Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 05-14-2006, 12:55 PM

Here is a followup post from my blog:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bl...try_id=1479142

Quote:

With all of the fallacies in The Da Vinci Code it gives priests, preachers, and fundamentalists the perfect opportunity to convince people of even more fallacies. Many of the things that Dan Brown presents as "true" in his work of "historical fiction" are in fact false, gross misstatements, or products of proven mistakes or misrepresentations, and this provides an easy target for Christians to fight against.

I have already been able to see many historical fallacies being promoted by Christians in opposition to The Da Vinci Code. Here is an analysis of some of the "best":

See link for the rest.

Quote:

Rather silly really.

Does anyone actually believe the Book or movie? Like the Gospel of Judas or Thomas, Christian reagrd this as hersey but some may count this toward the existence of the Historical Jesus.

Oh well, millions and millions are discussing the Bible and Jesus!

Yes, millions of people are discussing the Bible and Jesus right now because of this book, if we atheists and critics of Christian history don't get into the discussion then our viewpoints will be completely left out!!!

Magdlyn · 05-14-2006, 02:59 PM

malachi, from your blog:

Quote:

Constantine, who converted to Christianity and ended Rome’s persecution of Christians, convened the Council of Nicea in 325...

When I browsed Ehrman's book on this subject: Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, he made the same claim and I had to gently return the book to the shelf.

Constantine did not convert to Christianity. He claimed he had a vision of the chi ro, legalized fledgling Xtianity, and demanded it be codified and consolidated. He may have added Jesus (whatever he thought Jesus was) into his pantheon of gods, but he continued to be a devotee of Sol Invictus as hs prime diety, having coins made with images of himself and this god after his so-called conversion. He also was not baptised til he was on his death bed. He also had family members murdered. He ordered Christians to worship on Sol's Day.

He had no interest in Xtianty from a theological or pious viewpoint but only as a political tool. To call this a conversion is inaccurate.

Malachi151 · 05-14-2006, 03:03 PM

Yes, Magdlyn I pointed out the same info in my post.

Thanks

Magdlyn · 05-14-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Yes, Magdlyn I pointed out the same info in my post.

Thanks

Oh, I am terribly sorry! I just read further and saw you clear that up.

Forgive me!

Magdlyn · 05-14-2006, 03:49 PM

Finished reading it. I've been ill with a stomach virus for a week and am kinda not all there.

Why do you have topics 1, 3, 5, and 8? Where are the others? I might just be missing something else.

This:

Quote:

What examples are there of the church "liberating women"? By making them cover their heads and bodies and become nuns?

To be fair, becoming a solitary might have been a position of more ease and freedom than the alternative in Christendom.

Amaleq13 · 05-14-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChandraRama

poor guy.. he had to wait for 6000 yrs..

That's only six days to God.

Vox Veritas · 05-14-2006, 10:16 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:

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).

It is worse than you could ever know, and really the simple lies of a simple fool:

What did the early Christians really think about Jesus?

We have abundant evidence about what early Christians thought about Jesus from the Early Church Fathers. These are writings from the first 400 years of Christianity that were not accepted as scripture, but still honored as reflecting the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. Phillip Schaff edited the definitive 10 volume set of the Fathers that predate the Council of Nicea (remember, this Council is where Brown says Constantine “invented” Christianity as we know it). Naturally, it makes sense to explore these documents to see what the early church really thought about Jesus. Listed below is but a sampling of this early treasure trove of history and theology. All the below quotations are from the CD Rom version available through AGES Software.

http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ru...e_3.24.04.html

Malachi151 · 05-15-2006, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vox Veritas

It is worse than you could ever know, and really the simple lies of a simple fool:

What did the early Christians really think about Jesus?

We have abundant evidence about what early Christians thought about Jesus from the Early Church Fathers. These are writings from the first 400 years of Christianity that were not accepted as scripture, but still honored as reflecting the tradition of Jesus and the Apostles. Phillip Schaff edited the definitive 10 volume set of the Fathers that predate the Council of Nicea (remember, this Council is where Brown says Constantine “invented” Christianity as we know it). Naturally, it makes sense to explore these documents to see what the early church really thought about Jesus. Listed below is but a sampling of this early treasure trove of history and theology. All the below quotations are from the CD Rom version available through AGES Software.

http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ru...e_3.24.04.html

These types of works are good, but not enough, because these are works that have been selected by later Christians as representative, but there ere also other works that were later rejected, which nevertheless also represent what people thought about Jesus at the time.

What Dan Brown says is, of course, completely rediculous.

striderlives · 05-15-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

I understand your point, but I also understand that Brown has claimed that his book is essentially fact told through fiction. The sheer number of errors and falsehoods in his book either points to the fact that Brown was lying when he made that claim, or he is deluded.

And my rhetorical follow up is :

Which has more errors - TDVC, or the Bible?
:devil:

RUmike · 05-15-2006, 04:42 PM

Naturally the Bible. But Brown's error are much less forgiving. He is writing in an age that has an infinite number of resources to check facts and do research with. He couldn't even get basic information right, such as what language a particular ancient text was written in, or the decade the DSS were discovered.

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

05-14-2006, 03:03 PM	#23
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Yes, Magdlyn I pointed out the same info in my post. Thanks

05-15-2006, 04:42 PM	#30
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Naturally the Bible. But Brown's error are much less forgiving. He is writing in an age that has an infinite number of resources to check facts and do research with. He couldn't even get basic information right, such as what language a particular ancient text was written in, or the decade the DSS were discovered.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.