The da vinci code

[terralily]

Don't let Rev hear you say that... 

[fatchance]

Actually,

Brown says that his book is fiction. WHich it is. However, as said before, he states that it is based on fact. Most authors writing fiction will base the novel on historical facts, but the novel is still fiction. This is where Brown is unique, he bases his fiction on historical fiction(if such a concept exists).


Most of Browns references to history are invented. Some are even the opposite of the actual historical account.

Brown states that at the council of nicea is where and when the new testament canon was decided. Not true, Nicea never raised that issue since it had been decided earlier.

Brown states that at Nicea they voted on the divinity of christ versus his being a man,
He also states that the vote was close.
Not true. they voted on his being Divine with a human nature vs. his being soley Divine but soley spirit.
Noone considered him to be just a man at Nicea.
On top of that, the vote wasnt close at all..316 to 2 in favor of the the duality view.

Brown claims that the Dead Sea scrolls contain evidence that suggests men fabricated stories of Jesus that made him more than just a man. This is not true. The Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing of Jesus.

There are many more, but the point is that his book is fiction. And some people (Christians and Catholics) are overreacting a bit, but Browns novel is a bit misleading in that it bases its fiction on FICTION, which is in itself original and the only thing that makes his book original. The big bad church, murdering people to keep secrets has been done many times before. Religeon as the scapegoat is overly cliched.

[fatchance]

Yes, religions are also excellent population control devices.
Religeon does have in its history closeminded fools. However to believe in a intelligent God whom created men from his image in an orderly world was the foundation for the Enlightenment. You would have never gotten the Enlightenment from the pagan worldview. Maybe the sexual revolution.

[some weird girl]

umm I liked the book, and I am going to see the movie. While I dont think its real, I do think that the idea the Jesus had a child or a wife isnt so horrible. I wont go on about why, because to be honest I dont feel like fighting religion with anyone, I will say that no book is going to be liked by everyone nor will all movies. Personally I didnt like Titanic.

[fatchance]

Yes, religions are also excellent population control devices.
Religeon does have in its history closeminded fools. However to believe in a intelligent God whom created men from his image in an orderly world was the foundation for the Enlightenment. You would have never gotten the Enlightenment from the pagan worldview. Maybe the sexual revolution.

Deism != Religion. HTH.

It is true, I gave the definition of Deism and called it religeon. However religeon spawned Deism and not the other way around, so my point still holds true. Religeon- Deism/Enlightenment and so on.
What is HTH mean 1/2e?

[krumanadi]

the book and it's the probably the most horrible piece of trash I've ever read

You clearly haven't read enough

t the author claims that the book, although fictional, is based upon facts

The list of facts at the beginning is quite concise. Check it again. Note also the precise meaning of the text. I do recall the following consecutive statements: 1- the PS has existed since 1099, and 2- documents were found in the Paris library that state yada yada yada. He omits the other known fact that the documents were planted by a con artist. The facts are true, but their significance is quite limited.

The pre-Christian God Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days.

Yes, that is true, save for the mispelling of Mythra. Why does that bother you?


And about your post in general ... why do you feel the need to copy and paste from Christian websites that are overly excited about threats to their dogmas? Really, proseletyzing here?

This is a great post BTW..

[krumanadi]

umm I liked the book, and I am going to see the movie. While I dont think its real, I do think that the idea the Jesus had a child or a wife isnt so horrible. I wont go on about why, because to be honest I dont feel like fighting religion with anyone, I will say that no book is going to be liked by everyone nor will all movies. Personally I didnt like Titanic.

Exactly.. If you take this book either 1: too literally, or 2: too seriously, you will dislike the book.. If you take it for what it is, which is an interesting thriller, which brings up some questions along the way, you will enjoy it.  To each their own.  I personally hated titanic also, but I liked Exit Wounds.  Hell, I think DMX isn't the worst actor in the world.  You take it for what it is.  Nobody every said Dan Brown was Dosteyevsky or anything..

[krumanadi]

the book and it's the probably the most horrible piece of trash I've ever read

You clearly haven't read enough

t the author claims that the book, although fictional, is based upon facts

The list of facts at the beginning is quite concise. Check it again. Note also the precise meaning of the text. I do recall the following consecutive statements: 1- the PS has existed since 1099, and 2- documents were found in the Paris library that state yada yada yada. He omits the other known fact that the documents were planted by a con artist. The facts are true, but their significance is quite limited.

The pre-Christian God Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days.

Yes, that is true, save for the mispelling of Mythra. Why does that bother you?


And about your post in general ... why do you feel the need to copy and paste from Christian websites that are overly excited about threats to their dogmas? Really, proseletyzing here?

This is a great post BTW..

Really?  What makes it "great"?

[Sarcasm]
Oh I thought his grammar was marvelous!  And the way he quoted seperate sentences was creative and downright beautiful!..
[/Sarcasm]

Don't be a feminine hygiene product man, I thought he made good points.  I am not going to continue an argument about how I feel he made a good post.

[krumanadi]

umm I liked the book, and I am going to see the movie. While I dont think its real, I do think that the idea the Jesus had a child or a wife isnt so horrible. I wont go on about why, because to be honest I dont feel like fighting religion with anyone, I will say that no book is going to be liked by everyone nor will all movies. Personally I didnt like Titanic.

Exactly.. If you take this book either 1: too literally, or 2: too seriously, you will dislike the book.. If you take it for what it is, which is an interesting thriller, which brings up some questions along the way, you will enjoy it.  To each their own.  I personally hated titanic also, but I liked Exit Wounds.  Hell, I think DMX isn't the worst actor in the world.  You take it for what it is.  Nobody every said Dan Brown was Dosteyevsky or anything..

The bottom line is you’re attempting to defend a mediocre (at best) book.  Why?  Part of what many people like about the book is the undue praise it receives.  I didn’t take it too seriously or too literally when I read it but that so many others have taken it seriously or literally makes me dislike it all the more.  It’s just not that great and doesn’t deserve all the hype it’s getting of the defense you’re giving it.

Dan Brown is not a good writer.  I felt like I maybe lost brain cells because of reading it.  But the fact is, it is good for what it is, and that is, a thriller.  The book is meant to give a compelling, and exciting story, and it does.  That is all I was saying.

[krumanadi]

Don't be a feminine hygiene product man, I thought he made good points.  I am not going to continue an rgument about how I feel he made a good post.

OK, since you prefer to engage in name calling and making unsupported claims, I’ll speak in a manner you can understand.  His post was stupid and your commentary a praise of stupidity…ass.

Whatever dude, your post was uncalled for, and you were just trying to start an argument because I agreed with someone you disagreed with..  You WERE being a bit of a feminine hygiene product to say that, completely unprovoked.  And what unsupported claims have I made?  That you are a feminine hygiene product?  I guess that is unsupported, so I apologize if anyone took that as fact.  It is merely opinion.