The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Decoding the Code > Comments

Decoding the Code : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 19/5/2006

The Bible is light years ahead of 'The Da Vinci Code' for both adventure and startling claims.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
This is so funny I've hurt myself to stop laughing. If truth be told Dan Browns book has less error of fact in it the the fictions stories in the bible itself.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:16:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must admit that I am rather wondering what all the fuss is about.

I am not religious. Not even interested in religion. I tend to think that there is no Christan God, and that the Christian prophet "Jesus" is a figure of history, or perhaps philosophy, but that he is not a deity or the offspring of a deity.

But what I think is not really important. That para was more or less a disclosure.

So a book has been written, and a movie made, which challenges the Christian stories about this "Jesus" bloke. Christians, including our author here, are arcing up because it departs from the "truth" of Jesus. But how do they know? I mean really, beyond having blind faith that the gospels are somehow the authoritative story of what happened two thousand years ago, how can they tell what is truth and what is not? And don't give me that "because God says so" crap. Blind faith is blind faith, no matter how you dress it up.

Why does any of this matter?
Posted by Anth, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:24:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But how do they know?"

Anth, it's based around an analysis of the various books and texts that biblical scholars have come across from around that time. Note that in the article to which you are responding is a discussion of the Gnostic gospels, some written hundreds of years after the first four gospels. Biblical scholars can observe the growth in various philosophical movements throughout the region in which these texts were produced, and can observed the literary traits of the time, and come to a conclusion about the validity or authenticity of a certain bit of text. It's literary criticism, not blind faith. The four gospels of the New Testament are around 60 years old, with some possibly younger. Some of the gnostic gospels are around 300 years old and show a distinct influence from eastern religions which came into that area through the Persian region. These migrations of religion can be looked at and the correlation between them and the gnostic movement is too startling to be discounted.

When it comes to biblical scholarship, it's purely historical and scientific when seeking to ascertain the authority and weight of certain texts... that's how it was done when Saint Athanasius decided upon the final configuration of the New Testament, and that's how it is done now. Of course, when the New Testament was being collated, they couldn't carbon-date and relied more on a consistant philosophical thread found in the gospels.

I must agree with you on one thing you imply, that one cannot rely wholly on the bible, and that is the expressed position of the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Lutheran Churches and High Anglicans - sola scriptura is the reformation idea of the primacy of the bible. All should agree, knowing the history of the Gospels and their collation, that although these are the most authoritative texts that we can discern by research and debate, but that the apostolic traditions of the church must also be considered because in them lies the second clue to the validity of the four main gospels.
Posted by DFXK, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DFXK
A few points.
1) The gospels were not written 60 years after the events they describe. The consensus of biblical scholars date the gospel of Mark (60 CE); Luke & Matthew (70-80 CE) & John (110 - 120 CE) about the same date as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was written.

2) The gospels were NOT written by apostles. They were written by followers of followers of the apostles. So all we have are not the words of Jesus but the words of people who said that others said that he said & did certain things. Hear say in other words.

3) The apostolic tradition to which you refer is known as oral tradition. It has ZERO reliability as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Oral tradition tends to develop & change over time. As many experiments have shown. Consult any anthropologist you like to check that fact.

4) We have little to no direct evidence that the historical figure of Jesus existed at all. He is mentioned by NO contemporary account. All we possess are christian forgeries & interpolations.

All the above being so it's rather hard for Dan Brown to have gotten his Gospel history wrong don't you think? Especially when there ain't no such animal.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:18:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont believe anything written by another mortal or a group of mortals. Neither should any of you.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Author of this book,and his story is for those that perhaps are ignorant,and do not even know much about Jesus Christ,but his teaching has stood the test of time,I still remember the words of the historian,that said,that some day,people from far away,will stand on the remains of westminster bridge,to "SKETCH" the ruins of St.Pauls,but the church of Rome,will still be there,a vibrant living church,these are not the exact words,but thereabout,it also withstood invading hordes,it also held out against the mighty NAZI REGIME,a convincing statement made by Jesus Christ,that I WILL ALWAYS BE WITH YOU TILL THE END OF TIME,Also,the teaching of Jesus Christ,has been and still is a source of consolation for many,just as an example in South Africa,I REMEMBER,the poor and OPPRESSED,during BRITISH SEGREGATION,the APARTHEID,their only source of HOPE,was not the CHARITY,but the FAITH in their religeous believes,that kept them going,and none of the two BRITISH SEGREGATION NOR APARTHEID,could stop their TRUE BELIEVE in their faith and hope for Better times to come.SEGREGATION ans APARTHEID has been TURFED into the history books of time,but their FAITH in JESUS CHRIST IS ALIVE and VIBRANT.
Posted by KAROOSON, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:40:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bill. There will be skeptics but for us who believe and know the power of God, know, that DVC is just a fiction. I think it gives us a great opportunity to seek for the truth and DVC probably will cause many on the fence to think more seriously about their faith. This is not blind faith as some suppose but based on facts. I agree that blind faith is blind and there is no substance to such faith. But faith based on facts will stand the test of time and this is one of the tests. So let's prasie God for DVC abd how it will be used by God to proclaim what really is the truth that many will find during this time.
Posted by jeshua, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:46:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Bosk.

You may be interested in this article by David Lewis at:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm

David H. Lewis opens debate on the historicity of Jesus, arguing that New Testament and contemporaneous writings give very little evidence that Jesus actually ever lived.

“Under such an avalanche of ecclesiastical information, we should now all be extremely well-informed about Jesus and Christianity. But we’re not. And the reason we’re so ill informed…………….. they all draw their portrait of Jesus almost exclusively from the gospels.

……………….. But the problem that no-one seems to appreciate is that the gospels are not our very earliest Christian records. Just as we would expect an archaeologist to dig down to the deepest levels to give us a true picture of an ancient scene or event, so we should also expect historians or theologians to consult the earliest written records of Christianity. However, almost without exception they become fixated on the gospels and virtually ignore the very earliest or independent Christian evidence from Paul and others. This gives us a very distorted and inaccurate picture....”

It is a very informative read. Of course there is a refutation by William Loader (there's a link at the end of Lewis' article) but it doesn't hold up very well.

Fact is the gospels were written by men whose agenda was to support a new religion - christianity, they relied upon word of mouth over many generations. How this can be construed as 'truth' or even 'fact' is indicative of the religious' need to believe.

Of course with the question of christ's existence in doubt, Dan Brown's book is clearly just a work of fiction. However, I do agree that the bible wins hands down on 'adventure and startling claims'.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thanks Realist

I take it then that we should not believe your words as well?

Bill Muehlenberg
Posted by Bill Muehlenberg, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:58:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder whether the real problem here is not that reading the book or seeing the movie will undermine the Teachings and the Churches' authority but that the powers that be have little faith in their flock to see that the Da Vinci Code is just a yarn.

Keep in mind here that we are told in no uncertain terms that we are a Christian nation and yet here we have the Bible bashers getting all defensive about a story.

Remember the Quest of the Holy Grail. 'Sens' and 'matiere' throughout. Something Brown could barely comprehend. The 'Quest' represents the Grail as the dish that Jesus ate the paschal lamb from at the last supper. The Grail was taken to Britian by Josepth of Armathea. All his descendent were Grail-keepers and were kown as Fisher Kings. The Grail itself is a symbol of God's Grace. So the story goes. This The Quest (author unknown) and Malory's extensions are great reads that leave Brown's stuff for dead.

Christianity hasn't collapsed under the weight of this extension to Biblical text. And Dan Brown's story will have little effect on the Teachings.

Back to my point. I see attacks on stories like this as an admission by the Christian leaders that the majority of Australians are not Christian at all. They are sheep that don't know the basis of their faith. Perhaps that is why we, as a Nation, are invading Iraq, picking on Muslims, treating workers like tools and so on. (IDEALS)
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:59:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did write a reply to the complete load of, umm, myth posted above by BOSC but It would get under the word count limit. Folks none of that was true, google (or the library)is your freind.
Posted by Director123, Friday, 19 May 2006 11:15:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout
Many thanks for the link.

For those who are interested:
Here's a link dealing with the lack of historical reference to jesus.

http://blondguys.net/members/articles/edoherty/review-1.htm

What about Josephus I hear people cry? He mentions Jesus twice!
The trouble with Josephus' 1st mention of Jesus [known as the Testimonium Flavianum] is that it seems to be an insertion by christians themselves done centuries after Josephus' death - most probably by Eusebius. How can I say that? For two reasons.
1) There is no mention of this passage in any christian defence of the faith before Eusebius - and some of them knew Josephus' works very well.
2) Most importantly in the Antiquities Josephus is arguing that the prophets have been misinterpreted. That the messiah would come from Israel but not from the Jews because the messiah was the conqueror of Israel Vespasian. Right in the middle of this Josephus seems to break off, talk about Jesus as the Messiah, then go back to arguing how Vespasian was the true messiah. What does that sound like to you?

The 2nd reference to Jesus found in Josephus [the Jamesian reference] fails for two reasons
1) It is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation.
2) It actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" !

Good enough for you Director or would you like more facts!
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 19 May 2006 11:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unlike when the Muslim's God was apparently insulted by some cartoons, at least Christians aren't burning down cinemas or rioting against Brown, Howard, Hanks and hollywood co.

This is about entertainment and truth. The Truth of the Bible still stands even though many, including on this post, have "Eyes but cannot see".

True Christians are not fazed by this DaVinci Code issue and many are strengthened by re-visiting the credibility of the New Testament. I, personally, am torn between wanting to explain the DaVinci code fallacies with unbelieving friends, whilst not wanting to be a part of watching and supporting a film with occult sex scenes (If that part of the book is included) and listening to blasphemous ideas.

So, although I can be pleased that some may be prompted to consider the validity of Jesus Christ, other parts of the film are a turn-off.
Posted by brougham, Friday, 19 May 2006 12:09:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Bill for standing up for our faith and truth.

I think the DVC has much potential to both cause harm and intrigue to the Christian faith. One thing that is a positive is that people are beginning to discuss the Christian faith. What is concerning is the way secular humanists have tried, through the DVC, to distort the Bible and its fundamentals.

I might point out to those who think there is no evidence of Biblical truth etc, to read some of the accounts of academics who have tried to find error with the Bible, and have ended up finding no substantial inaccuracy (probably apart from a few specific things being ignored/not detailed enough). Read this site for a start:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23020

Furthermore, what makes the secular humanist/aetheist religion, which it seems so many follow today, any more believable than the Bible and Christianity? At least us Christians have a proven guidebook (the Bible) and a proven leader (Jesus Christ), which is more than any secular humanist/aetheist can claim - who leads the secular humanists/aetheists? - (Marx, Mao, Nietzsche? Who??) and what is your guidebook (Communist Manifesto? what??).

Quite frankly I'd rather put my faith in something more substantial than secular humanism/aethism and that for me is the truth of the Bible and the Christian faith.
Posted by Dinhaan, Friday, 19 May 2006 12:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a practising Lutheran (and with a lot of practise I might even make it) I have to concede that belief is a matter of faith. As such as some other contributors have suggested, the facts as to the formation of the bible are sure open to question. What does this prove? Endeavours to spread the "word" to non believers by some sort of rationale debate are doomed to fail. In terms of the DVC the only threat it represents to "true believers" is to threaten their own insecurities.
Posted by schu46, Friday, 19 May 2006 12:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And what happened to the two bishops (and presumably any others) that would not have voted Constantine's way at the Nicean Council - they were bannished from the Empire. Hardly a fair vote.

As far as truth or non truth, all I have to say is "WELEASE BWIAN!!"
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 19 May 2006 1:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Kenny you could make yourself more money than Dan Brown if you were able to find an error in the Bible.

The facts are that people have been trying to for milenia and have not yet suceeded. One very bright lawyer once determed that if he could just prove that someone moved the stone from the tomb, he would disprove the whole thing.

The result was a book called "Who Moved the Stone" - a story as much as anything else of how despite his original motivation, the lawer found it so convincing he became a Chrisitian.

Two Bob
Posted by Two Bob, Friday, 19 May 2006 1:30:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, disproving one thing does not automatically prove another thing is correct, particularly if one is a matter of faith and therefore by definition, cannot be deemed false.

Debating this sort of stuff only provides free publicity for second-rate authors and filmmakers and I can't believe that so many people have been sucked in by it.

Why not spend more time denouncing Harry Potter and the occult inferences those books contain or railing against the myriad other things out there that challenge individual beliefs.

As for the Biblical role of women, wasn't the inclusion of the story of Eve in lieu of the story of Lillith (Adam's "first" wife) an early statement on the subordinate role of females?
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 19 May 2006 2:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bill for exposing Brown’s fallacies in the DVC farrago. It’s amazing though how ill informed some respondents to your article are. Brown’s nonsense is but the latest of attempts in 2000 years to debunk Christianity. Soon he’ll be forgotten, but Jesus’ Name will continue to be heard everywhere. The fact is, Brown is a buddy to the anti-historical theories of Australian religion writer, Barbara Thiering. Her idea that Jesus never died on the cross, that he was married and lived another 40 years, is in the DVC tradition. Now even non-Christians know of the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel’s origin. Take French historian Guigneburt, who said, “there would have been no Christianity if belief in the resurrection had not been founded … the whole essential teaching of Christianity rests on the belief of the resurrection.” Or Oxford historian Thomas Arnold: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to weigh the evidence of those who have written about them and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort to the understanding of the fair inquire than that great sign given to us … that Christ rose from the dead.” Or HG Wells, in his ‘Short History of the World’ . Published by Penguin, he had little space for any subject, let alone Christianity. Yet, though he was not a Christian, he devoted eight and half pages to Jesus Christ as an historical person, who lived, and died as the Gospels tell. But he had none of the anti-intellectual baggage of the DVC.

I challenge any critic to be honest enough to read the New Testament for themselves, before they relax into agnosticism. But they had be ready, for when lawyer Frank Morison tried to debunk Christianity, he ended up writing Who Moved the Stone, one of the best capitulations to the truth one can read.
D .Clarnette
Posted by METHUSELAH, Friday, 19 May 2006 2:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a novel history doesn't matter but in real life it does. That is why we have birth certificates, title deeds and sales contracts.

If the Bible is wrong about Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection, and Dan Brown is correct, then it is absolutely stupid for people to get steamed up about the novel.

But if the Bible is correct, then Jesus Christ really is the Creator God come in human form, he really has conquered death, and he really will judge the living and the dead.

That has consequences for every one.

In that case it would be serious to encourage people to dismiss it. A bit like someone wanting to ignore mine safety. Lives are at stake.
Posted by rockhound, Friday, 19 May 2006 2:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does Dan Brown know what he's talking about?

Probably not really.

Can the article author or the masses of outraged Christians (condemning a work of fiction) prove their own points of view via a process of fair and rational historical inquiry?

Hell no.

Have fun fighting it out, guys.
Posted by Dewi, Friday, 19 May 2006 3:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are long established rules for establishing the truth of anything. Christians do not reject Brown for writing fiction, but doing it with claims as to the truthfulness of his ideas. They are wrong historically; wrong logically, wrong factually. But that makes his stuff more dangerous, for many will accept his ideas and justify their morals (or lack of them)on the assumption that Brown may be right, he just may be. Too many rest their hopes for life here and in the world to come on mere assumptions. The New Testament is truth.
Read it to see if you are a genuine seeker after pace of heart and mind. I hope Dewi and others who share his views might just do a read of the New Testament.
Posted by METHUSELAH, Friday, 19 May 2006 3:40:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Methuselah,

There certainly are rules for establishing the truth of something. By advocating the exclusive use of The Bible - one secondary source document - you and most Christians have failed in following these rules as much as Dan Brown (perhaps moreso, since you are much more insistent than he is that you know the truth).

I was once a Christian, and both then and now I spend far too much time reading the Bible and scholarship thereof. I encourage all of you to read widely and judge the documents and ideas on their own merits... convenient starting points are Google and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Posted by Dewi, Friday, 19 May 2006 3:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Da Vinci Code has one great familiarity with the tories here in Australia - it's fiction but people want and do believe it. Very much like Howard's Govt; they feed us fiction and we believe it, at the same time making them and big business richer.

It all comes down to
Values
Values
Values
Values
Posted by Country Unionist, Friday, 19 May 2006 3:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's all this claptrap about a fictional book that was deliberately written in this end times to stir upr srife ,controvesy,unbelief and division?
The Bible has stood the tests of many anti christ and philosophies as well as Communism ,(fallen) Nazism(fallen) Isalm (imploding on itself). God is in charge ,don't worry,there is a lot about fools in the Bible eg,A fool has said in his heart there is no God, and The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing .

What is happening here ,is a book of fiction made into a fictious film that will tittilate the skeptics ("I told you so all along") atheists,and agnostics. The secular humanist who saw the DVC at Cannes found it long (two and a half hours ) too much dialogue to read and full of flaws.

,When Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Last Supper that everyone is going by did he go back in time machine with a digital camera at the LS as no body really has seen or been there except the Lord Himself and the disciples thousand years before Leonardo.
What a load of animal manure.

The RBC booklet is free of charge from RBC Lot 41 Lakes Rd Mandurah West Australia 6210 called," The Da Vinci Code" separating Fact from Fiction ,is worth reading or giving to skeptics.
All we can hope is that people will get saved by finding the truth out which is not in The DVC.
WE can expect fools to believe it ,without reading The Bible first.
Posted by dobbadan, Friday, 19 May 2006 4:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bible and DVC are both works of fiction written by mere mortals. The only difference is that we know who wrote DVC and everyone knows it is fiction. Some people might want to believe the Bible is factual, some people believe DVC is factual. Everyone can believe what they want but belief does not turn fiction into fact. If "true believer" Christians are so certain in their acceptance of the Bible why get so uptight about an alternative view?
Posted by rossco, Friday, 19 May 2006 4:48:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny would say that wouldn't he.......but how would he know?

Bosk....how do you know? Your omniscience is overwhelming.

Realist......thanks for telling us what we should/should not believe......nice that you want to reduce everyone else to your level!

Scout......suits you to doubt the existence of Christ.....better get back to scouting because you seem to be terribly lost!
Posted by Francis, Friday, 19 May 2006 5:09:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is Realist on this Forum? He made this self-defeating statement concerning Bill Muehlenber's piece on the Da Vinci Code: "I dont believe anything written by another mortal or a group of mortals. Neither should any of you."

If all of us took Realist's adivce, none of us would read Online Opinion. Why does he/she bother writing a response?

His comment seems to amount to postmodern nothingness.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 19 May 2006 6:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was educated under the communist regime and had always been told that there is no God, you are on your own, a descendent of ape and when you die, you die and that's it. Until I came to Australia to study and one day (March 2003) I stepped into a church just out of curiosity. Then I heard people shared about their experience with Jesus and I thought in my heart, this Jesus they were talking about I must know. And as I opened up my heart, I now know Jesus is the Son of God, the one who died for me on the cross for all my sins. And more importantly He is still living and gives me hope and life. My life is never the same again since. And I know I will have eternal life with God after I die.
The Australians are so hard-hearted, it's amazing. It is said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Many are rich and think that they have no need, but indeed they are poor in their spirit because without God nothing makes sense.
Why are you so offended by the name of Jesus? What if what He claimed is true? Why don’t you just read the four Gospels and judge for yourself if they are credible?
Posted by wjs, Friday, 19 May 2006 6:23:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what’s been written so far, there's two issues;
1) Nobody is trying to defend Brown’s writing as being truthful so I assume everyone agrees with Bill, that his historical claims are balderdash.
2) But is the Bible, and the Gospels in particular, true?
Well that’s not exactly a new question but many of the responses so far show that Brown might not know much but at least he won’t be lonely.

Kenny – Brown has less errors than the Bible
Anth - Jesus might be a figure of philosophy & faith is blind
Bosk – The gospels are hearsay & Jesus is mentioned by no contemporary account
Scout – Christ’s existence is in doubt & Paul’s writings predate the gospels
Dewi – The Bible is a secondary source document
Rossco – The Bible is fiction by unknown mortals. Everyone can believe what they want.

Just a sampling but it shows some serious doubts about the Bible.

Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) writes of Jesus, “the founder … was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius”. F.F.Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism & exegesis at the Uni of Manchester says “It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.

So are the Gospels fiction?
Well the point is they claim to be an accurate record of events. Very simply, the books, the gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, claim to be researched records of events, written by Luke who either witnessed the events or knew someone who did.

But is what is written in the gospels true to what actually happened? Well the apostles had to know if it was made up but never recanted They all believed it was the truth. And those who perpetuated the records on pain of death believed they were accurate records of events that happened.

Sure the gospels are full of supernatural events and astounding claims. This doesn’t make them false. It makes them worthy of investigation. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Posted by Snowy, Friday, 19 May 2006 8:12:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Da Vinci what?
Posted by Strewth, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anth is fired up against Jesus.

• Anth wrote: "Christians, including our author here, are arcing up because it departs from the 'truth' of Jesus. But how do they know?" How do you know anything about anybody who lived in the first century A.D.? Use the same methods of verification as for James Cook.

• "I mean really, beyond having blind faith that the gospels are somehow the authoritative story of what happened two thousand years ago, how can they tell what is truth and what is not?" This is a classical example of imposing one's presuppositions on another writer (in this case Bill Muehlenberg). Assuming that it is "blind faith" about the gospels as being an authoritative story from ancient history, is a classic of imposed assumptions. Take a read of Craig Blomberg's, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1987). While you are at it, your bigotry against the Jesus of history might be educated by reading Australian historian, Paul Barnett: (1) Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos, UK, 1997); (2) Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, USA, 1999); (3) Is the New Testament History? rev. ed., Aquila Press, Sydney South; (4) The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans, USA, 2005). This "blind faith" hypothesis comes crashing down on the evidence of history.

• "And don't give me that 'because God says so' crap. Blind faith is blind faith, no matter how you dress it up." Paul Barnett states that "the earliest surviving records of Christianity are the letters of Paul, which began appearing twenty years or less after the crucifixion of 'rabbi' Jesus. Good historical method suggests that the earliest written evidence is the place to begin one's inquiry" (2005, p. 2).

• "Why does any of this matter?" Read the primary source documents of the New Testament to find out.

While you are at it, why not go the whole hog and investigate the reliability of the Old Testament? See Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (2001); K. A. Kitchen (2003)?

Serious investigation makes more sense than presuppositional blind faith.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 20 May 2006 9:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strewth - LOL

Snowy - "but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" but first you have to believe in JC.

Francis - ad hominen attacks are indicative of an empty mind. If you have nothing constructive to offer the debate suggest you get back to reading your favourite work of fiction, the bible and leave debating to those who know how to do it.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 20 May 2006 9:29:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,
There is more historical evidence and implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, and I suppose you are skeptical that he also existed.

Julius Caesar sent a possee of guards to have Pilate brought before him in Rome after learning that Pilate had allowed the death of one whom he had earlier reported to Caesar, "this man Jesus performs miracles greater than any of our Roman gods".

Pilate had massacred Jews by crucifixion for objecting to taxes to build a viaduct being imposed by Rome upon the Temple sacrifises. Jesus was one of those objecting to secular taxes being placed upon the worshippers at temple [John 2: 16]. Pilate took his own life when he heard he was to stand trial before Caesar for the death of an innocent man.

The gospels were formulated from a collection of writings and reports by the apostles, Jesus followers and Jesus relatives namely Mary and James. The book of James and the Gospel of James were written by James himself a son of Joseph from his first wife who grew up in the same household with Jesus. The Gospel of James was not accepted as Cannon because he is descriptive of the emotions of panic by having birds fly backwards. Even his letter to Christians was questioned originally as acceptable Cannon.

Principally the revelation of God is not about a human Jesus but the principles of divinity. The revelation of the divine is defined by character, attitudes, actions, behaviour, wisdom and consequence. To understand the heart and mind of God in revelation and incarnation is to study the life, attitudes and teachings of Jesus and evaluate for ourselves is it pure, graceous and just, and what we uphold as optimum.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 20 May 2006 10:22:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>There is more historical evidence and implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar<<

Really? I wish I'd known this when I was fifteen and had to wade through De Bello Gallico.

Do you actually have some basis for this statement? Or is it just today's fashionable christian rhetoric to deflect examination of the evidence?

Caesar wrote books, which are still used today. Contemporaries wrote about him, frequently. We have portraits and statues that are also contemporary. We have coins bearing his image. Which of these do you see as dubious or challengeable?

The amount and nature of evidence for the existence of Jesus contains none of these items. He wrote no books, no contemporary wrote about him, there are no contemporary pictures or likenesses.

Have I missed anything?
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 20 May 2006 11:02:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The furore created by Browns Book The DaVinci Code is itself amazing when one considers several things:
(1) The existence or otherwise of Jesus Christ can never be completely proven or disproven by historical evidence alone - it just doesn't exist. While historical information is useful and even enlightening, ultimately it's only through personal revelation via the spirit that one can gain a sure knowledge of Christ. Christ himself said that.
(2) If Christ is who he said he was, then he hardly needs a secret organisation organised by man to protect him or knowledge about him, especially through death and destruction.
(3) The DaVinci Code is a clever thriller novel intended to warm the heart of every conspiracy buff...and make money. It's a free society.
(4) As Gamaliel said to the Jewish Elders - if the work be of man it will amount to nothing - this work hardly claims to be of God, so let it alone and it will eventaully fade into the bookshelf. It won't affect those who really believe or who will believe.
Posted by JohnG, Saturday, 20 May 2006 11:33:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pericles - you stole my thunder.

However, I am concerned about Philo's line of reasoning which appears to be thus: 'If you believe Julius Caesar existed then you must believe Jesus Christ existed.' This has to be the ultimate straw-man argument ever. Back to Debating 101 for Philo.

Back to DVC - what a storm in a teacup. Would any of the religious please explain why they are so defensive about a work of fiction? - I am being deliberately ambiguous here ;-)
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 20 May 2006 12:10:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
I suggest you read my post again. There is more historical resultant implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. What legacy has Julius Caesar left us other than an actual figure in history and his records?

Jesus reports of coins bearing Caesar's image, and Paul finally appealed to Caesar. Books written by Paul were written while in prison in Rome. The book of Romans is his final appeal and claim to identify his faith in Christ to the Romans. It was Caesar that gave the verdict that Paul be put to death for being the subject of riots.

I never challanged the existence of Julius Caesar, I in fact used his communications from Pilate to state my point. I would suggest that the books of James, Jesus family sibling, have had far greater influenced on society than any writings of Caesar. The Bible still remains the most read book in history in which the recorded words of Jesus and the writings of James, Jesus 8 years elder contemporary appear.

Paul was Jesus contemporary and a former member of the Sanhedrin and approved of the death of the followers of Jesus, till he realised he was acting against God. He wrote most of the writings comprising the New Testament, and was ulimately willing to die for his new revelation. Why would a member of the Jewish heirarchy change his mind only to be persued to his death by other members for his defection; to follow a Messiah despised by the Jews who plotted his cricifixion? Paul was a person of power in Judaism that could put Christ's followers to death and he had; Stephen was one of them.

Jews were forbidden from making statues or images of other humans, as the other nations like the Greeks and Romans who worshipped them as gods. God is to be understood in purity of character not human dictarors.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 20 May 2006 12:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout pretends to know how to debate. Nice to pump yourself up! I bow to you superiority but I suspect Scout lives in a world of fiction.
Posted by Francis, Saturday, 20 May 2006 1:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Snowy
A few corrections to your post.
1) Tacitus mentions the apostles following Christ. But there is a problem here. He seems to have got his information straight from the christians themselves, not from independent evidence. How do we know? Because he writes that Jesus lived while Pontius Pilate was PROCURATOR of Judaea. Pilate was NEVER procurator he was the prefect. A stela has been found with the inscription "Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judaea". So Tacitus is ruled out as an independent witness.

2) Pliny [writing in 112 CE] merely mentioned that he wrote for advice on how to handle troublesome christians in his area. There is NO mention of Christ in any of his works.

3)The Roman historian Suetonius mentions trouble being caused by "Chrestus" while he [chrestus] was in Rome. No record of Jesus ever having been in Rome therefore it is unlikely to have been him.

4) There is one last source that mentions Jesus. It mentions "Yeshua the Nazarene" & claims that he "practiced sorcery and enticed Israel astray" The source is the Talmud.
There are two problems however.
1) The Talmud wasn't written down until the 2nd Century CE and we don't know if these are earlier passages. There is no way to be sure.
2) In one passage Yeshua is mentioned as having five followers "Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni and Todah" NONE of these names are found in the New Testament.

That's it for sources outside the bible.

By the way Snowy. A multitude of historians are mythicists. Metzger is quite simply wrong. Check out this site if you don't believe me:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm

Philo
The impact a text has does NOT guarantee its historical reliability!
Caesar had numerous people write about him in his own lifetime including his opponents. eg: Cicero
All we have of Jesus are people who want to sell you the idea that he existed. That's all!
But aren't the Gospels reliably written by eyewitness you ask?
I'll deal with that question next post
Posted by Bosk, Saturday, 20 May 2006 5:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just watched a Disney cartoon starring Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Most of it was total bullsheet. I had absolutely no accuracy to the story line in my Golden Book published circa 1974.
The cartoon made Donald out to be a greedy duck who despised Mickey.
And if that wasn't bad enough- suddenly out of no where they introduce this fast talking Rabbit who takes the piss out of all of them. I'm now convinced there’s a conspiracy being hatched to debunk the true story of Donald and Mickey. Its’ simply blasphemous!!.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 20 May 2006 6:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Philo & co.

Gospel introduction.

Luke based most of his Gospel on Josephus & the Gospel of Mark. Unfortunately Luke doesn't seem too concerned about the accuracy of his reports. eg. In Luke we read that Jesus was born when Herod reigned [1:5] & Quirinius was govenor of Syria [2:1]. But Herod died 4 BCE & Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 CE. A gap of 10 years!?

If Matthew was written by a former tax gatherer why did Matthew need to borrow so much of his material & even his wording from Mark who wasn't one of the 12? Why did Matthew make stupid mistakes like calling Pontius Pilate Procurator when he was the Prefect of Judaea?

If the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark why'd he make so many mistakes concerning geography, the people & the language? He'd lived in the area all his life.

If the Gospel of John was written by John the Galilean fisherman then why did he leave out EVERY event in which John was supposedly an eye witness? John even starts out his gospel with a quote from Parmenides' the way of truth. Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull the nets in? :)

How about the accuracy of the Gospels regarding the crucifixion. Was it the 3rd hour as Mark 15:25 declares? Or was it the 6th hour as John 19: 14, 15 says?

Concerning the resurrection - No two gospels agree on who found Jesus' empty tomb first.

Mark: 3 women go to the tomb first & see a young man [not an angel].

Matthew: 2 Mary's approach the tomb first, when an earthquake occurs, an angel rolls away the tomb & sits on it.

Luke's women on the other hand already find the tomb empty & two [not one] men in shining robes.

While in John, Mary Magdalene is the first to find the tomb empty & she finds it ALONE.

Complete disagreement!

These are eyewitness accounts? Garbage! These are accounts by people who NEVER met Jesus or anyone who had.
Posted by Bosk, Saturday, 20 May 2006 6:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles has missed droves of evidence.

As of 1990, there were 5,366 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts of the New Testament (NT). Some of these are dated from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The most famous book from ancient Greece is Homer's Iliad, for which there are only 643 copies.

Who would doubt the textual accuracy of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (ca. 50BC). There are only 10 copies, the earliest being about 900 years after its writing. Only 35 of Livy's (59BC-AD17) 142 books of Roman history survive. Of Tacitus's (AD 55-117) 14 books on Roman history, there are only 4.5 books in 20 manuscripts. Compare that with the array of NT copies, some dating within 70 years of their writing.

Of course there are copyist errors (variants) among the NT manuscripts. Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks conclude that
"there are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith. . . We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it.
"But even if we did not have such good manuscript evidence, we could actually reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are mission, mostly from 2 and 3 John" (When Skeptics Ask, Victor Books, 1990, p. 160).

Philo's claim has considerable support: >>There is more historical evidence and implication from the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar<<. But it takes an openness to evidence to accept what Philo and I are writing. Openness!

Pericles wrote: "No contemporary wrote about him, there are no contemporary pictures or likenesses. Have I missed anything?" Yep! Droves of evidence! I suggest a read of Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus (College Press 1996).

However, one needs to be aware of all of the evidence to come to an informed decision.
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 20 May 2006 7:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look at your 2006 calender and see that it is the date that we all should know of as Jesus Christ's birthday. No joke !
Posted by dobbadan, Saturday, 20 May 2006 8:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm glad The Da Vinci Code was written, because it is an awesome read. But I think the problem with it - as has already been suggested - is that many people who read it cannot understand that it is fiction. This is probably why the Church is getting a bit hot under the collar - not because they don't have faith in their beliefs, but because other people are leaping on the Brown bandwagon and accepting his words as truth. His 'fact' section at the beginning of the book doesn't help.

Who knows? Maybe it IS true, and the rest of the world has been duped for a long time. But I doubt it. I don't have any chinks in my faith as a result of the book, but I do get tired of friends (who I thought were intelligent and well-educated) heckling me with only The Da Vinci Code as evidence of their claims.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 20 May 2006 10:22:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
err..Bosky.. point of order mate

JOSEPHUS
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"

The reference to Jesus son of Damnius is totally unrelated to both the James or Jesus reference.. please read more carefully.
This reference to James does not depend one iota on the former challenged section, and in any case, that section is included in an Arabic version of Josephus in such a way that one gets the impression it was 'filtered' for Islamic political correctness.. so..*prod*

SCOUT your reference to a link which declares Pauls writings much earlier than the gospels is MOST welcome. One has to ask therefore, why the gospels do not reflect PAULS theology, rather than the biographical narratives and different themes than of Paul ? Hmmm maybe because they were... original ? :)

PERICLES can you give us the documentary history of the version of De Bello Gallico you read ? I mean,.. can you give us the primary and secondary sources ?

As for the DaVinci code.....I'm not exactly trembling in my socks over this.. written as a speculative work of fiction..sure.. then view is as such. I don't think its worth protesting over, it opens us to the charge 'point weak, shout'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 20 May 2006 10:25:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that what we regard as history is mostly untrue, or tainted at best, and that we are being actively lied to by politicians and the media every day, it's reasonable to assume that the state of the world is not quite as we believe it to be.

To suggest that a collection of stories, some over 3000 years old and none actually first-hand accounts, could stand the test of time and arrive in the 21st century completely unsullied - is a big ask!

Likewise, to suggest that some some amateur sleuth and plagiarist could deduce some ancient mystery a couple of millennia after the event is equally doubtful.

A lot of everyday sayings and practices have their basis in ancient superstitions - long forgotten but their residue remains.

This DVC controversy will pass but it's interesting to see how people can feel so personally threatened and affronted by a piece of fiction.

This debate reminds me of a bunch of Trekkies at a Star Trek Convention aguing over which TV series better represents the future.
Posted by rache, Saturday, 20 May 2006 11:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rache... yes.. it IS a big ask... without question.

Have you noticed that Jesus often taught with 'parables' these are little word pictures that etch their way into your brain.... and stay there.
I wonder why he did this ? :)

Consider Islam not as an option for faith..heaven forbid, but as an example of oral tradition. The Hadith is quite fascinating. They have a lot of sayings, purely hearsay, handed down over a number of generations.. and while in this case there are some noticable ommissions (understandable as a chain of narrators left bits out) by and large the sayings passed down through diverse chains of indivuals are quite remarkably well preserved. (even the references to Mohammeds cruelty and torture etc)....

The Bible has much more going for it. I refer you to ff bruce for a discussion. (conservative orientation)
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Then, there is the body of evidence from Paul, already given strength here, though unintended, by the link provided by Scout.

Blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 21 May 2006 10:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD you asked "SCOUT your reference to a link which declares Pauls writings much earlier than the gospels is MOST welcome." Paul's writings were still way after the supposed existence of JC - hardly, therefore, original. But as you enjoyed the article so much does this mean you will now become a ‘paulian’ instead of a christian?

Excerpts from David H Lewis’ article.

“The early Christians corroborate virtually nothing that we have previously taken for granted from the gospels!

None of the very first Christians know anything about an annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel. They know of no virgin birth, star of Bethlehem, wise men, Herod, slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact they know nothing at all of a Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. They are equally unhelpful about Jesus’ adult adventures, for they know of no disciples, friends or earthly enemies nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. They don’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals; in fact they attribute no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all…….

……The very first Christians give no indication even that Jerusalem was the place of Jesus’ execution, and nothing in their evidence requires us to believe the event occurred in Pilate’s time; it could have happened at any time in the preceding several centuries! Certainly none of them write as if it was a recent event within their lifetimes……

…..Paul characteristically draws support for his arguments from the Old Testament, not from the earthly Jesus. The reasonable inference here is that none of this was available to Paul because none of it had really happened…..

In the end we must surely ask ourselves, “If the very first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing he ever existed?”

So BD, you agree that the gospels are a load of old cobblers and Paul never knew of the supposed Jesus’ many teachings.

We are making progress!
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 21 May 2006 10:53:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm impressed by so many learned people;so many experts on the history/myth of the bible. The bibliographies are amazing. I've never heard of the sources mentioned; you all surpass me.
However... I do know Julius Caesar died 44 BC. Octavian, known Caesar Augustus reigned as first emperor 27BC to 14AD.
Which leads me to my point.
Despite cameras, TV, a literally world wide audience, there is still controversy about the death of JFK, only about 40 years ago.
It seems strange to me that the Creator of the entire Cosmos should manifest itself only once, at a time when people considered stoning women for adultery acceptable behaviour.
Apparently, virgin births weren't all that rare...
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:05:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This film, based on the book by Brown, based on another work of fiction published by the Jesus Corporation, will probably cause hundreds of thousands of compliant sheep to follow their marketing bell wethers dutifully to the movies.
The dogs are barking!
Posted by Ponder, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk has asked good questions, but the tone is to discredit the biblical records: "How about the accuracy of the Gospels regarding the crucifixion. Was it the 3rd hour as Mark 15:25 declares? Or was it the 6th hour as John 19: 14, 15 says?" The charge of inaccuracy is incorrect for the following reasons.

The two writers follow different systems of time. John – Roman time; Mark – Jewish time. For the Romans, the day was from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hours began at 6 pm, so the morning began at 6am. Pliny the Elder's, Natural History 2.77, confirms this.

Mark 15:25 states that "And it was the third hour when they crucified him" (i.e. 9 am). It is almost universally agreed that the Synoptics' hours (Matt., Mark, & Luke) are numbered from sunrise (i.e. starting at approx. 6 am).

John 19:14 does not speak of the time when Jesus was crucified but, "now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold your King!'" This is the time of Christ's appearance before Pilate's judgement seat and not the time of His crucifixion.

Why would John use the Roman system of time? Historical investigation (Irenaeus, 2nd century) indicates that John probably wrote his Gospel ca. AD 85-95 from Ephesus, capital of the Roman province of Asia. So, for the Roman civil day, John would employ the Roman system.

Careful reading of the text and accurate historical investigation solve the alleged problem.

Bosk's other claims "concerning the resurrection - No two gospels agree on who found Jesus' empty tomb first" can be answered with a careful investigation of the parallel texts to show no conflict. I don't have the time to answer these in detail at the moment.

Sounds like Bosk has an anti-biblical agenda!
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 21 May 2006 1:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry BD but that interpretation won't do.

1) The term Christ does NOT mean messiah in ancient Greek. It means ointment & NEVER refers to the one anointed. [Hess in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p.495]. Now remember Josephus was writing to a Roman audience who would have understood Greek. So to them Josephus would have been writing something like "Jesus, who is called the ointment, brother of James." Doesn't make much sense does it? Unless Josephus is supposed to have explained the term elsewhere - such as the Testimonium Falvinium? And as I've already shown the Testimonium Falvinium is fraudulent.

2) It MUST also be noted that Josephus NEVER uses the term "Christ" even when he is arguing that Vespasian is the Messiah. Why would Josephus do it in this instance? Doesn't make much sense does it? So it seems the term "Christ" was probably added to the original passage by a christian scribe.

But does the rest of the passage refer to Jesus? No because it goes against the whole meaning of that section of Josephus!
3) What is the passage about? The key point is that Josephus is explaining why Ananus lost the priesthood and Jesus Damneus got it, of all people. Ananus' error was, he arrested the brother of Jesus of Damneus, accused him of crimes, and then had him stoned in the most high-handed manner. In compensation for this outrage, Ananus takes the fall and Jesus of Damneus gets the High priesthood. Josephus is not identifying which James, he is identifying which brother (of Jesus Damneus). Really, fundamentally, he is just identifying a person, James. It's Joe Blow, who happens to be the brother of the future High Priest. His only role in history is to spur Agrippa to change High Priests. If you keep that in mind the meaning becomes crystal clear.
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 21 May 2006 6:16:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozspen
Four problems with your claims concerning the timing of the crucifixion.

1) John was a Jew writing to a Jewish audience so it seems most reasonable to assume that he used the Jewish method of keeping time {i.e. from sunrise to sunset].

2) John had used Jewish time keeping before [e.g.: John 4:5-7; John 1: 35-39]

3a) Scholarly support is for one method of time keeping used by the Gospel writers. E.g.: “All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.” (From New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88)

3b) Lest you think I’m only quoting from liberal theological sources. FF Bruce [a very conservative bible scholar) writes “As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, NO evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were EVER reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches" (The Gospel of John, p.66)

4) Finally “Conclusive proof that the sunrise reference system was used not only by the Jews, but by Greeks and Romans alike is found in dozens of examples of time-reckoning found in the ancient writings. Click on this link if you don’t believe me:

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

Conclusion: You are mistaken & so are the Gospels concerning the time of Jesus’ death!

Now to your stranger claim concerning the identity of who found the tomb? A logical point - Only ONE person or group can EVER be FIRST in any unique event. So if many people are all claiming to be first at the same thing (i.e. I found the tomb first) then most or all of them MUST be wrong. There is NO other alternative unless you want to say bye bye to logical thought.

As to your anti-bible jibe I am NOT against anything [including the bible] - I am on the side of truth! Is there another side?
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 21 May 2006 7:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The relavence of exact hours or dates is not important, as it deals with history. What is important is the message. The message was brought together in the acts of the Teacher. The message is demonstrated in character, attitudes, actions, behaviours, and wisdom. Jesus as with James method of teaching was with illustrations and action images. Jesus lived what he taught not seeking a history. His folowers were intended to be the new history in every generation.

He moved locally among perhaps 30,000 people and made little contact with Roman officials. Though he healed a Roman Centurion's daughter and was crucified by Roman guards along with many dissent Jews. His immediate impact was very local and only spanned less than three years. It was after his death that many realised the real impact of his life.

Skepticism, conspiracy and hostility do not draw us closer to ideal relationships in human behaviour, and all this over a difference in history. God is the God of the present the God of the now living. How is God reflected in our behaviour. Life is empty unless finding fulfilment in character, attitudes and behaviours that bless others.
_________________________________

Roman Rulers
*Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by Republicans 44BC
*Mark Anthony Caesar’s co-consul and Octavian Caesar’s grandnephew and heir formed an alliance with Caesar’s top lieutenant Lepidus and overthrew the Republicans in 42 BC
*Octavian gained supremacy over Anthony 31 BC after it was discovered Anthony has bequeathed all of Rome’s Eastern territories to Cleopatra.
*Augustus Caesar adopted son of Julius conferred with power 27 BC establishes the Roman Empire died 14 AD
*JESUS BORN during Augustus time Luke 2: 1.
*Tiberius 14 37 AD
*Claudius 41 – 54 AD Paul establishes Churches during his time Acts 11: 28; 18: 2.
*Nero 54 – 68 Caesar during Paul’s time in Rome.
[Cont]
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 21 May 2006 9:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others. That may sound terribly dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion.

Christianity: Why Believe It’s the Only Way
Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims – it’s an absolutely phenomenal study.

A primary focus for your study is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies written in the Old Testament scriptures. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, both of which have been proven to exist prior to the time Jesus walked on the earth, you can be assured that these prophecies were not “conspired” after-the-fact. They were truly fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Examine the probability of one man fulfilling just a handful of the most specific prophecies, and you’ll be amazed. “And He [Jesus] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

Focus study is to understand what Jesus said and did as a historical figure. No legitimate scholars today will deny that Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago, was a great teacher and doer of good works, and that he was crucified on a Roman cross for the crime of blasphemy among the Jews. The only dispute is whether Jesus rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion and that He was, in fact, God incarnate. This is where everyone must test the evidence for the resurrection, examine their hearts, and make a decision about who Jesus really was
Posted by dobbadan, Sunday, 21 May 2006 9:20:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Palestine Rulers
*Antipater - Herod' son ruled from 37 – 4 BC Jesus was born 4 BC during his time Matthew 2, Luke 1: 5. Known as King Herod the Great.
*The kingdom was divided among his sons Herod Archelaus who ruled Judea and Samaria Matthew 2: 22. Deposed in 6 AD and area was placed under direct Roman rule with procurators subject to governor of Syria.
*Galilee and other territories continued ruled by Herods. Antipas 4 BC to AD 39 Matthew 14.
*Herod Agrippa died 44 AD Acts 12 and his son Herod Agrippa II reunited the land of Palestine Acts 25 – 26.
*Pilate was procurator in 26 – 36 and it was during this time that Jesus was crucified.
*Paul in prison appeals to procurators Felix and Festus Acts 23 – 26.

The family of Herod
*In 63 BC Pompey appointed a priest named Hyrcanus to rule Galilee, Judea, and Peraea.
* Hyrcanus used his power to have his sons Phasael and Herod as Governors and when Antipater was murdered in 43 BC they succeeded jointly to leadership under their father.
*Phasael became the victim of a Parthian raid that followed the assassination of Julius Caesar.
*Herod escaped to Rome and impressed Octavian that he received mandate to recover Palestine - he did in 39 and 36 BC. He carried on as the pro-Roman administrator for 34 years, building the port in Caesarea and the temple to Augustus at Samaria.

*The Jews hated Herod because of his Edomite blood, but he managed to pacify them by building the Great temple in Jerusalem. He was Herod during the birth of Jesus who authorised death to boys born intended to be king of the Jews as planed by Zecharias the father of John the Baptist and protector of Mary. He then ordered the death of Zecharias murdered at the altar when he would not disclose the whereabouts of the boys. At that time Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with the children and Elizabeth and baby John fled to the caves of the Essenes community.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 21 May 2006 9:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Getting back to what this blog was about. Bill's article sought to highlight a handful of the errors in Brown's story. He also pointed out that this story seeks to undermine the foundations of Christianity (i.e. the centrality and deity of Jesus Christ).

This blog has accused those who believe in Jesus Christ as their saviour of believing in an unsubstantiated lie or a work of erroneous fiction. I dare say that anyone who puts merit in Brown's work would be in the same boat.

To those out there who've tried this tact, let me tell you that this falls far short of actually offending or disturbing a real Christian.

Perhaps I have a kind of a "don't knock it until you've tried it" attitude towards faith in Jesus Christ. Please note that I said "faith in Jesus Christ", and not "Christianity".

There's something heart-warming about 'knowing the truth'. I'm sure any Christians out there who read this post will know exactly what I'm talking about. To someone who has actually asked Jesus to be their saviour, the words of the Bible and the testimony of history only add substance to their faith. Yet, even without such 'proof' the truth of 'knowing' Jesus - I mean 'really' knowing Jesus - is enough to stand up to any attack. I think Jesus himself had something to say about building your house on solid rock, and not on sinking sand.

The truth of Jesus Christ is far too intense and challenging for those who do not believe. The implications of his life and ministry are enough to shake any person's world to the ground. But don't worry, you can create a really comfortable world for yourself by living in 'unbelief' - and stories like the one concocted by Dan Brown work wonders for maintaining such an existence.
Posted by Faithful, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:09:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The DVC has not phased me or some Christians I know as we have a faith in Him that cannot be moved because we love Him have experienced Him in many ways and will never be moved.
This book of fiction DVC will not stand the time ,it is nothing compared with the Word of God ,The Bible.
The only thing that should offend anyone who has a lover ,wife ,kids,or someone they love very much is that someone could actually name that person in a book whether fictious or not as a liar and adulterer,conman ,a phoney ,etc.
This is Jesus Christ the sinless,One came down from Heaven to save mankind from a sinful life to die sinless .
What an insult to Him God in the flesh.
Jesus often quoted the Old Testament prophesies and words and as God He could not lie .
Also before the skeptics start mocking this ,I ask you to think ,as you have not experienced what I and many Christians have ,you have not seen my past or know where i have come from . But God has and loves me and all mankind who seek His will and forgiveness.
Posted by dobbadan, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now let's see.... the early heresies were:

Gnosticism
Neo Platonism
Nestorianism
Arianism
Manicheism
Marcionism
Montanism
Donatists
Pelagianism

but not in any of them was there:

"Jesus_married_Mary_and_had_a_baby"-ism

Nope..we had to wait for Dan Brown 2000 yrs later to figure that one out :)

The real/true Church is not in the slightest bit concerned over the DaVinci code, because the real Church is not worried about losing the ability to fund priests or beaurocracies or huge insitutions.. nope..its concerned with being more like Christ, and following in humble discipleship.

Of course the 'true' church is the one I belong to :) (don't u love this)... it's just that interdonominational no name mob in every tradition who happen to believe in Christ.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 22 May 2006 6:41:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only difference between DVC and christianity is that DVC was written in 21st century and the N.T. has been made up over the past 2000 years.

Religion causes division between people rather than unification of humanity.

See: http://www.alternet.org/story/36195/

"Laura Sheahen: You've said that nonbelievers must try to convince religious people "of the illegitimacy of their core beliefs." Why are these beliefs dangerous?

Sam Harris: On the subject of religious belief, we relax standards of reasonableness and evidence that we rely on in every other area of our lives. We relax so totally that people believe the most ludicrous propositions, and are willing to organize their lives around them. Propositions like "Jesus is going to come back in the next fifty years and rectify every problem that human beings create"--or, in the Muslim world, "death in the right circumstances leads directly to Paradise." These beliefs are not very contaminated with good evidence.

LS: There are beliefs--like kids believing in the tooth fairy--that I wouldn't say are dangerous.

SH: Right. Those are not as consequential. But this whole style of believing and talking about beliefs leaves us powerless to overcome our differences from one another. We have Christians against Muslims against Jews, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a Christian or a Jew lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole."
Posted by Scout, Monday, 22 May 2006 8:06:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We must move from a position of religous beliefs to a position
of relationship if there will be peace. Religous beliefs will divide for
what one believes is the truth will divide others. Relationship with the real Jesus is the only way out of the mess we find ourselves in. This is a supernatural work. Now we find christians, muslims and jews and others who have this relationship have a communion that is so amazing. This is happening all over the world and this is our only hope of a future in Christ. Let the real Jesus in and all the false gods will vanish.
Posted by jeshua, Monday, 22 May 2006 8:19:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David,
Sorry, but I don’t see what the unique significance of parables is.

There are various forms of allegorical stories. Under the general banner of myths, there are folktales, fairytales, fables, sagas, epics, legends and also – parables.

Parables are also used in other religions, such as Hasidism, Sufism and even Zen Buddhism.

They are all intended to instruct, explain or entertain - depending on the audience and the message to be conveyed. Whether the Good Samaritan historically existed or not is of far less significance than the message conveyed.

Likewise, the movie Star Wars and the legend of King Arthur are perfect examples of the classic hero myth. We are witnessing the creation of a modern hero mythology surrounding events at Beaconsfield, although it will only be short-term and is media driven. Nonetheless it is an uplifting experience for many onlookers who feel that it represents an ideal that is seldom witnessed.

Meanwhile back on-topic, whether the Da Vinci Code is a modern fairytale or not, depends on the individual.

If a Christian feels threatened, has doubts or has a loss of faith on the basis of this book alone, then I think they are looking for an excuse not to believe.

Likewise, personal investigation of the matters covered in this book may even lead somebody toward belief.

To me, the REAL item of interest in this whole affair are the shadowy dealings of Opus Dei and how the group has finally been dragged out into the open.
I’ve been watching them since I heard of their their direct involvement in the initial election of George W Bush and the FBI Russian spy scandal many years ago and there is definitely more to them than meets the eye.
Posted by rache, Monday, 22 May 2006 1:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suggestion: to those who have read/watched the DVC but not sure whether it is fiction or not, perhaps you can get a copy of the bible, read the New Testament as thoroughly as you have read the DVC, see what you can get out of it, and then decide whether it is the DVC or the bible which is fiction. It is wiser to make informed decisions than to jump to conclusion.
Posted by Samdin, Monday, 22 May 2006 3:48:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill,

--Part One--

1. The Da Vinci Code is fiction. It author agrees it is an adventure
story, set against quasi-history. Some places and names a correct.

2. The Bible is also a fiction. It is a heroic story, set against quasi-history. Some places and names are correct.

3. The Da Vinci Code and the Bible have much in common. One difference is, the former is in a position to admit to the fiction.

How can the Church(es) do the same?

4. As a theologian, you must know, that the Bible "is" a selected works, as is the Complete Works of Shakespeare. (There were originally several Hamlets) Jesus sects wrote many gospels in the names of the disciples. There were various conflicting accounts. Nicea (and some smaller earlier councils)tried to sort this out.

5. Once the churches have tried to suggest the gnostic gospels were of an occult nature, presumably, so, ordinary folks would not read them. In fact, these books are just alternative interpretations of the life of Jesus.

6. There were other competing holymen to Jesus.

7. The Merovingians are a genuine royal bloodline, starting in the early fifth century. Brown has probably realised this history, but its legend is different to Christian legend. At the beginning of the Merovingian dynasty, the founding mother is said to have been impregnated by a beastial Neptune. Brown has merged the two legends
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 22 May 2006 6:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill,

--Part Two--

8. Jesus legends and the Roman mysteries were also merged: e.g., Christmas Day. Mary Mother of God probably "is" linked to Orisis. Perhaps, saints are a compromise to god pantheons. Even some Christians aren't keen on intercession.

9. I am Rosslyn Sinclair. My family built Rosslyn (Roslin) Chapel. Our main historical links are Viking and Templar, not strongly Merovingian. (I have to pay for my wine.) ... Cromwell would not allow General Monk destoy Rosslyn Chapel owing to its Templar/Masonic connections.

10. The Nautonier or Prieure de Sion "might" exist (since the twelfth century). There are historial references to it (e.g., The Dossier Secrets). For me, the published grand masters list is "too" impressive.

11. I would not have a clue whether Mary and Jesus were in a relationship. Just the same, the Dead Sea Scrolls (I think)or a similar document, does mention, a certain caste of high prostitute whom entertain priests circa Jesus' time. The priests did not marry, but were at times allowed comfort... Lent in reverse.

Lastly, I think the Churches really don't want the reading first to fourth histories to be popularised. Ordinary folks might learn too much.

The Da Vinci Code is feared, as it could be the thin end of the wedge, not because of its fiction, but, because further readings expose Christian fiction.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 22 May 2006 6:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dobbadan

"Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world ...

Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims."

OK: imagine I'm a passionate adherent of solipsism. Everything I say is backed by my knowledge/awareness of my own existence. And everything you say applies equally to my putative faith in my being all that is.And as an all-encompassing faith, solipsism is logically peerless.

It's the faith you have against the scepticism the likes of me have that means we can't reason with each other, far less convince each other. Some of just can't do faith. I envy your lot, in a way.I would flat-out love to believe in a power greater than me (rueful laugh - my partner was genuinely amazed when I explained to him - after yet another failed to get help from AA - that "a power greater than me" meant god, not alcohol). I can't. Would it be understandable if I blamed the nuns who "educated" me?

I've digressed. Sorry. What I want to ask is - why do you keep saying Jesus is the only way? The precepts of the said (historically verifiable, but far less eminently manifest than Caesar) Galillean rabble-rouser are sound, but they're really only a re-statement of the Golden Rule. Why do you invest common decency and common-sense with godhood?

BD: Good on you. Nice to see a believer doesn't think every fight is worth bloodshed. I might - mostly - disagree with every word you write, but on balance (Islam excepted, and I'll even accept you've personal reasons there that over-ride the benefit of my doubt)you're as reasonable a scripture-quoter as I can imagine.

BTW, the Da Vinci code is bollocks, and deserves no comment whatsoever. Can we have - Christians, agnostics, atheists, theologians, historians, whatever, a far more interesting discussion about 'The Name of the Rose'?
Posted by anomie, Monday, 22 May 2006 8:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,

We are not likely to agree on conclusions but my points were based on scholarship.

To say that John was a Jew is correct. But that he was writing to "a Jewish audience" is questionable.

John states that his purpose in writing was to show that Jesus is the Christ, God's Son, and wanted to persuade people to believe in Christ and have life in his Name (John 20:31). Australian NT Johannine scholar, Dr. Leon Morris, supports such a purpose, as does D. A. Carson's commentary on John. That suggests it was for Jew and Gentile.

The liberal Bultmann considered that the most influential background to Johannine Christianity was Mandaen Gnosticism. Evangelical D. A. Carson views the Jews of the dispersion and Jewish proselytes as "the only possibility" of readership.

As for John's Jewish time-keeping, I stand corrected. However, renowned exegetical scholar, B. F. Westcott suggested that John used Roman time and Mark Jewish.

Dr. Leon Morris gives this assessment:
"There appears to be no evidence that the so-called Roman method of computing time was used other than in legal matters like leases. At Rome, as elsewhere, the day was reckoned to begin at sunrise" (The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans 1971, p. 800).

What is Morris's solution?
"It is more likely that in neither Mark nor John is the hour to be regarded as more than an approximation. People in antiquity did not have clocks or watches, and the reckoning of time was always very approximate. The "third hour" may denote nothing more firm than a time about the middle of the morning, while "about the sixth hour" can well signify getting on towards noon. Late morning would suit both expressions unless there were some reason for thinking that either was being given with more than usual accuracy. No such reason exists" (p. 801).

Scholars have harmonised the resurrection accounts. My statement is no novelty!

Thank you for bringing me up to speed but your view that the Gospels present contradictory evidence seems to be based on your presuppositions.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 22 May 2006 8:59:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozspen
YOUR presupositions betray you.
1) Roman & Jewish measurement of time was the same (sunrise to sunset) so wether John was using Roman or Jewish time is totally irrelevant.

2) You claim that the text only claims that the crusifixion occured sometime in the afternoon. Now you are contradicting your own scripture. The TEXT is VERY specific. Mark says the crucifixion occured at the 3rd hour & John says the 6th. There is NO evidence within the text to justify your interpretation. Your interpretation is in fact, merely an ad hoc explanation to save your belief that the Gospel writers were eye witnesses & to avoid an obvious contradiction.

3) You claim there were no clocks in that era & therefore the writers of John & Mark could only give a rough estimate [i.e late afternoon]. Wrong again! Ever heard of a sundial? A Waterclock [the Greeks & the Romans possessed those]. A candle clock? [Mainly used by the Egyptians]. How do you think anyone could say what hour it was otherwise unless they possessed a means of measuring time?

Conclusion: The Greco-Roman world had a fairly accurate method of measuring time. Hence the writers of the gospels could make claims concerning the time of the crucifixion. & their claims were wrong! They are disqualified as witnesses!

4) Harmonizing is a discredited technique. How can I claim that? Quite easily. Let's say I have two books that contradict each other. I claim they don't but you will show Me that they do. Seems easy doesn't it? But wait I say. First we have to start our examination with two presupositions. The first presuposition is that there are NO contradictions. The 2nd is that I may twist the text any way I wish as long as it eliminates any seeming contradiction. Think you could find any contradiction between my books now? Impossible isn't it? But you proclaim harmonizing is the way to go! Are you serious?
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 22 May 2006 10:16:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo & Dobbadan

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I'm proably being slow here but you seem to be saying that the question of wether Jesus exsited or not isn't important only his message is. Correct or am I getting it wrong?

Because I thought that since Jesus is declared to be divine in the first few versus of john then wether he existed or not is of prime importance. I'm probably missing something here. Sorry I seem a bit slow on the uptake today.

Also Philo seem to say that the history of jesus isn't important & then provides a list of historical [& semi-historical] events. I'm sorry but I don't get it. If the history isn't important why the dates? I don't mean to insult either of you, [as I said before it's probably me being slow on the uptake] but I don't understand your arguments.
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 22 May 2006 10:33:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
Where’ve you been? We’ve missed you.

You shouldn’t make a statement of dogma like. “The Bible is also a fiction.” You are merely giving your opinion, whereas the Church upholds the Bible as a reliable reference of fact. So do not expect the Church to dismiss its primary text as fiction.

When witnesses report facts there’s every possibility that, how one sees events will differ from another, this does not make their report fiction rather personal impression. Study witness statements on an incident and you will discover discrepancies - that is reality. The Christian text was not a collusion of men endeavouring to form a religion but witnesses of history whose lives had been changed reporting and those collated fragments and verbal stories into a cohesive report. Luke1: 1 - 4.

Christians recognise there were many competing voices among Jewish sects, Gnosticism one. Gnosticism had more in common with Persian Zoroastrianism than OT Jewish thought.

When Rome enforced Christianity as the State religion it corrupted it, because people brought their pagan beliefs with them into the Christian State. Jesus wasn’t about national religion but about personal faith. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world”; “The kingdom of God is within you”, meaning the rule of God was in the heart [passions] and mind. Roman Catholicism adapted Christianity to existing pagan practises doesn’t nullify the truth of Jesus Christ or his teachings. Quote, “Jesus legends and the Roman mysteries were also merged: e.g., Christmas Day. Mary Mother of God probably "is" linked to Orisis.”

Oliver I suggest you read the teachings of Jesus on marriage and its sanctity and you will realise such claims of prostitutes as spurious. “ I would not have a clue whether Mary and Jesus were in a relationship.“

I can tell you that nothing fazes the Churches about the DVC; we welcome it because it gets people thinking about the truth. “The Da Vinci Code is feared, as it could be the thin end of the wedge, not because of its fiction, but, because further readings expose Christian fiction.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 22 May 2006 11:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,
The Gospels were not written as chronological history but as collected events and teachings of Jesus Christ with settings of the events in time and place. The primary purpose is to gain an understanding of the message and demonstrate the very nature and character of God incarnate in his anointed Christ. The teachings is to make God incarnate in our lives as John identifies it as being sons of God. Jesus said, "Do the works that I do and you will know the doctrine wether it be of God or not". Until your or my life is ministering to the needs of people in the same capacity; you can hardly be at liberty to dismiss his message as fiction.

Jesus emerged among a nation of hurting people while the religious heirarchy were wanting the overthrow of Rome. Such national pride is also seen in the life of his disciples as they constantly expected he would emerge as the leader to acomplish this - even after his resurrection. Jesus turned the view of power upside down, he did not come to weild power and a sword but to serve and give his life. Jesus had been earlier challenged by the leader of the Zealot forces to join him and gain the kingdom by force [Matt 4] but Jesus addresses him as the opponent of God. Jesus had no interest in Nationalism but in reconciling all mankind. His teaching is, "Love your enemy" hardly a moto for Jewish nationalism. His message was in a juxtaposition to the expected power of Religion and State. Understand his Blessings in Matthew 5, not the formulation of a religion to overthrow Roman occupation. It is the uniqueness of his message that changes lives - follow him.

That the Roman Emperor made his name a National Religion ultimately destroyed the uniqueness of his message. He was not about combining faith with State enforced law, but about changing lives that would make decisions based on equality and justice for all men and offer sinners forgivness and reconciliation.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 22 May 2006 11:53:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those who argue that the Bible is a work of fiction, I would direct your attention to a 3hr BBC documentary called 'Son of God'. It is a secular production that investigates the reliability of the New Testament account and looks into the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus the Christ is left by this documentary as a matter of individual faith.

The motto of the DVC is 'seek the truth'. How I wish that people would honestly seek the truth!

It is far too easy to throw out subjective, emotional arguments - 'The Bible is a work of Fiction'. It's much harder to conduct your own personal investigation of the facts.

Where the DVC is most dangerous is that it keeps to the facts up to a certain point (about as far as the average person could investigate without too much trouble), and then deviates into a world of utter fiction. These are the most dangerous lies because on the surface they can appear true. The average person can't be sure where the truth ends and where the lie begins.

As I said in my previous post, these lies do not pose any personal challenge to a Christian's faith. However, they are of concern to Christians generally for the effect that they have on non-Christians - in that these lies serve to fuel the internal desire to ignore God and to deny Jesus Christ.

If you're serious about finding the truth, and not just about arguing against Christians, then conduct your own investigation and form your own opinion. I would suggest starting with the Gospel accounts in the New Testament (I can just sense your gut wrenching at the thought), or perhaps you would like to hear a secular view first (e.g. the 'Son of God' video).

So again I will say it - 'seek the truth'. And in the words of Jesus Christ himself - 'You will know the truth and the truth shall make you free.' Jesus was big on truth.
Posted by Faithful, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 8:41:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one Bill. I'm amused by those who worry about whether Christ was divine or not and therefore the validity of the gospels, let alone the Bible.

If you don't acknowledge the divinity question you still have the stuff Brown can only begin to touch on - how could so many people be so motivated by a "myth"!

There is that wonderful joke that when the Pope is told that they have found the "bones of Jesus" in a tomb he says - Well at least we can now agree that he existed!
Posted by Intent, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 11:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,

I beg to differ. Jewish time is different from Roman time as these 2 links demonstrate:
1. Jewish time: http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Jewish_Time.asp
2. Roman time: http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/romnlife/romntime.htm

You wrote:
"You claim that the text only claims that the crusifixion occured sometime in the afternoon. Now you are contradicting your own scripture. The TEXT is VERY specific. Mark says the crucifixion occured at the 3rd hour & John says the 6th. There is NO evidence within the text to justify your interpretation."

That is not what I wrote at all. I wrote nothing about the afternoon, but quoted Australian Johannine scholar, Dr. Leon Morris, who stated:

"It is more likely that in neither Mark nor John is the hour to be regarded as more than an approximation. People in antiquity did not have clocks or watches, and the reckoning of time was always very approximate. The "third hour" may denote nothing more firm than a time about the middle of the morning, while "about the sixth hour" can well signify getting on towards noon. Late morning would suit both expressions unless there were some reason for thinking that either was being given with more than usual accuracy. No such reason exists" (The Gospel According to John, p. 801).

I don't intend bantering further with you on this subject.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 1:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks everyone for a very enjoyable thread.

It has confirmed my faith in the proposition that questions are invariably more interesting - and infinitely more numerous - than answers.

It is a puzzle to me why people put so much faith in there being such a thing as "the truth". It should be clear by now that in the infinitesimal span of time allotted to us on this tiny insignificant planet, it is entirely unreasonable to expect to know anything meaningful about why we are here. We just are. Enjoy.

I would have thought that it is obvious that mankind is so unusual a beast that we can never aspire to take up much more than a short paragraph in the overall story of the universe - and even then, only because of our oddness. A sentence or two in MX-Cosmos, perhaps, headed "Something Weird"

But keep asking the questions. The journey is always more rewarding than the destination.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 6:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Francis,

How can I reply to your smart crack?

Are you saying the Council of Nicea did not occur? That the Merovingians can’t be traced back to the fifth century (Mevrovee). There is no legend of the Quinataur? The Vikings didn’t invade Normandy (Norse-man-dy) in 911. The Battle of Hastings (1066) did not occur? The (Rosslyn) Sinclairs were not historically tied-up with the Templars? That General Monk didn’t invade Scotland under the orders of Cromwell?

Monk flattened the Castle and left the Chapel, whose ownership left Sinclair male line in 1700s, but is still privately owned by a St Clair with a hyphened name. I have been Scotland and seen both.

Dan Brown wrote a novel using fudged history. But at least he knew a little history to fudge.

p.s. There is something to the Keystone too. Psalm 118 & Ephesians 2:20. I believe it has both Jewish and Christian meaning. The foundation of the (Jewish) Temple and the completion of the Temple in Christianity. I am sure Philo will know more than me. I am on shakier ground here, as to my understanding
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 7:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Friends reading this thread I must apologise for including the name of Julius in the previous posts in the following statements. Of course it wasn't Julius it was Tiberius 14 - 37 AD.

Should read:

"Tiberius Caesar sent a possee of guards to have Pilate brought before him in Rome after learning that Pilate had allowed the death of one whom he had earlier reported to Caesar saying, "this man Jesus performs miracles greater than any of our Roman gods". Posted 20th May 10: 22am

Correction:
"I never challanged the existence of Julius Caesar. The fact is that Caesar [Tiberius] in his communications with Pilate recognised the existence of Jesus in his response to communications sent by Pilate." Posted 20th May 12: 19 pm.

The gospel text alludes to the dreams of Pilates wife that implied she held respect for Jesus [Matthew 27: 17 - 19]. The extent of Pilate's wife concern over Jesus death is mentioned by Pilate in his letter to Caesar. The extent of this concern is not recorded in the Gospel accounts but it is in Pilate's letters to Caesar in Rome. These letters are included in "Lost Books of the Bible" ISBN 0-529-03385-2.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 12:09:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings Philo,

I have been very involved with my research, but the DVC has peaked my interest. I have seen the movie but not read the book. I have a minor historical interest in the Templars.

You are correct “fiction” does sound dogmatic. What I was saying, in my view, both the DVC and the selected gospels are composites of fact and fiction. In a literary sense the former is an adventure and the latter, heroic (in the Greek sense). Not that I would deny the past existence of Jesus or Troy.

I would agree with you and would tend to place developed Zoroastrianism more towards the end of the Axial period. Also,one stimulus for the formation of Isalm. That is, to unify the tribes, there was a need for a major religion and a prophet. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that Islam theocracy came about to introduce a unifying force, else outside influences would have been too overwhelming.

Just the same, the Gnostic gospels do provide comment on the divinity of Jesus. And again I agree with you that Jesus is a separate construct (if you will excuse the word) than the politics driving at least one Jesus sect to the Roman gentiles and the Roman-Sect makeover to make it only part Jewish. The Roman’s were conservative and would not have axed the OT, even though they were liberal with regards pantheons. (more next post)

My comment on prostitutes was that it is known several Jesus-like groups did exist, as is known from ancient documents, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls. The worlds’ of some holy men and some prostitutes did mix. Personally, I would doubt Jesus would marry,given his opinion his belief system relating to offer substitutionary ransom. It would be grossly irresponsible. But I wasn’t there.

I don’t see Like 1:1-4, generalisable to the Council of Nicea. The person writing as Luke is saying he is making an honest attempt in setting down his record. The Council of Nicea was deciding between black and white, what is canon and what is heresy.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 11:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus, who definitely existed ,as written ,said in the NT Matthew Ch 18 vs 4-5 " believe as little children", and Matthew 23v24 Jesus said they (religious men) were "blind guides who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel", what I am getting at is, that all these theologians trying to work out with their unrgenerated minds,ie, who wrote what, and what was truth,(how would you know ) and how it happened and why this, and why that? Get off yout high minded horses!

In the first book of bible called Genesis Ch 1 vs 26 we see that God's partner, Jesus Christ, who created all things according to Paul in NT Collosians Ch 1 vs 15-16 says by Him (Jesus) were all things created in the Heavens and in the Earth.
If you know your Bible you will see Jesus in every chapter on Old and New Testament, all 66 books.
The bible was written by chosen godly men under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit, whether you believe it or not.Ie, Holy Spirit is the transmitter to godly people .

Mankind today ,since Adam and Eve's fall, when they cut off the Holy Spirit thru sin ,just as today ,in unregenerated human kind without the Spirit of God. Cannot fathom anything spiritual out because they are not born again (John 3 v 3-7 )of the Spirit, I Corinthians ch 2 vs 10-14 makes it clear .Old minds .

Just like Paul ,who was religious (mental belief ) and was killing Christians until Jesus spoke to him after Jesus rose into Heaven (NT Acts ch 9 vs 4 onwards ).

This is what will happen to you ,as did me ,after 42 years as a non believer 27 years ago ,if you accept and believe in Christ, but without Him there is no hope and you can invent all kinds of religions and belief systems you want ,(new agers and the like) with their minds and rebellious powers to no avail,.
Just as Adam and Eve did , mankind's still against a loving Father
ALL REBELLION .
Posted by dobbadan, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 1:45:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Philo,

When mentioning the DVC, I am not saying it is any threat to the church. Rather, first to fourth centuries history are a Pandora’s box, if opened to the general public domain.
Constantine was under many pressures to unify the way ahead and stem debate. You mentioned Luke, the only Gospel with a prologue. If axed, you would not have been about to refer to it yesterday. Besides, it is the only Gospel a prologue(?). Were the others edited?

In the nineteenth century and perhaps even the twentieth palaeontologists didn’t always assemble dinosaur bones correctly, as palaeo-forensics was not well known. Look at the Michelago’s Moses, it has horns! People then mistranslated light as horns.

We need Luther-Supercharged with scientific octane. Take first to forth century histories and don’t assume a priori positions, atheist or theistic. Run the texts through super-computers to examine styles. Don’t assume OT-NT links. Not just a null hypothesis. Go beyond refuting your hypotheses. Try and prove your opponents’ positions. In sum, I am saying the risk for the Christian Church in placing Nicea and the Jesus sects under tight non a prior investigation, is like Carbon dating the Shroud of Turin. Very perilous. For atheists too.

I assume, many Christian theologians would be happy with an histographic analysis stating Mohammed leveraged Islam to unify the Arabs. But if the same historian said the with the fall of the Temple and the Judaic-Roman Wars, Jesus sects saw survival in compromise allowing in Roman gentiles, don’t go there signs would come out.

The past existence of Jesu is history. Divine or not divine? We need to apply science and contemporary methodologies, without any pre-suppositions. In research, religionists must forget divine revelations, holy spirits and epiphanies. Scientists need consider the feasibility of teleology in physical contexts
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 25 May 2006 1:54:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Olivier,

So very nicely put. I'm sure everything you describe has happened in small corners for centuries, but I don't see the Churches bringing it to the masses.

And this shall be the true test of Christian motivations.

Will they continue to seize upon Dan Brown's failings, emitting melodramatic protests and shutting eyes, while scrambling awkwardly to force the box closed?

Or do they have the faith, integrity, and transparency, to throw themselves at this type of inquiry, taking advantage of this moment when Dan Brown (rightly or wrongly) has piqued the interest of the masses?
Posted by Dewi, Thursday, 25 May 2006 2:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could if be that a more sinister enemy is at work here to challenge the Christian faith. It is not beyong some antagonists to fund this popular challenge to the New Testament record. Even though some Muslims have been outspoken against the Dan Brown fiction becaue it degrades Jesus. But it is not beyond the agenda of others to degrade the New Testament text that is followed by Christians. Note the source of funding for the Movie.
_______________________________

England: Muslim Backing for Da Vinci Code

Da Vinci Code backers' money 'is safe'

Times Online, Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor

“THE financial backer of the film of The Da Vinci Code rushed to reassure investors last night that a planned £100 million investment was not at risk, even if the High Court were to halt the distribution of the film. Invicta Capital, a British tax specialist, insisted that money put up by the millionaires that make up its client base would be secure because Sony Pictures, the film’s producers, have pledged to return the £100 million being raised. Mohammed Yusuf, the chairman and chief executive of Invicta, said: “We’ve had a number of phone calls today from some investors checking to see if their money will be secure. Even if the copyright action against Dan Brown [The Da Vinci Code’s author] succeeds in halting the release of the film, our payments from Sony are guaranteed.” …”

At: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2063399,00.html
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 25 May 2006 7:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo and all,

It usually takes a PhD student 3-5 years to prove a new idea and an expereinced academic perhaps 2 years to make it into a tip-top journal. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (Holy Blood and the Holy Grail)seem to be able to uncover new ideas, historians have missed for hundred of years, page after page. Either, they all brilliant beyond Leonardo himself, or they set out to write a best seller: A fiction, which was picked-up and further developed by Brown.

Thanks, Dewi. Yes, my purpose is neither to attack religionists nor necessarily support athiests. But open up 1st to 4th history to close study in the public domain. Including what is already known. As you allude to, there are matters in closet, the churches can admit to given enough attention.

(A) Jesus, the Churches and the Scriptures need to be studied individually and collectively - most of all dispassionately. At the Singapore Asian Civilizations museum an Eygptologist once said to me, if you want to know about the Eygptians "read 'Greek ' history, they had no need to distort things".

Facing the facts is a hard task. A few years back, I mentioned to an Amercian athiest that George Washington put on his for Manonic dress for the laying of the foundation stone of the first White House (destroyed 1812?). It was just too much, he cut off correspondence with me. Similarly, I think it would be hard for a suburban Catholic priest admit that the names of early Roman bishops are of dubious validy. That's not to say some scholars deep in the Vatican realise the truth.

Disassembling all the texts of all the gospels and reassembling them --open to the general public -- could lead to a great revelation or a great deception. If confident and faithful, why are the Churches concerned?

(B) Similarily, in Science, the leagacy of nineteen century mechanics needs to loosen its grip a bit. A greater understanding of total systems and teleological (perhaps mathematically driven) processes in physical evolution require more attention.

Thesism, no. Atheism, no really. Open inquiry, yes.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 26 May 2006 11:22:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that this blog now seems to be asserting that Christianity has something to fear from an honest, dispassionate, review of the first four centuries of the Church.

I would be the first to concede that there are some difficulties with the historical record when it comes to proving Papal Authority. However, this was raised and, for the most part, settled by the Protestant Reformation.

A mistake that many people make, even Christians, is to think that the Biblical texts, creeds etc... exist in some form of vacuum. Obviously, this is not the case. These texts came into being in a specific time period, and have been transmitted through history up to today.

The exact nature of the culture in which the texts originated (i.e. political, geographical, social, economic etc...), as well as that of the surrounding cultures is a key point of investigation in the interpretation and understanding of the Biblical texts. The goal of any good theologian/Biblical scholar is to first understand the setting before applying the Bible to modern times.

Similarly, the same degree of investigation takes place when looking at the decisions made by particular councils throughout Christian history.

That such investigation takes place is not wishful thinking on my part and I have had reason to study this area in great detail myself. What I find is that this investigation only affirms and strengthens the 'status-quo' of understanding that has been handed down, in an unbroken chain of understanding, to the present time.

As I have said before, go ahead and investigate for yourself. The problem that Christians have DVC is that the majority of people will swallow the lies wholesale and never bother to check for themselves.

The books of History have never been closed. Rather, our hearts and minds are closed to what this history might tell us.
Posted by Faithful, Sunday, 28 May 2006 9:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that Bill Muhlenber's critics, rather than supporting Dan Brown's DVC, are attempting to say that Jesus did not even exist, and also attacking the Bible itself as false.

It reminds me of the quote applicable to Christianity and its attackers: "The storm hurls its fury at The Rock, but The Rock still stands".
Posted by Big Al 30, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Al 30, why is it surprising to you that the secular world would not spend much energy attacking a work of fictional literature?

If the Rock of Christianity is withstanding all these storms, then why does it feel so threatened by an airport novel?

If you really feel the need to put disclaimers on books full of unsubstantiated (and academically discredited) claims, start with the Bible.
Posted by Dewi, Monday, 29 May 2006 2:14:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dewi,

The answer to your question is quite simple, and it is a point that I had hoped to have made in my previous posts.

Let’s set something straight. Christians do not feel personally threatened by DVC. However, Christians are extremely concerned by the DVC for the following reasons (as presented from a Christian's worldview):

- There is a battle that takes place for the soul of each individual, the outcome of which determines who will spend eternity in heaven and who will spend eternity in hell.

- Humans are wired to rebel against God, and ideas that appeal to this rebellion are typically incorporated into a person’s anti-God defence without any investigation.

- Christian evangelists already spend far too much time combating the false ideas of evolution and post-modern relativistic thought, without having to tackle the distortions of the DVC.

- The DVC directly attacks the only means of salvation that exists for humankind; forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the incarnation of Jehovah God, the creator of the universe.

Unlike what is presented in the DVC, Christianity is not concerned about preserving some earthly kingdom. On the contrary, Christians are greatly concerned about the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, and seeing as many people as possible saved from the destruction of hell.

So, to continue the analogy: "The rock stands firm, along with those who have built their lives upon it. But the rock has an enemy that will use propaganda like the DVC to make the sinking-sand look oh so appealing."
Posted by Faithful, Monday, 29 May 2006 4:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faithful...

So, you think the DVC poses a risk to souls.

Let's leave aside for a moment that the book is presented as a fictional narrative, and assume that people are unthinkingly swallowing its claims.

Enter the Christians. To defend the souls, they start throwing around some dramatic language about "destruction of souls in Hell" and "knowing the Truth through the acceptance of Jesus Christ", as you have been doing.

Why would - or should - people be any more likely to swallow these notions than the ideas of one Dan Brown? When answering this question, avoid the use of circular reasoning, or the frankly patronising fallback: "I, being one of the saved, Just Know Better than you do."

I, too, see a threat to souls, but Dan Brown could do no more damage than a wasted afternoon and some dismay at the state of modern literature. No, the real threat is of people wasting their lives; persecuting others for their religion, sex, culture, or race; and polluting our science and politics; all in the name of their personal favourite deity (and their personal favourite interpretation of millennia-old manuscripts).
Posted by Dewi, Monday, 29 May 2006 5:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dewi, your Q.1 I expected Muhlengerg's critics to defend Dan Brown's rubbish. They seem to be ignoring it to attack the core beliefs of Christianity.

Q.2 When people such as Brown attempt to distort and tell outright lies about an organisation and cherished beliefs which are a valuable part of your life, then it's time stand up and defend the beliefs under attack.

Unfortunately some readers and cinema goers are taking the DVC as fact. They believe there is a conspiracy, and conspiracy theories are popular these days. ranging from JFK to Jesse James to members of the Kelly Gang, even the Moon landing by Armstrong and Aldren. We just can't lie down and hope it will go away.

As the much quoted words of Edmund Burke declare: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".
Posted by Big Al 30, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:17:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or, as Hugh Laurie once put it:

"For evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to spout cliches."
Posted by Tom Carroll, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 1:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“With over 40 million copies of the book sold into 44 different languages, it is having a huge impact. And the film will expose even more people to its spurious claims.”

People are free to choose what they read and what they do not. They are free to pray to the God of their choice.
If a religious institution is so frail of character, weak in the face of an alternative perspective or devoid of moral merit that it would be threatened and thus seek to control and censor the reading material of the general public, then the world will be better off without it.

“Although a novel, Dan Brown clearly states in it - and on his website - that it is accurate, based on fact and solid research.”

It is not the first novel ever written, if we are to talk about fiction, most of the bible could be similarly construed as the work of fiction, including Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

“The subject matter of the book is vitally important. Indeed, it concerns someone who is arguably the most important person in human history: Jesus Christ.”

Plenty of books around about Jesus Christ, I was unaware any individual and institution had a right of veto over who should write about him.

So why is Bill so paranoid about those of us who think for ourselves reading or viewing this “fiction”. I for one have seen the movie and found it entertaining, although the twists of the plot were a little “predictable”

But even if it were true, would that be so bad?
How far would the Churches go to suppress or deal with the revelation?
I, for one, could not care less what they do, so long as they don’t think they will curtail who and what I choose to worship, believe or read.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 6:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Al 30, you say you "expected Muhlengerg's critics to defend Dan Brown's rubbish".

And defend it we have: Dan Brown has every right to pen a novel. He even has a right to voice his opinion about historical matters, even if his opinion turns out to be wrong.

The anti-DVC brigade is doing the same thing: circulating their Holy Book and making lofty claims about its factual accuracy. But they overstep the mark (in a way that Dan Brown does not) when they attempt to stifle alternative opinions.

You say that Brown's "attempt to distort and tell outright lies about an organisation and cherished beliefs" compells you to "stand up and defend the beliefs under attack", but he could easily say the same of you. Indeed, so could anybody who values freedom of expression or the process of historical inquiry.

For what it's worth, I disagree with both Dan Brown and the Evangelists, but the latter seem quite eager to fulfill his prophesy about suppressive monks.
Posted by Dewi, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 10:18:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEWI, You and your fellow athiests or whatever have not defended Brown's rubbish. You have defended his right to write it, which I have not even called into question.

He can write what he likes, but we have the right to respond by pointing out its inaccuracies and sheer fabrications. And we will.
Posted by Big Al 30, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 8:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedi Knight is now a religion appearing on the UK census form, or so I seem to remember reading.

Faith is a funny thing: the need for it disappears in the face of absolute certainty. But, people crave certainty. Debates, wars, and public relations cannot remove doubt from any faith (including atheism - the faith that there is no deity), but they seem to be the main means attempted.

Thus do I cling to my doubts. (apologies for the poor attempt at irrationality, it was the best I could muster)

odsoc
Posted by odsoc, Thursday, 1 June 2006 11:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that ultimately much of this debate boils down to an incompatibility between two different worldviews - that of the Christians and that of the non-Christians.

The mantra of our current post-modern age is that "whatever you believe is true for you, and that's all that matters". The Christian worldview does not accept the post-modern view, and holds to an exclusive ideal of knowable truth, to the exclusion all contrary notions. Thus, no conflict of worldview exists for the Christian when arguing points of truth against non-Christians. However, given the mantra of the non-Christian relativists, shouldn't what Christians believe be allowed to be true for them.

The previous debate in this forum shows a complete disrespect for what Christians see as truth, with an arrogant "we're right, you're wrong" attitude being thrown back from the so-called tolerant non-Christians. In my mind this is an apparent contradiction between the world-view held by non-Christians and the way reality has played out this forum.

Surely, the post-modern, tolerant, society should recognise that Christian belief is just as valid as any other belief (based on your own worldview). Given that, then shouldn't Christians be afforded the same degree of protection from offence and vilification that everyoe else demands for their own set of beliefs and values?

Sadly, it seems that everyone else is allowed to cling to their own version of truth, while the Christians (who claim absolute truth, to the exclusion of others) are the only ones denied this privelege.

It is quite disgusting how Christias are denied the right to hold their own beliefs, free of vilification, slander and insult. Again and again, the non-Christian's conflict between their worldview and reality is shown. Tolerance for all - except Christians. It's open season on them.
Posted by Faithful, Thursday, 1 June 2006 11:09:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faithful, you seem to be under the unfortunate misconception that relativism amounts to anarchism: that freedom has such "absolute" value that anybody is allowed to do anything at all, and without criticism.

Standards of conduct can only exist in relativity to the civilisation in which they occur. For example, our current knowledge and technology allows us to maintain much loftier ideals than were possible in the early days of humankind, when we huddled in caves with only the most primitive of stone tools to hunt and gather with. Now, however, we have an abundance of food, and can care for our sick and disabled, and can afford to suppress our characteristic xenophobia because our civilisation protects us.

You wail about lack of tolerance, but it is you who are being intolerant. And not of some vicious, violent man. Nor a political figure, shouting from a podium, whipping the masses into a hateful frenzy. No, the intolerance is of a novellist/historian entertaining people with a typewriter.

He is free to speculate about the past, just as Christians are (and do). We are free to contradict his assertions, too, but mostly I see attacks upon the man, and arguments of "offensiveness".

This "privilege" of non-criticism you say is denied to Christians is actually denied to everyone... and the level of vilification here is far lower than what occurs between competing denominations and religions.
Posted by Dewi, Friday, 2 June 2006 12:35:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faithful
You seem to hold that relativism preaches tolerance for everything & then relativists attack the christian viewpoint. Sorry but that's not so.

Relativism asserts that every view EXCEPT intolerance should be tolerated. That is hardly a contradiction. Are you implying that the christian viewpoint is, by its very nature intolerant?

P.S. In case you're wondering I am not [nor have I ever been] a relativist. I consider relativism logically self-contradictory; But NOT in this area. So why am I writing this? Because I have heard this pleading for tolerance of christian intolerance before. Should anyone [including christians] be allowed to be intolerant toward others? No! Of course not. I would have thought that the crucifixion of Jesus by the intolerant would have taught you that Faithful.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 2 June 2006 11:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,
For any society to be unified and progressive in the values of the society they must identify views and values that diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals of that society; so they will outlaw them as inferior and counter promote the values that enhance the values and goals of that society. Yes they are intolerant. A society that allows any values soon becomes weak, cofused and lost. There are social principles to a strong society and a healthy mind. Yes Christian are intolerant of evil attitudes and behaviours. He who accepts anything as valid will fail to achieve something of value.

Building a strong society means weeding out the destructuve, obstructive and socially sapping forces. For Christians it means looking for the ideal and building an ideal community. I could not imagine how drama would pan out if there was no conflict; they are the scripts that never get published. Christians are not there for dramatic effect, but they will conflict with unnacceptable views. You might prefer to live in a world without conflict, as we all would, but accepting conflicting views as equal validity is never going to happen. Yes we are intolerant of other views, and we accept this as part of the struggle for belief; even as others will with their views.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo “Building a strong society means weeding out the destructive, obstructive and socially sapping ”

So, who decides what is “destructive, obstructive and socially sapping”?

For me, one of the most ““destructive, obstructive and socially sapping” forces are those of organised religions partly because, as Philo also suggested “Yes Christian are intolerant”

Christians can be as “intolerant” as they want but I remember “do unto others as you would have done until yourself” as a solid and virtuous Christian value.

With “do unto others as you would have done until yourself” in mind, the horrors, intolerance and the depravity perpetrated by organised religions, especially the Catholic Church should be enough to disqualify them from ever being allowed to decide who was “destructive, obstructive and socially sapping”.

The strength of any society is only ever measured in the quality of life of its population.

Individuals are only subjugated by \political and religious demands to weed out ““destructive, obstructive and socially sapping” be it such demands are made by religious zealots or political fanatics, the outcome is a reduction in life quality and the destruction of the “purpose” of society.

I think you need to re-evaluate what sort of legacy of Christian love and tolerance you want to bequeath to coming generations Philo, because what you are preaching

“For any society to be unified and progressive in the values of the society they must identify views and values that diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals of that society; so they will outlaw them as inferior and counter promote the values that enhance the values and goals of that society.”

Has nothing yo do with Christian Love.

What happens to those who support the view which you deem “diminish the effectiveness of and violate the goals” are they “outlawed”, treated as “inferior”?
I remember someone coming up with a whole race of people who were deemed “inferior” partly because of their religious views.

I see an obscenity akin the what the most intolerant religious and political extremists have tried to force upon society in the past
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 4 June 2006 3:16:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
In any civilized society it is society itself, the law makers and the courts who decide who will be excluded from that society.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 4 June 2006 9:34:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Part 1 of 2 ---
In the traditional sense of the word, Christianity is an extremely 'tolerant' religion. That is, if you take tolerance to mean: “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.” [Dictionary.com] However, the modern sense of this word has become tied up with the idea of ‘embracing’ the beliefs or practices of others.

I can fiercely disagree with your point of view or way of life, while at the same time respecting you as a person who has a right to make his/her own choices. Today's society labels our disagreement as 'intolerance', which is compounded by our stubborn refusal to reconsider and embrace opposing views. Therefore, given the modern day sense of the word, Christianity is extremely ‘intolerant’.

Quite simply, we cannot reconsider our position on moral and ethical issues because we didn't make up the rules - God did. Unlike what has been suggested, it is not any man or group of men who decided what is right or wrong. God decided this and revealed His statutes and ordinances in the Bible.

To claim that imposing Christian morality upon society is incompatible with Christian love is really quite ridiculous. The Golden Rule of love for one another extends to the imposition of morality over another person in order to keep them from harm. In this way, we are all guilty of imposing our own morality upon others all the time. Say for example had a roaring argument with your partner and he/she tried to throw themselves into the path of an oncoming car. Do you say ‘I respect your right to make (what I believe to be) a bad choice.’? Or, do you impose your morality and pull them back? Christians extend understanding by applying our morality to the social issues which pollute and destroy a healthy society. [Short of sparking a million other debates in this forum I am not going to provide examples of such issues.]
Posted by Faithful, Sunday, 4 June 2006 9:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- Part 2 of 2 ---
It’s very easy for people to think that what they are doing is ‘good for them and that’s all that matters’, but God knows better in the long run and so as Christians we appeal to what He has to say on the matter. To some this may be seen as “a reduction in life quality and the destruction of the ‘purpose’ of society.” However, I would much rather leave a “legacy of Christian love” that draws clear social boundaries and inhibits the attempts of those who would undermine them.

To suggest that Christian ‘intolerance’ in the traditional sense of the word is unloving is thoroughly ludicrous, as is the suggestion that the Holocaust was inspired by Christian values. If you would care to check your history books I believe you will find that Hitler was inspired by the writings of Charles Darwin, the full title of whose book is so often referred to being: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Throw into the mix the writings of the atheist Frederick Nietzsche and you have a formula for genocide. Don’t even try to pin this one on the Church.
Posted by Faithful, Sunday, 4 June 2006 9:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faithful
Where do I begin to correct such a multitude of illogic.
1) You aregue that you have the right to impose your morality on everyone else because it's for their good. Ah but if that's true then we have the right to impose ours on you. After all its for your good. Let's see...first we'll force you to give up church [it's only brianwashes you after all] then we'll. You get the idea. If one group has a right to impose their views then every group does.

I can hear you say...but we have that right because we have the truth. But you see the problem is EVERYONE claims they have the truth. The ONLY solution is to let every person be responsible for their OWN morality & own beliefs.

Conclusion you have no right to force anyone to do, say or think anything. Unless you are prepared to extend that right to others to force you to obey their morality.

Next illogic. Darwin & Nietzsche inspired Hitler. NONSENSE! Please get your facts from somewhere other than a fundie website.

The origin of species [it's full title by the way I have a copy] doesn't even deal with human beings. It deals with the evolution of animals. How could this have inspired Hitler?
Hitler was inspired, by social Darwinism. An idea which comes from Herbert Spencer NOT Charles Darwin.

Nietzsche's writings did NOT inspire Hitler. Not until they were altered by his very anti-semitic sister. Why did she alter his writings? To make them agree with Hitler's ideas. Nietzche had great admiration for the jews & espoused a rugged individualism. The very opposite of Hitler's ideas. So how could Hitler have been inspired by Nietzsche? Answer: He wasn't!
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 4 June 2006 11:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,

I only said I would prefer to live in a society that was built around this model. Even God knows he can never force anyone to do anything - hence the problem with the world today.

"I can hear you say...but we have that right because we have the truth. But you see the problem is EVERYONE claims they have the truth. The ONLY solution is to let every person be responsible for their OWN morality & own beliefs."

Or we're right and the rest of the world is in rebellion. That's what the Bible says anyway.

For the full title of "Origin of the Species" (btw I have a copy also) please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species, providing you don't consider this a "fundie website".

On Nietzsche, I suppose it was Hitler's sister who ordered a signed copy of Nietzsche's "Superman" to each member of the Luftwaffe.

We can't all be right. Relativism is self-defeating. Ultimately there must be some higher authority to appeal to. Christianity appeals to the Bible, which we believe to be the inspired revelation of the creator God. I would say that the Judeo-Christian roots of the Western World have served us well - but woe to all who wish to replace this foundation with the post-modern, all embracing, 'whatever makes you happy' ideology.

This is not the kind of legacy I want to leave behind for my children.

---

Anyway... This thread is dead. If any of you would like to take this up via personal correspondence you can contact me through wedisagree@gmail.com (seriously).
Posted by Faithful, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 12:28:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo “In any civilized society it is society itself, the law makers and the courts who decide who will be excluded from that society.”

But Philo you previously said

“Building a strong society means weeding out the destructive, obstructive and socially sapping ”

I am intrigued to know where is your sense of Christian “love” and “compassion” if your defined “society” is only maintained by “weeding out the destructive, obstructive and socially sapping”.

Surely a meritorious society (one worthy of being sustained), would hold values which encouraged re-education, guidance and tolerance to those who some might deem “destructive”, “obstructive” and “sapping” instead of “weeding them out”

Faithful “Even God knows he can never force anyone to do anything - hence the problem with the world today.”

The world is the World, it cares not for the individuals who inhabit it. The only ones who truly care about one another are friends and family and a few truly altruistic folk like Salvation Army members who offer support and care without expectation.

The world is always full of problems and woes, once one is resolved another presents itself. As for forcing people to do anything, only fascists think like that and God was not a fascist.
God gave us freewill with the expectation we use it. I know it rankles the Catholics but we can each choose what we believe and can choose to ignore the rantings of dogmatic power crazed zealots.

“Anyway... This thread is dead.”

It is “over” when we all decide and not just when you declare it so.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 1:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Entertaining fiction, maybe.
Controversial, for sure.
A well-written historical novel, noway.

The particularly disturbing challenge for the uninitiated reader, and the major contributor to the confusion surrounding this shameful and blasphemous book, is his deliberate attempt to pass on the view that (it) is based on FACT.

DB very cleverly twists history to suit his purposes, relying on falsified documents of disputed origins, fictitious theories, to undermine essential Christian issues including:

• The reliability of the Bible
• The divinity of Jesus Christ
• The origin of Christian beliefs
• The realities within the early church
• The role of the lost books of the Bible

DB’s heretical attempts to undermine the Gospels of the first century are not incidental to the novel: they are CENTRAL to its theme and constitute an intentional attack on Jesus Christ personally and on His church.

This is why informed Christians cannot stand back and not debate this non-sense.

On the good side – the book is rendered powerless by simply examining the numerous real historical/ biblical facts.

Fiction can only survive in the uninformed minds.

The popularity of the novel, and now the movie, has opened many meaningful and constructive discussions exposing the truth about the foundations of the Christian faith and the reality of just who Jesus Christ really IS (not just was)
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 5:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And thanks to 'coach' it's now alive again... But I'm done. The little checkbox at the bottom of the screen has now been 'unchecked'. Bye Bye.
Posted by Faithful, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 7:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, Faithful.

Way to let the infidel evolutionists win.

All those lost souls.... crying out in the darkness....
Posted by Dewi, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
COACH-ISMS

ON NOVELS

SHAKESPEARE MUST BE ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE WITH THIS:

>>Fiction can only survive in the uninformed minds.<<

After that little oxymoron I came up with a few other ‘Coachisms’, wasn’t hard to do…

ON LOGIC

WHEN CHRISTIANS ARE VERY, VERY BAD; APPARENTLY IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT CHRISTIANS…

>>As Christians we are commended to love our enemies – not kill them. Proving my point of view that atrocities in the name of Christ cannot be classified as Christian behaviour.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4203#37695

AND EVEN IF MUSLIMS ARE NOT A THREAT; THEY ARE A THREAT:

>>Even if muslims were all pacifists, docile citizens anywhere they go, Islam will still be a threat to humanity and the free world as we know it..<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4315#37612

JEWS AREN’T SAFE EITHER:

>>This is where Muslims and Jews are stuck: they are still "UNDER THE LAW" - living by the laws - they refused to accept God's redeeming sacrifice in Jesus - therefore they are lost in the wilderness...<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4187#33854

ON FREE SPEECH:

>>So, I am actually for robust tolerance and diversity but my point is we have got to have agreement on the values.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4181#34035

>>The only way you can humanly assimilate in ANY country is to give up your beliefs<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4203#34631

ON EVERYONE ELSE:

>>Your decision to live on a different sphere from God is just the beginning of your descent to Hell.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4211#34440

Thanks Coach – I feel safe now, just knowing you will not feature in my afterlife.

;-)
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy