Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 ?

***
Jesus the divine vs. Jesus the POSSIBLE historical person are two different things. IOW, I'm not saying the Jesus character (real flesh and blood) had a wife or not or went to france or not.


> What they see is a man who defied conventions of
> what a religious man should be.

***
You'd have to separate the Jesus biblical character from the possible Jesus historical character for me to follow.


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.

***
It's a moot issue to me.


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 SAYS they did so. That doesn't mean it's so. But, after viewing Dr. Bart Ehrmans (Chapel Hill, NC) series The Birth of Christianity to Constantine, he even plainly states that the gospels disagree with each other.


>
> > ***
> > 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.

***
Intent occurs BETWEEN ONE'S EARS. I may have the intent to read a book and attribute to it things NOT INTENDED by the author. That's MY problem.


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.

***
Only those things that can be independently verified by people who would have nothing to lose one way or the other can be considered "factual".


>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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

***
Wow. I can't say that.


>
> > 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 ?

***
I prefer the Gnostic take (IIRC, they never whacked anyone who didn't believe as they did).


>
> > 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.

***
I'm not trying to. I'm saying religious competition seems to have been a big thing for our past ancestors and our CURRENT fellow humans.

>
>
> > > > 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....

***
I'm not following (again). Who said historians say albino monks are killing people?


>
>
>
> > > > ***
> > > > 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...

***
And since there WERE people who DISAGREED with Hitler, that implies that Hitler did not have ABSOLUTE power. Are you saying it is your job to step in to help people who believe X when you don't think they "should"?


>
>
> >
> >
> > 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.

***
IIRC, the illustrated edition had a b/w photo of Isis/Horus to show it mimicked as close as is reasonably possible, the iconic image of Mary and baby Jesus. That's a fact, Jack.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 ?

***
The joke is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't mean to upset you in any way, but you can be if you choose so.

JL

>
> ----
>
>
> Simon
>
> InternalSpace