Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 05-11-2006, 04:47 PM

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bl...try_id=1477578

I've collected a few choice pics here. If anyone has more to suggest I'd appreciate it. I'd like to find some with Jesus holding the "celestial sphere" or with the zodiac.

Quote:

With the coming of The Da Vinci Code to the big screen many Christian organizations, especially Catholic ones, are heavily criticizing the story. To be sure The Da Vinci Code is full of factual errors and presents a very twisted distortion of history. The Catholic Church is upset with The Da Vinci Code because it humanizes Jesus and presents him has a "real person", claiming that the story undermines Jesus' divinity, but the real irony is that The Da Vinci Code presents Jesus as more real than he really was...

RUmike · 05-11-2006, 04:52 PM

I lost all potential respect for Dan Brown when I heard that in the Da Vinci Code, a character suggests that Q was written by Jesus himself. :rolling:

But regarding your quote, I think it's more fair to say that the church is upset that it presents Jesus only as a real person and explicitly nothing else (i.e. divine).

Autonemesis · 05-11-2006, 04:53 PM

Wow. Thomas Paine called Christianity the "amphibious fraud."

Quote:

The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
- The Age of Reason; Thomas Paine, 1794

What a great quote.

Amaleq13 · 05-11-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

But regarding your quote, I think it's more fair to say that the church is upset that it presents Jesus only as a real person and explicitly nothing else (i.e. divine).

IMO, specifically because he is presented as a real person who had sex.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-11-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

I lost all potential respect for Dan Brown when I heard that in the Da Vinci Code, a character suggests that Q was written by Jesus himself. :rolling:

I read the book and I don't remember that (I'm pretty sure I would have noticed).

Most of the stuff about Jesus comes from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it presents some pretty silly ideas but I don't remember either book mentioning Q at all. It's been a while since I read TDVC and probably ten tears since I read HBHG but I'm just about positive there's nothing in either about Jesus writing Q. Are you sure you were reliably informed?

Malachi151 · 05-12-2006, 05:34 AM

I've updated this. I made a couple of corrections (I had incorrected stated Isis and Osirus, when it should have been Isis and Horus).

I added some better pictures too.

RUmike · 05-12-2006, 08:22 AM

Hey Diogenes,

I read an excerpt about this in Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" when I was flipping through it once at a book store.

I just did a quick search through the book via Amazon (love that feature). Here is the relevant passage, with Teabing speaking to Sophie:

"Also rumored to be part of the treasure is the legendary 'Q' Document--a manuscrpt that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in His own hand."
"Writings by Christ Himself?"
"Of course," Teabing said. "Why wouldn't Jesus have kept a chronicle of His ministry? Most people did in those days." (p. 256 of TDVC)
p. 99, Ehrman

Ehrman then goes on to say how ridiculous the claim is, since most people did NOT keep records of their ministries since most people couldn't even write, and that Q is a hypothetical document, and certainly not written by Jesus himself.

So Brown doesn't have Teabing claim Q was definitively written by Jesus, but it is strongly suggested. And most reading the book would probably forget the word "possibly" in Teabing's statement and come away from the book with the idea that Jesus did in fact write a document.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-12-2006, 11:39 AM

Thanks, RUmike. I guess I just didn't remember that part but I do recall rolling my eyes and skimming a lot during Teabing's little monologue. I might have just missed it. Ehrman is right that it's ridiculous. I winder if Brown even knows that Q is in Greek.

Llyricist · 05-12-2006, 12:10 PM

Come on guys! It's one thing to nitpic the errors of fact in the book (hell I love doin that with action/adventure novels), but to lose all respect for a novellist because he used some poetic license to spice up the story... in an action/adventure novel? A work of fiction that is supposed to be spiced up? come on....

Now, I just got finished listening to an audio book called "The Templar Legacy" a book on a sort of similar vein, and the autor had an epilogue where he did is best to point out what was true and what was made up at the end. IF Dan Brown did the same, and IF you find the "Jesus may have written Q", listed under "fact" then you can lose all respect ok?

Once again, it's one thing to nitpic the "facts" in the story, another to lose all respect for a novellist...because he wrote a novel that had errors of fact. ETA: iow he wrote a novel that contained *gasp* fiction.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-12-2006, 12:22 PM

I'm aware that it's fiction and I'm not even really bothered by the fringe theories, the pseudo-scholarship and the misrepresentations of fact. In fact, I give Brown some credit for finding a way to novelize someone else's crackpot theory and get rich from it. I just wish he was a better writer. The actual writing in that book is attrocious.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2006, 04:52 PM	#2
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	I lost all potential respect for Dan Brown when I heard that in the Da Vinci Code, a character suggests that Q was written by Jesus himself. :rolling: But regarding your quote, I think it's more fair to say that the church is upset that it presents Jesus only as a real person and explicitly nothing else (i.e. divine).

05-12-2006, 05:34 AM	#6
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I've updated this. I made a couple of corrections (I had incorrected stated Isis and Osirus, when it should have been Isis and Horus). I added some better pictures too.

05-12-2006, 08:22 AM	#7
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Hey Diogenes, I read an excerpt about this in Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" when I was flipping through it once at a book store. I just did a quick search through the book via Amazon (love that feature). Here is the relevant passage, with Teabing speaking to Sophie: "Also rumored to be part of the treasure is the legendary 'Q' Document--a manuscrpt that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in His own hand." "Writings by Christ Himself?" "Of course," Teabing said. "Why wouldn't Jesus have kept a chronicle of His ministry? Most people did in those days." (p. 256 of TDVC) p. 99, Ehrman Ehrman then goes on to say how ridiculous the claim is, since most people did NOT keep records of their ministries since most people couldn't even write, and that Q is a hypothetical document, and certainly not written by Jesus himself. So Brown doesn't have Teabing claim Q was definitively written by Jesus, but it is strongly suggested. And most reading the book would probably forget the word "possibly" in Teabing's statement and come away from the book with the idea that Jesus did in fact write a document.

05-12-2006, 11:39 AM	#8
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Thanks, RUmike. I guess I just didn't remember that part but I do recall rolling my eyes and skimming a lot during Teabing's little monologue. I might have just missed it. Ehrman is right that it's ridiculous. I winder if Brown even knows that Q is in Greek.

05-12-2006, 12:10 PM	#9
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Come on guys! It's one thing to nitpic the errors of fact in the book (hell I love doin that with action/adventure novels), but to lose all respect for a novellist because he used some poetic license to spice up the story... in an action/adventure novel? A work of fiction that is supposed to be spiced up? come on.... Now, I just got finished listening to an audio book called "The Templar Legacy" a book on a sort of similar vein, and the autor had an epilogue where he did is best to point out what was true and what was made up at the end. IF Dan Brown did the same, and IF you find the "Jesus may have written Q", listed under "fact" then you can lose all respect ok? Once again, it's one thing to nitpic the "facts" in the story, another to lose all respect for a novellist...because he wrote a novel that had errors of fact. ETA: iow he wrote a novel that contained gasp fiction.

05-12-2006, 12:22 PM	#10
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I'm aware that it's fiction and I'm not even really bothered by the fringe theories, the pseudo-scholarship and the misrepresentations of fact. In fact, I give Brown some credit for finding a way to novelize someone else's crackpot theory and get rich from it. I just wish he was a better writer. The actual writing in that book is attrocious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.