Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-04-2003, 12:02 AM

Well, I watched the show, and it was a lot tamer than the NY Times article indicated it would be. Brown was clearly identified as a novelist and not as a historian. Most of his ideas were rejected as fanciful or unproven. Everyone agreed that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, and the church's rejection of sexuality was somewhat regrettable.

ABC News story

Slate on the program: Mrs. God

Soul Invictus · 11-04-2003, 06:04 AM

I caught a good portion of it, and I thought it was a pretty okay piece. I can't say I was exposed to a lot of new info. I've read and own the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and company, so I knew they were going the Priory of Sion and Merovigian bloodline route. Anyone familiar with this work? I must admit they purport a lot of their thesis on hypotheticals. It read like some sort of fictional book a bit.What was your take on it, for those who saw it? I have been trying to get the Da Vinci Code from the library for the longest. I don't think it's going to be a 'keeper' for me, so I can wait until the queue subsides. Anyone read this book, also?

Toto · 11-04-2003, 11:43 AM

I merged Soul Invictus' post into this thread.

There was a good article on the accuracy of the book - "Does 'The Da Vinci Code' Crack Leonardo?" by BRUCE BOUCHER New York Times Sunday August 3, 2003. It has been archived and is no longer available for free, but if you google the title you will find it posted on a yahoogroup thread.

Boucher finds "more sangria than sangreal" in Brown's interpretation of The Last Supper, and disputes the idea that there is a feminine figure in the painting.

I found this of interest on Brown's own website:

Quote:

THIS NOVEL UNEARTHS SOME SURPRISING CHRISTIAN HISTORY. ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

I am, although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word. If you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as immutable historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious-that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

which is a good marketing stance.

Marduk · 11-04-2003, 04:57 PM

�I've read and own the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and company, so I knew they were going the Priory of Sion and Merovigian bloodline route. Anyone familiar with this work?�

I read Lawrence Gardener�s version of the same stuff, all based on myth so it�s hard to take as anything resembling �proof� but if there was a historical basis to the Jesus figure he was a Jewish preacher and would have most certainly been married. All Jewish males over 20 had to be married, it was one of the duties of their fathers to get them a wife. The disciples were married. I don�t think it is a big deal. Even the Priest on the show didn�t seem to think of it as a problem.

Toto · 11-04-2003, 06:12 PM

That priest is probably left over from the era of John XXIII and secretly supports married clergy and women priests. Isn't Jesus' celibacy part of the reason priests have to be celibate in Roman Catholocism?

It appears that the Catholic Church is getting upset about this book.

Experts dismiss theories in popular book

Quote:

A growing chorus of critics, particularly in the Roman Catholic community, is taking aim at the Code and its author, Dan Brown. They say that Brown presents half-baked, discredited theories and plots about church history as revelations, all the while hiding behind the literary freedom given a novelist.

"In making phony claims of scholarship, Brown's book infects readers with a virulent hostility toward Catholicism," read a recent feature in the conservative Catholic magazine, Crisis.

Joseph De Feo, policy analyst for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, insists that Brown has taken advantage of the church's sex-abuse scandal to sell 3.5 million copies

Rick Sumner · 11-04-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
Anyone familiar with this work? I must admit they purport a lot of their thesis on hypotheticals. It read like some sort of fictional book a bit. What was your take on it?

It was more fanciful than The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, but not as fanciful as The Messianic Legacy. Historical fiction is probably a good description for all of their work.

Regards,
Rick

Kosh · 11-04-2003, 07:54 PM

I completely missed it. But the Bronco's game turned out to be a nail biter. Damn, can we take any more injuries? And who's idea was it to ignore clock management in favor of letting the 3rd string quarter back attempt passes? That cost us the game.

Oh yeah. Jesus and marriage. I'll bet he made better passes at Mary than Kinell!

Monkeybot · 11-04-2003, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Javaman
The very devout woman in my office keeps telling me I have to read it. She knows my tastes and my lack of beliefs and is cool with them. I'm not sure how to read her in regards this book. Does she want me to read it 'cause I'll like it or is there some attempt to get me to see the light? I gave our office pagan a copy of "Towing Jehova" and he passed it on to her. Maybe this is a way to get back at me?

Thanks for the info... I hadn't made up my mind on whether to devote time to it or not. I'm still not sure.

If you're referring to Dan Brown's books, I read Angels and Demons (the prequel to The da Vinci Code) and really enjoyed it. Obviously, I took most of the assertoins about the Illuminati, etc., with a HUGE chunk of salt... but overall it was a fun, quick read.

As an atheist, I didn't have too many problems with the ending of the book... oddly, I feel I could have read the book while I was still Catholic and enjoyed it equally well. Brown really straddles a fine line between science and religion and he manages to do it without mollycoddling either side, IMHO.

I haven't read the da Vinci Code yet, but I hear it's almost exactly the same formula plotwise.

rlogan · 11-04-2003, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
That priest is probably left over from the era of John XXIII and secretly supports married clergy and women priests. Isn't Jesus' celibacy part of the reason priests have to be celibate in Roman Catholocism?

One of the reasons, and there were more than one, was to prevent inheritance and guarantee accumulation of Church property.

Toto · 11-06-2003, 10:59 AM

Okay, here's an example of what I find so annoying about the book.

Sophie is the heroine - a French cryptoanalyst who drives a stick shift through Paris. Teabing is a fabulously wealthy British scholar living in Paris.

Quote:

"But what good is a documented geneology of Christ's bloodline?" Sophie asked. "It's not proof. Historians could not possibly confirm its authenticity."

Teabing chuckled. "No more that they can confirm the authenticity of the Bible."

"Meaning?"

"Meaning that history is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books -- books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napolean once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?'" He smiled. "By its very nature, history is always a one-sided account."

Sophie had never thought of it that way.

An educated Frenchwoman who has never heard that old bromide from one of her nation's rulers? Come on.

But it gets better.

Quote:

"The Sangreal documents simply tell the other side of the Christ story. In the end, which side of the story you believe becomes a matter of faith and personal exploration, but at least the information has survived. The Sangreal documents include tens of thousands of pages of information. Eyewitness accounts of the Sangreal treasure describe it as being carried in four enormous trunks. In those trunks are reputed to the the Purist Documents -- thousands of pages of unaltered, pre-Constantine documents, written by the early followers of Jesus, revering him as a wholly human teacher and prophet. Also rumored to be part of the treasure is the legendary 'Q' document -- a manuscript that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly, it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in his own hand."

Well, I guess I will have to finish this book to find out how what happened to Q, which even the Vatican admits exists.

11-04-2003, 06:04 AM	#12
Soul Invictus Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 15,576	ABC's Special on Jesus I caught a good portion of it, and I thought it was a pretty okay piece. I can't say I was exposed to a lot of new info. I've read and own the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and company, so I knew they were going the Priory of Sion and Merovigian bloodline route. Anyone familiar with this work? I must admit they purport a lot of their thesis on hypotheticals. It read like some sort of fictional book a bit.What was your take on it, for those who saw it? I have been trying to get the Da Vinci Code from the library for the longest. I don't think it's going to be a 'keeper' for me, so I can wait until the queue subsides. Anyone read this book, also?

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

11-04-2003, 12:02 AM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Well, I watched the show, and it was a lot tamer than the NY Times article indicated it would be. Brown was clearly identified as a novelist and not as a historian. Most of his ideas were rejected as fanciful or unproven. Everyone agreed that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, and the church's rejection of sexuality was somewhat regrettable. ABC News story Slate on the program: Mrs. God

11-04-2003, 04:57 PM	#14
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	�I've read and own the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and company, so I knew they were going the Priory of Sion and Merovigian bloodline route. Anyone familiar with this work?� I read Lawrence Gardener�s version of the same stuff, all based on myth so it�s hard to take as anything resembling �proof� but if there was a historical basis to the Jesus figure he was a Jewish preacher and would have most certainly been married. All Jewish males over 20 had to be married, it was one of the duties of their fathers to get them a wife. The disciples were married. I don�t think it is a big deal. Even the Priest on the show didn�t seem to think of it as a problem.

11-04-2003, 07:54 PM	#17
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	I completely missed it. But the Bronco's game turned out to be a nail biter. Damn, can we take any more injuries? And who's idea was it to ignore clock management in favor of letting the 3rd string quarter back attempt passes? That cost us the game. Oh yeah. Jesus and marriage. I'll bet he made better passes at Mary than Kinell!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.