out and freely admits that in the video I saw a few weeks ago.

One mystery he delves into is the natural geometry of Rennes le Chateau, St-Just and Le-Bezu, Bugarash, Lac de Barrenc, Serres, Cassaignes and Coustaussa. You'll see what I mean right here.



Yet, if you read this page, and it will take you some time, you'll read that there is a theory or myth about the Priory of Sion even in lieu of Plantard's revelation.

Coming full circle on you, Franko, I think Dan Brown wrote a very entertaining novel. He, himself, has admitted to that. However, there's too much information available nowadays to take people "at their word."

I think this thread is a good starting point for an excellent discussion. People of the past have gone through a lot of effort to convey something they would like us to know. However, when guys like Henry Lincon go searching for clues, some of those places are soon deformed or destroyed thereby errasing whatever message they wanted to convey.

Why?

Cheers.

A couple of points Dis.

First. Are you really attempting to say that Brown did not go around initially stating that the book was considerably based upon facts, including his facts page, and that it wasn't until he was outed by honest folks that he began to change his tune quite dramatically?

That is most certainly not the consensus opinion on the matter. In fact it is exactly his false and ludicrous claims of factuality that are at the root of people like myself calling him a fraud and his audience extremely gullible. So, the New York Times review calling his research "impeccable" was jus t a failure of his to attend to Dan Brown's crying out that it was only fiction?

So the movie pointing out his long, long list of deceptions and the book "The Da Vinci Hoax" had authors who also managed to miss his disclaimers and incidentally, based upon their claims left themselves open to civil action from a therefore seriously wronged Brown? What an interesting take on the situation.

If so, then both they and I have fallen victim to another reality shift, one that is spookily similar to the hoax claimed in Brown's dare I say work. What an odd coincidence.

I guess then that what I and all of North America saw and read, we really didn't read and see. Or not.




This stained glass from Scotland. Is this perhaps based upon a photo after the crucifixion?

And do you honestly mean to imply that the actual apostles of Christ whose synoptic gospels and whose persons were the actual church, are the ones who confused a crucifixion and resurrection with a perhaps shotgun wedding and a honeynmoon in France. Are there any surviving photos of the little Jeeslings? Perhaps in a little obscure priory in say...Instanbul? Maybe the Holy Grail wasnn't the blessed cup at the last supper, (the details of which I'm sure everybody there were totally unsure about...all that stuff about drinking my blood and eating his flesh....ewwww) but maybe the grail was the wedding bouquet....assuming Jesus even got married...for if he mislead everyone about giving up home an family to follow him, why wouldn't he just knock her up? It would be consistent.

So odd too that the gnostic gospels, including that of Philip that is referenced, are so well shown by scholars .....oh...except Lincoln...of...I''m sorry he isn't a scholar is he? Oh well. ...to be obviously derivative and reflecting none of the characteristics of first hand experience and seem quite obviously designed to serve as borrowed credibility to defend otiose agendas. For instance, as I recall in Brown's "sacred feminin" drivel he neglects to include that the referenced "gospel" in support of the sacrd feminine, actually says that for the female to become perfect she must become male. Odd that he forgot to include that anywhere in his fact page, huh?

Thank God Jesus kept all those guys with Him and passed his authority down through them, including Judas, person to person. Wow, the incrdible stuff people would be prone to accepting but for that.

And I hear tell that there's a secret library at the Vatican? Is that the same secret library that everyone has known about since the day it was built? Or did you mean another secret library that no one knows about?

Maybe we'll find Jesus' wedding tux there if we can get past those conniving misanthropic bishops.

It's so unfortunate that the subsequent generation of the Jeeslings didn't fess up and save us all the trouble of the last two thousand years of scholarship...oops I mean coverup....Wow. But I guess one couldn't expect much integrity from that crowd. It's not like they were crucified upside down in Rome (at the Vatican by bizarre coincidence!) like Saint Peter, or otherwise murdered for their witness. I'm sure the Jeeslings would have been highly credible and worth the time of day.

[franko]

Read Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why by Bart D. Ehrman for one person's reasonings behind the choice of the four gospels and discounting of much of the gospels.

As to choices of what now constitutes the New Testament, it was codified in 367. Much of the gnostic gospels were late, as opposed to written within a century of the death of Jesus (here I fail in my own command to cite sources: I do not have the books handy and woruld rather not cite internet sites. If requested, I'll quote chapter and verse -- and book!). If I recall, the Council of Nicea (here Brown is right) gave the final "vote".

I'll have to look at that Kilmore link.

There is great discussion about Jesus' "early years". Some suggest that He lived in Nazarenth the whole time; others posit a life in India learning under mystics.

[Toronthab]

I must assume that I am considered at least by some as not contributing to meaningful discussion here.

So if I point out what countless others are pointing out....that the Hoax was and is a hoax based upon a lot less than thin air, unless greed and deception are more substantial then I am not considered cooperative.

If I take immense exception to a fraudulently presented book calumnizing the person of Christ and his presenting his church and many bright lights of history as massive deceivers and would be murderers, , then I'm what ....a poor sport. Boy, if there were ever a good case to be made for the value of a classic arts education, this must be it.

Truth is a value, though admittedly not much of one in this work.

Astounding.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Read Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why by Bart D. Ehrman for one person's reasonings behind the choice of the four gospels and discounting of much of the gospels.

As to choices of what now constitutes the New Testament, it was codified in 367. Much of the gnostic gospels were late, as opposed to written within a century of the death of Jesus (here I fail in my own command to cite sources: I do not have the books handy and woruld rather not cite internet sites. If requested, I'll quote chapter and verse -- and book!). If I recall, the Council of Nicea (here Brown is right) gave the final "vote".

I'll have to look at that Kilmore link.

There is great discussion about Jesus' "early years". Some suggest that He lived in Nazarenth the whole time; others posit a life in India learning under mystics.

I am not biblical scholar, and I am certianly not an evangelical protestant biblical scholar, and my firm belief that the authority of the church to teach rests upon the apostles and their person to person historical successors including the current pope whose Vatican likely rests upon the tomb of Saint Peter who was personally commissioned by Christ, personally. Assured by the promises of Christ to His church and being somewhat familiar with the stuff of gnosticism, which you are all free to research for yourselves, references, like the above, while they might be disturbing ot bible fundamentalists or appealing to non-catholics, don't like Paglia and her outright silliness don't cause any trembling in the bones here.


In sum, Ehrman’s latest book does not disappoint on the provocative scale. But it comes up short on genuine substance about his primary contention. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.6

www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

[Toronthab]

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the novel?

Although a work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a "fact" page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers-both Catholic and non-Catholic-are taking the book's ideas seriously.

The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:

Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.
Catholics should be concerned about the book because it not only misrepresents their Church as a murderous institution but also implies that the Christian faith itself is utterly false.


Should other Christians be concerned about the book?

Definitely. Only some of the offensive claims of The Da Vinci Code pertain directly to the Catholic Church. The remainder strike at the Christian faith itself. If the book's claims were true, then all forms of Christianity would be false (except perhaps for Gnostic/feminist versions focusing on Mary Magdalene instead of Jesus).\

www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

[Toronthab]

disgruntled70shab said:

Well, I don't mind talking about this, Franko. Thanks.

First, I found the Da Vinci Code a pretty entertaining novel. Dan Brown freely admitted that his book was just that, a novel.

But, Brown has done some research on this and it really does show. So much so, that I've done some poking around myself.

franko said:

With the over-hype advertising of Dan Brown’s novel-turned-movie The Da Vinci Code one wonders how much of the book is based on fact and how much is it fictionalized history. In particular, a number of questions are raised:

• Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?

Well, there seems to be evidence to suggest that there was an intimate relationship of some kind. For instance, in Kilmore Church in Scotland there exists a beautiful window painting of Jesus and Mary standing together. Note that Mary is quite pregnant.
The caption below the artwork reads as follows:

"Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her"

As the link says, this was taken directly from the Gospel of Luke, ch.10 v.42, this is a quote from Christ himself. Please see The intriguing mystery of a stained glass window in Kilmore

So Jesus, apart from being Scottish, turned out to be a Freemason as well! Who knew?!


How does the Priory of Sion presented in The Da Vinci Code compare with the Priory of Sion co-founded by Plantard?

Olson and Miesel note that, in order to suit his own agenda of promoting worship of "the Sacred Feminine," Brown adapted the Priory of Sion as presented in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and similar works:

Spurious documents, interviews, and admiring books [concerning the actual Priory] multiplied. Lists of famous grand masters were produced. Goddess-worship, however, was not part of the agenda, unlike Brown's version of the Priory. In 1975, Plantard began calling himself "Plantard de St. Clair" to pretend a connection with a noble Scottish family involved with Freemasonry who'd built the strange Chapel of Rosslyn near Edinburgh. (This is why The Da Vinci Code claims the blood of Christ survived most directly in the Plantard and St. Clair families [260, 442].)16
Despite The Da Vinci Code's indirect acknowledgement of Plantard, the secret society at the core of the book remains a product of the fevered imagination of a convicted con man. Olson and Miesel conclude:
Although the false history of the Priory has been repeatedly exposed in France and on the BBC in 1996, not to mention tireless debunking by researcher Paul Smith since at least 1985, Dan Brown wants his readers to think it's real and that its preposterous claims are genuine. The commercial need to feed the public's taste for conspiracy clearly is trumping truth.17

[Disgruntled70sHab]

toronthab said:

A couple of points Dis.

First. Are you really attempting to say that Brown did not go around initially stating that the book was considerably based upon facts, including his facts page, and that it wasn't until he was outed by honest folks that he began to change his tune quite dramatically?

No, I wasn't trying to imply that at all. I never knew Brown had originally tried to pass his novel off as fact. This is the first I've heard of that actually.

What I was saying is that I've seen him publicly say that his novel was fiction.

That is most certainly not the consensus opinion on the matter.

Consensus according to who? Organized religion? Most who have read his book (though that would be kind of hard)? Please post some fact to substantiate this generalization.

In fact it is exactly his false and ludicrous claims of factuality that are at the root of people like myself calling him a fraud and his audience extremely gullible.

Well, I like to read, like to go to movies and like to discuss things. Oh, well ... if that makes me gullible then so be it.

This stained glass from Scotland. Is this perhaps based upon a photo after the crucifixion?

A photo of what? Not sure I follow you here... "based upon a photo after the crucifixion." There seems to be no malcontent towards the image and if it were heresy I think they might have replaced it. However, it remains there today.

And do you honestly mean to imply that the actual apostles of Christ whose synoptic gospels and whose persons were the actual church, are the ones who confused a crucifixion and resurrection with a perhaps shotgun wedding and a honeynmoon in France.
Are there any surviving photos of the little Jeeslings? Perhaps in a little obscure priory in say...Instanbul? Maybe the Holy Grail wasnn't the blessed cup at the last supper, (the details of which I'm sure everybody there were totally unsure about...all that stuff about drinking my blood and eating his flesh....ewwww) but maybe the grail was the wedding bouquet....assuming Jesus even got married...for if he mislead everyone about giving up home an family to follow him, why wouldn't he just knock her up? It would be consistent.

Perhaps a more plausible arugment would have been, there's nothing in the (four) scriptures she was the wife of Jesus. But, you chose a much more emotional route. I remember a similar tactic being used in a similar topic not too long ago. Forgive me, but you're losing me with your emotion and sarcasm.

So odd too that the gnostic gospels, including that of Philip that is referenced, are so well shown by scholars .....oh...except Lincoln...of...I''m sorry he isn't a scholar is he? Oh well.

No, he was journalist telling a story. A story that he admits he can't trace.

...to be obviously derivative and reflecting none of the characteristics of first hand experience and seem quite obviously designed to serve as borrowed credibility to defend otiose agendas. For instance, as I recall in Brown's "sacred feminin" drivel he neglects to include that the referenced "gospel" in support of the sacrd feminine, actually says that for the female to become perfect she must become male. Odd that he forgot to include that anywhere in his fact page, huh?

Thank God Jesus kept all those guys with Him and passed his authority down through them, including Judas, person to person. Wow, the incrdible stuff people would be prone to accepting but for that.

No objectivity here. Just the same emotion I cited before.

And I hear tell that there's a secret library at the Vatican? Is that the same secret library that everyone has known about since the day it was built? Or did you mean another secret library that no one knows about?

No secret there. Please see the Vatican Library . They've even labelled one of their fields on the left of the screen, "Secret Archives." I found it funny actually.

I'll concede on this fact for the time being. I was always led to believe that there was a section of the library not open to the public. If I find it, I'll post it.

Maybe we'll find Jesus' wedding tux there if we can get past those conniving misanthropic bishops.

I find this statement consistent with your emotion and sarcasm. It does nothing for your argument.

It's so unfortunate that the subsequent generation of the Jeeslings didn't fess up and save us all the trouble of the last two thousand years of scholarship...oops I mean coverup....Wow. But I guess one couldn't expect much integrity from that crowd. It's not like they were crucified upside down in Rome (at the Vatican by bizarre coincidence!) like Saint Peter, or otherwise murdered for their witness. I'm sure the Jeeslings would have been highly credible and worth the time of day.

Montreal, I respect your passion and you're right to viable arguments. I've spent 23 years in uniform defending that principal. However, I do not respect the sarcasm in which you formulated your arguments. And forgive me, but I'm rather surprised to see a devout Catholic such as yourself bastardizing the Lord's name in order to make a sarcastic point. Confusing.

Franko tried to start a discussion on topic that has many, many people talking about it around the globe. But, it has quickly digressed to the point where now we have community members opting not to participate for the reasons they've cited in this thread. None of us need to be reminded of this, but I feel I have no option at this point. I recall another heated debate not so long ago in which a community member used "the Good Ship Sarcasm" to convey his points to you specifically. I also remember you feeling quite wronged and appealing to the moderators for just action. And now this?

Quite honestly, I've read a lot of your material since you've been a member and I've enjoyed it thoroughly. However, I find sarcasm isn't something you need given how well read you are.

I'm now going to discuss this book with anyone who wishes to do so. I hope you continue to participate.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

I saw the movie and I was entertained. One needs to take anything and everything with a grain of salt so I will not comment on the religious aspects of the movie, because frankly, I don't care.

As for entertainment value, two thumbs up. Keeps you riveted while telling a story.

[roke]

habsaddict said:

I saw the movie and I was entertained. One needs to take anything and everything with a grain of salt so I will not comment on the religious aspects of the movie, because frankly, I don't care.

As for entertainment value, two thumbs up. Keeps you riveted while telling a story.

Have you read the Book HA (or CfC...)? If you have how well done is the... translating of the story from book to the big screen? I'm not much of a movie watcher but I may go see it as I enjoyed the book for the story which was incredibly entertaining... I just couldn't put it down.