Jim Lewandowski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > In all these discussions it seems to be you
> that
> > doesn't care about truth. If those who have
> > dedicated their lives to truth are so busy
> > covering it up, and you are not, why is it
> that
> > you espouse ideas that are well known to be
> modern
> > inventions.
>
> ***
> What ideas have I espoused that aren't true?
>
That Jesus had a wife, for a start. Do you know what real historians who know that period of history think about that idea using primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of evidence ? What they see is a man who defied conventions of what a religious man should be. He had close friends that were women - quite possibly his closest had a history in prostitution. He welcomed them to such an extent that his disciples found it uncomfortable. "What will people say" and all that. Now in our tabloid society we rekon that these sometimes far distant accounts of the disciples concerns to suggest, well the appropriate way to express the root though, "he must have been shagging her".
Although I personally would not have a fundamental problem if Jesus had had sex with Mary Magdalene - the idea is simply not credible. You have to spend some time trying to understand the society of the time. His disciples would not have ended up willingly going to cruel deaths just for their refusal to reject someone as god, if he defiled their very understanding of honesty, truth, and belief.
> ***
> It's obvious not all of Brown's novel is
> "factual". I don't understand the point to the
> above post contents.
>
>
What is your point then ? If you realise the book is all complete fiction, then say so, stop moaning, and admit that Dan Brown is disingenous in what he claims, and in how has intended the book to be taken. If you think there are elements of truth in it, then stop saying "but its fiction" like a moron, and say what you consider to be true in it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jesus was not
> > > > married to Mary Madgalen
> > > > they did not have a child
> > >
> > > ***
> > > If the story of Jesus mixed a mythical
> > character
> > > (Mithra) with a real one, it is at
> least
> > > possible.
> >
> >
> > Yeah and if my cat is really the commander of
> this
> > octant of the galaxy, its possible she
> inspired
> > the ancient egyptian civilisation.
>
> ***
> So, you're saying Mithra and Christ have no
> similarities?
No
> And, you're also saying there's no
> circumstantial evidence to these similarities
> (additional)?
You are projecting things. I'm restricted in being able to reply to you because of how the board rules here make my opinions into "personal beliefs". However, this person Jesus claimed to be the word through which the universe was created, not just the earth but the whole universe. You can say all spiritual insights are fantasy nonsense. Or you can say that some are, but there are also a few that have various levels of clarity in an indirect sight of something larger than they can conceive. Which do you subscibe to ?
> And, you're also saying there was
> never a such a thing as competition between
> religions?
>
Yeah read those words into my mouth if you like.
> > > What about regular (non-albino) monks?
> What
> > about
> > > non-monks? While there is no proof, it
> > strikes me
> > > as quite possible (probable) based on
> the
> > past
> > > acts of said institution that things
> like
> > this
> > > occurred.
> >
> >
> > How about you learn some real history -
> instead of
> > spouting out if ... maybe ... then ...
> possibly
> > kind of things that the historians you
> criticise
> > for finding Dan Brown disingenuous know far
> better
> > than you.
>
> ***
> Who's criticizing historians? I'm not following
> at all.
>
Oh yeah historians really do think there are albino and non-albino monks going around assasinating people. Get real. Have you ever spoken to monks ? Be careful of the nuns if you do. They usually have AK47's under their habbits and may well 'waste' you if you offend them....
> > > ***
> > > Is that what Brown specifically says?
> Or
> > > implies?
> >
> > Get to the point Jim. The fact is Dan Brown
> > leaves many of his readers thinking that's
> what
> > Opus Dei is all about.
>
> ***
> So, he alone has the POWER to make people think
> what he wants them to? Certainly, freedom of
> speech in the U.S. (excluding libel, slander, and
> avenue) has gone TOO far.
>
They said similar things in Weimar germany...
>
>
> Every good historical
> > novel I have read has a section (usually at
> the
> > end) which makes an honest attempt to
> seperate the
> > fact from the fiction. And they usually even
> say
> > something about all errors being their own
> fault
> > rather than the real historians that advised
> them.
> > Dan Brown does none of that. Its difficult
> to
> > see any honest, dilligent or sincere
> intention on
> > his part whatsoever.
>
> ***
> We differ in opinion on this. I believe his
> illustrated edition would clarify this.
>
You are indeed a joke.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > We might throw
> > > > in the *fact* that Opus
> > > > Dei is a lay organization which has
> no
> > > monks.
> > >
> > > ***
> > > I thought it was a work of fiction?
> > >
> >
> > It is - completely. And yet you are
> suggesting
> > that aspects of it are true. What is all
> that
> > about ?
>
> ***
> DaVinci seems to have been a real person.
Ahh - well said Jim. No one here realised that.
> The
> Louvre seems to be a real museum. The character
> of Jesus was written about. Ditto Mary M. OPus
> Dei exists. Things like that.
>
Jokes are supposed to be humerous, aren't they ?