There's no historical evidence to support that Jesus had a child.

There's also no historical evidence to support that Jesus as we know him existed outside of religious documents.

There were people named Jesus. There were people with similar lifestyles with similar beliefs. But there's no headline in the Roman newspaper saying, "Local Jew turns Water to Wine, more on page XIV"

For once I'm with Finbar almost all the way. However, I do take issue with this:

FinbarReilly
As I said previously, using The Bible as a historical reference isn't the most intelligent idea. Although it makes a great book of lessons, not so much on the history.

Maybe it's not the best thing for pinpoint accuracy of events, but it does reference and record a lot of significant events that happened, it also talks about ancient cultural practices, locations, social relations, political situations, wars, etc. So it is, and has been an excellent historical reference! And even if it isn’t always 100% chronology and such, it still points the way for further research, which is what a good historical reference should do.

-edit- of course it goes without saying that I ignore the supernatural/spiritual content.

FinbarReilly
Although there are events that are historically accurate, to look at The Bible as a historical resource is a problem. The Bible is best looked at a book of allegories on how you should live, not "this is how they lived". If you expect any holy book to be 100% historically accurate, it won't be.

Which is, essentionally, my point.

Others - and you to an extent - think the conspiracies that run contrary to the Bible are ridiculous. But when pushed, you - and others - can't use the Bible as a factual repositior of the official version of how things went down.

The conspiracy theory says the reason you don't know about Jesus' wife and children is because the Church has worked to get rid of any trace of them. Which means essentially that the only "proof" you provide is that there is no proof. This is the environment that breeds conspiracy theories because there is a lack of concrete evidence for any of the assertions that are considered "mainstream."

My thanks to Mr. Neil for backing up my assertion that Dan Brown was making a story based on existing theories.

Now, as for you ozone...

Maybe it's not the best thing for pinpoint accuracy of events, but it does reference and record a lot of significant events that happened.

Like what?

FinbarReilly
If I'm presenting facts, but putting them in fictional form, can I reasonably argue that I'm not supporting the facts in question?

I can only assume you aren't a writer of fiction. Harry Potter doesn't exist, but there are quite a few ideas that are consided facts in Harry Potter world.

But closer to the Dan Brown brand of fiction is the Michael Crichton example. In almost all of his books, he uses some scientific discovery or theory and builds a story around it. Does that mean that he has to believe everything he writes is scientifically rock solid?

I write fiction where mythology is real and gods walk the world. Does that mean I have to believe it's true as well? Or could the point of fiction be to explore the possibilities that might not have occured to others before?

Have you guys forgotten about things like the practice of crucifixion? Feeding people to lions in the circus, historical figures like King Herod, Pontius Pilot, Pharaoh Rameses, Events like the founding of Israel, the exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, wars between the Philistines and the Jews, the Jews and the Canaanites, The Roman occupation etc.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Of course you can use it an a historical reference. As much as you can use anything from that time. It's a good source. It's not a primary source, or even a secondary one, but it's a good tertiary source :-D

By that measure, "Forest Gump" is a valid historical document because it makes correct use of historical events and figures.

Besides which, using the Old Testament to verify the New seems suspect at best...

Back to FinbarReilly...

Unfortunately, there's no evidece of the other either, and there should be.

The early church would not have been able to eliminate some records...

why?

...and those records are remarkably silent.

Silent records? What? Where? Who. Cite some examples where there are solid records that have record of Jesus.

You're basing a case on stuff that you have no proof happened based on the possibility that it could have.

Which is what all major religions using the Bible - or any holy book - do as well.

Once you do that, anything is possible. Better question to ask is: Is there any proof at all that supports the concept?

Or any concept, eh? Good point. My point, by the way.

Or was he presenting them in a more palatable wrapper?

He was presenting the site's statements. You also presented the site's statement. No where does he say every theory is true. He only says the theories used in the stories exist. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.

FinbarReilly
Brown, however, believes that that every theory he has presented actually exists

Now the theories don't exist?

and has actually debated his theories with historians and other scholars.

Debated the theory, debated the possibility? Be specific. Quote if you would. I don't have cable and most of these interviews pass me by.

He really does believe that the Opus Dei is an organization that is protecting the bloodline of Jesus and that Templars do exist. That's someething different...

Then why did he write a book that says Opus Dei is trying to destroy the bloodline of Jesus? Nah, I know that's a typo ... just yanking your chain.

Again though, believes it, knows it or allows for the possibility? There's a huge difference between those stances.

Nothing is scarier than a fiction writer who believes that his world actually exists...

That's an interesting discussion. But I the only evidence I have that Dan Brown believes what he wrote is truth (and not just a theory with merit) is that you believe that's what he belives. No good for me. Try again.

Ronson
By that measure, "Forest Gump" is a valid historical document because it makes correct use of historical events and figures.

Besides which, using the Old Testament to verify the New seems suspect at best...

Of course! In two or three thousand years, if all other records are lost or really inaccessible, then Forrest Gump would indeed become a great historical reference, just like the bible is. It wouldn’t be quite as thorough, but it’d still be bloody useful. ;)
Like Finbar, I don’t make much distinction between the books of the bible in this discussion, I’m really talking about the whole thing.

FinbarReilly
Cute; we've gone from arguing facts to semantics...

Ronson
By that measure, "Forest Gump" is a valid historical document because it makes correct use of historical events and figures.

In the sense that it puts them in context, yes. In that Gump had an effect, no. It's because of Gump's effect that it's not a historical document. Which is why I'm iffy on the concept....

Besides which, using the Old Testament to verify the New seems suspect at best...

This was tried, when?

Either you or ozone (or both, I forget) used alleged historical events in the OT as examples of actual events recorded in the Bible. I think that besides a few names, the NT lacks historical context beyond superficial ones.

The early church would not have been able to eliminate some records...

why?

Because the records would have been beyond the reach of the early church. Roman records and Jewish genealogies, for example.

...and those records are remarkably silent.

Silent records? What? Where? Who. Cite some examples where there are solid records that have record of Jesus.

The best I can do is Josephus. Although there is a good reason for the lack of historical records (Jesus was seen as just a teacher in a far-off hick town), the only real records of Jesus are biblical. However, given that a lot of the New Testament has been proven out, I'm not that worried about it.

How has the New Testament been proven out? That's the crux of the argument here. That conspiracy theories and established Biblical lore are about equally trustworthy. Now you say there are not many documents supporting the Bible, but that you trust it anyway because it's been proven.

But have no documents to base this proof upon.

You're basing a case on stuff that you have no proof happened based on the possibility that it could have.

Which is what all major religions using the Bible - or any holy book - do as well.

So...when a religion does this, it's bad. When someone else does it, it's good. Convenient...

Not at all. When a work of fiction does it and presents itself as a work of fiction, what is the harm? Much less than when a document presents itself as the unerring word of God.

Once you do that, anything is possible. Better question to ask is: Is there any proof at all that supports the concept?

Or any concept, eh? Good point. My point, by the way.

If it makes you feel better...Just ignore that I've been asking that of the whole Da Vinci Code theories throughout this...

Which is what? That you can't prove them? I agree. But the Bible is equally unprovable. They're all just stories.

Or was he presenting them in a more palatable wrapper?

He was presenting the site's statements. You also presented the site's statement. No where does he say every theory is true. He only says the theories used in the stories exist. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.

The site's statements are his. Correct; he doesn't state the theories are true. Rather, that the foundation that supports his theories is. Now, if I say that the Templars exist, that I have proof of their existance, and that I have proof that Templars are having an effect on today's world, then can you conclude that I believe that there are modern-day Templars having an effect on today's world?

On the theories: Dan Brown apparently believes them. There were a number of shows on Discovery leading up to the movie's release where Brown defended the theories in the Da Vinci Code, even as historians shot them down.

Also, using characters in a story to apparently debate the argument is ann old-fashioned way to show how correct your argument is, allowing you to shore up your point, while tearing another's down.

When did Dan Brown claim to have proof the Templars existed?

I've seen a few of those Discovery Channel and/or History Channel specials looking at the validity of the Da Vinci code.

And the main point they always came back to was that there actual were theories like those Brown used, and there were secrets kept by the church that, if looked at from some point of views, could be seen as evidence that the church was trying to keep facts about Jesus' life secret (though most of them were just unlawful edits or simply bad translations).

There have been figures in history who tried to control people by claiming to share a bloodline with Christ (the Merovingian family from France). Of course, they couldn't out and out say, "Hey, we're descended from Christ!" because people would look at them the same way we do whenever we see someone shouting, "I'm Jesus! Look at me fly! ... wait, wait, lemme try again. Seriously, I totally did it one time."

There have been groups who modelled themselves after the Templars and kept bad records, so when relics of their group was found it appeared as though the Templars continued to exist after their break-up.

It's all based on real information; just real information that, under inspection, proved less than accurate. The same could be said of the bible; you can find a lot of parallels between what is described in the bible and what really happened, but under scientific scrutiny you'll find that the bible often romantacizes, gets dates and times wrong, or just outright lies.

Ahem, apologies, but it seems the Merovingians were "Christulated" after the fact. Not sure why they, specifically, were chosen to be the rumored descendants of Christ, though...

Ronson
Which is what? That you can't prove them? I agree. But the Bible is equally unprovable. They're all just stories.

This is where I diverge quite sharply from you Ronson, and side with Finbar. I don’t know where you get this “new Testament/Old Testament” thing from either… It’s all part of the same thing as far as I’m concerned. The books of the Bible are just not in any way equivalent to a popular “airport novel” written just a couple of years ago. The idea is silly, almost offensive in some ways. I’m not arguing this from a religious standpoint, but from a cultural one. Making these documents directly equivalent in value is akin to doing the same thing with the Parthenon and the site of a partially demolished gas station: Yep, they were both once buildings, but one is older, can tell us a lot more about ourselves, has had a lot more influence on history and our culture, and will be remembered for a good long while to come.
There’s a lot more to the books of the bible than simple stories.

As to the value and validity of Brown’s novel, I don’t really care. It’s an ephemeral product of pop culture, it’ll be forgotten soon enough, it won’t change history either. Brown will go on to make a good amount of money out of it yet though.
I’m with Finbar here on defending the value of the books of the bible, but not with him on attacking Brown or his novel, I just don’t care enough about it.

deja vu!

Mr. Neil
I think the best anology that could be drawn to this is Forrest Gump. There's a lot of real stuff in Forrest Gump. Real events. Real people. But the story, the plot, which is about Forrest Gump, is entirely fiction, because Forrest Gump doesn't exist.

*cough*

Ronson
By that measure, "Forest Gump" is a valid historical document because it makes correct use of historical events and figures...

:wink:

.: SpANG! :.

Here's how I see it.

Brown holds certain beliefs, but he knows they aren't too strong. I think we've all been in a situation like that before (where we, perhaps, want to believe something, despite the evidence). I can't say how strongly he believes in what he writes about, but I get the impression that he considers it a strong possiblity, but is reserved about calling it the "truth." His conviction about his work is probably the same as our conviction about whether or not we actually know what he was thinking when wrote it.

So, in order to make his views known without just saying, "this is the way it is" he used a story based on them. He based it on actual facts, but he recognizes that a good portion of it is fictional. He wanted to stir conversation and debate which, as this thread shows, he did.

I think that's all been established at one point or another in this thread already.

Now, the thing about it is, he didn't write a historical document, because he couldn't get away with that. I doubt he would even want to. He touts the "based on true events" aspect of his story, because that sells it. Any idiot can make up crap about Jesus, but there's a sense of danger and intrigue in something that "uncovers the hidden truth!"

So, yes, Dan Brown is just trying to make some money and is causing unnecessary grief to move a few books by getting the kind of people who get their history from a mystery novel to know the wrong thing and occasionally argue with glergymen. And you know what? Big deal. He's an author, this is his job. A few ignorant punks are going to get things wrong, but it's not like they were going to read the bible in the first place, so who cares? At least he's put some research into his work, and he's not saying that his book is 100% accurate and the bible is a load of crap.

I think people are giving the whole thing too much credit by nitpicking all this crap about it. If people had seen it, said, "well, it's a fictional story," it would have been forgotten by now.

Well, it's been a fun discussion. We've learned a lot about eachother's biases and beliefs.

One thing, I didn't mean to imply that the Bible hasn't taken a larger part in shaping history than books like "The DaVinci Code". The Bible has caused an awful lot of good and bad things for centuries and I am sure it will continue to do so for as long as people think of it as more than a collection of stories.

The teachings of Jesus as they are represented in the stories of the Bible would (for the most part) be a wonderful thing for everyone to attempt to comprehend and embrace (turning the other cheek, serving the community, giving instead of taking, and tolerance for all people).

Unfortunately, people seem to get caught up in the mysticism and choose to treat everything as a team sport where beating up on other religions (and non-religions) is just part of the game.

My position on the topic:
It's just a book. Just one little piece of fiction from one man's mind, and is not to be take seriously in any way, shape, or form. And people really ought to get over it.

[]

As far as I'm concerned, the Da Vinci Code is a fictional story. It made me think, and a lot of it makes sense to me, but by no means would I claim that it's The Absolute Truth.

It makes you think, outside of the neat package that's typically presented to us as children about what the Christian faith is. It may not be true, but at the very least, it gives some dignity back to women, which the Bible, for the most part, takes away. About the only positive female rolemodel that even stands out(at least to the uneducated) is the Virgin Mary. Not even Eve, the purported mother of all, ended on a positive note; she was blamed for the sin of mankind.

It's not a horrible slander to Christianity. The most it is, is a comment on how the CHURCH might act. I'm not a Bible Scholar, so please don't jump on me if I have this wrong, but didn't Jesus say that God is wherever there is a group of people worshipping him, that there needn't be a church? The church is a symbol, yes, just as is the Bible and the Cross. Attack it, and you DO attack some of the core beliefs for a lot of people; I understand why people are upset.

I admit it; I see the Bible as Fiction. It's a collection of stories intended to teach, mostly morals and ethics. This might offend people, I know, and that's not my intention. It's just my opinion, and I know that I could very well be wrong. If I am, I'll be going to Hell, and you'll never have to deal with me again. *wink*

Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, no matter WHAT Dan Brown might or might not claim.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction even if the hypochristians all want to throw a fit over it. I say fuck them!