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.

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'.

thanks Realist

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

Bill Muehlenberg

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)

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.

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!