Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code

[Gwynhuever]

I should have read all the posts!

But, hey! I just want to know. If ever there was a supposed origin to that quote, I want to know. I may be in an occasion where such phrase is pulled 'out of the box'.

Apologetics is not merely talking about your own take on things. It is also knowing where your 'enemies' are coming from and pulling their arguments from.

dacs...according sa akong pag basa2...baseless jud ni nga quote...ang mga supposedly reference materials...wala ni support ani....this is just a famous one used in the past with templar arguments....unsaon si leo x ...colorful man sad kaayo ug lifestyle...so believable nga makasulti siya ani...pero personally wala ko kakita ug evidence/proof nga tinuod ni

[yeah111]

Wow really nice intellectual arguements In the end we will all end up believeing what we want.

[dacs]

I may not be there but history will outright tell us that the crimes of the church were made to protect the credibility of the church. The Witch Hunts, the Bonfire of the Vanities, the trials of the intellectuals, and the such. But we could never deny, the church has power and they used that power pretty well to the end. They kill in the name of God (and it became excusable), they destroyed great pieces of art (because of decency), they force people to lie about their own findings (because of credibility). All these, and more, could be easily be forgotten because "they were innocent then".

They kill in the name of God (and it became excusable) --- cite your proofs please.
they destroyed great pieces of art (because of decency) --- cite your proofs please.
they force people to lie about their own findings (because of credibility) --- cite your proofs please.

Thank you.

WIth regard to the phrase by Clement of Alexandria, it was sourced out from his letter with regards to the secret Gospel of Mark wherein he was implying that certain texts in the Secret Gospel of Mark should never be released and the gossip of it's existence should be killed by saying it is merely a heresy and does not really exist. In that perticular letter, Clement of Alexandria even qoute the texts that could be found in the Secret Mark and does not exist in the Gospel of Mark.

What was the title of this letter and when was this written?

This letter is the only proof in history that a Secret Mark exist because, as we all know, the Church destroyed all other gospels they did not include in the Bible such as the Gospel of Judas and other gnostic gospels.

I didn't know that and I read Church history. Where are you getting all these? Did you check their sources? Sounds to me like you are taking it all - hook, line and sinker.

Try reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail for starters (if you dare). However, the church dismissed it as lies. Funny though because when the Henry Lincoln asked the church which in the book did the church considers as a lie, the church offers no answer.

It is quite probable you simply have not found the answer offered. In fact, there is no need for the Church to offer an answer because the secular world already debunk the claims of the book. Though I do not agree with some of the ideas put forth by some of the authors, I believe you could read a good presentation of the Church side of the argument:

http://www.equip.org/free/DH028.pdf
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOdavincicode.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1552009.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=84645
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=84590
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planete...inci-part1.htm
http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetE...part2-Full.htm
http://www.historyvsthedavincicode.com/chapters.html

I have purposedly included links to debunking the Da Vinci Code because the 'blood' of these two novels flows on the same vein.

Read the Jesus Dynasty as well wherein they try to identify the real father of Jesus. Then use your better judgement. Other sources are the Messianic Legacy and The Gospel of Judas. Compare history, search for "psychology at that time" if it is what the church claim it is.

No wonder you are into 'this thing'. You have saturated yourself with such dubious literature.

Check on specific events such as the Witch Hunts. I mean, try to read what was going on at that time. Try to feel the pains of the people accused of doing things they do not do. The origin of the Gospels and other gnostic gospels that survived the Church's burning. They should tell you something.

Read the review below by Branislav L. Slantchev on Holy Blood, Holy Grail (pay special attention to the second to the last paragraph):

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books...oly-grail.html

-------------



I hope you do find what you need to look for.

Shalom.

[IceInHeLL]

A lot has been said on this topic and I think it will just go round and round. I myself still has a lot of things to say and I'm sure others do so too. Therefore, I think it is time that one has to make his/her final rebutal. Mine will be available after the midterm exam and the reporting I have to do in school.

I don't know yet if it will be made available in one post or will it be given in installment phases since I think it will encompass a lot of things primarily...

a. The authenticity of the Bible
b. The Divinity of Jesus
c. The Church and it's History (which of course includes The_Child's favorite line - "the psychology at that time")

But for now...I still have to check some (if not all) suggested readings.

To dacs:

Qoute:They kill in the name of God (and it became excusable) --- cite your proofs please.
they destroyed great pieces of art (because of decency) --- cite your proofs please.
they force people to lie about their own findings (because of credibility) --- cite your proofs please.

I already did my friend. You even qoute it yourself. I believe in the witch hunt of europe in which they get to burn, hanged, drowned, etc...thousands of men and women because of the wrong notion of devil worship, which I see as an excuse to topple the church's strongest enemy within them, paganism. Considering paganism, in general, is an old religion (even older than Christianity), how come the church gets to mistook them of devil worshipping individuals? although not all of the witch hunt were carried by the church, but it was the church who decreed it...doesn't it prove anything?

Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi, or more popularly known as Botticelli, is one of the leading painters of the Florentine Renaissance. He developed a highly personal style characterized by elegant execution, a sense of melancholy, and a strong emphasis on line; details appear as sumptuous still lifes. His works with pagan theme were burned during Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities. Only a few of them remains, which includes the Birth of Venus which was painted between 1485-1487 and can now be found in Uffizi Gallery in Florence. A lot of Botticelli's works were burned and he fell into poverty as a result, and would have starved but for the tender support of his former patrons.

Again, with Galileo Galilei, On October 31, 1992, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that it had erred in its 359-year-old persecution of the 17th century astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The announcement was made by Pope John Paul II at a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Contrary to the Church position before wherein Galileo was asked to make an Abjuration Letter wherein he signed that he no longer believes in his statements that the earth revovles around the sun (contradicting the church's teaching that the earth is not moving and the sun, as well as the rest of the planet are revolving around the earth). Such a notion of the church, is of course, been proven wrong and Galileo was more accurate in his findings. But still, even with the Abjuration Letter, Galileo was put into house arrest and was in the church's watch since then.

To summarize it:

They kill in the name of God (and it became excusable) --- cite your proofs please. - THE WITCH HUNT OF EUROPE and later, THE WITCH HUNT IN THE U.S.

they destroyed great pieces of art (because of decency) --- cite your proofs please. - SAVONAROLA'S BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES

they force people to lie about their own findings (because of credibility) --- cite your proofs please. - THE INQUISITION TOWARDS GALILEO and its RESULTS

History and understanding of the past are my proof and not a desperate attempt to prove that the church is without sin and the Bible is without mistakes.

[IceInHeLL]

For the rest of your questions...since you are so good in providing sites, I think you will be capable in searching for them yourself. Use your favorite search engine. The Secret Mark, the Gnostic Bible....they will also provide you the church's side of the story. Actually, most that I have read is the church's side. But of course, we could never dismiss the idea of their desperation of cover-ups. They did it before, why not now? Proof? Galileo! Proof? The Gospel of Mark! (Check the history of the Gospel)

About those so-called "dubious literature", I just find it funny. What exactly differs those literature from those in the Bible aside from its content? Is it because the Bible is "all-truth" since it is the "words of God" and those "dubious literature" were just written by men? Because if the Bible is the "word of God", then it should be accurate and without mistakes. Then why with all those contradictions between one gospel to another, and between the gospel with history? Ask this question yourself....is it possible, that some of the gospels were written in such a way to substatiate Jesus' divinity and is not actually fact? Because I can vouch one mistake in the Gospel of Matthew to prove that.

And those dubious literature that you are calling, they just happen to be researched. Of course, other people will tend to say its not true. The judgement will then lies on you as to which holds more teeth.

Read the article about the Holy Blood, Holy Grail...it was funny. It was making a mockery of the author's theories as if it is not possible. But what does he know to debunk the author's theories? All I read is just repeating it in a manner as if saying "hahaha...this can't be!". I ask why? aren't those "facts" in Holy Blood, Holy Grail is indeed facts? Any proof? Even until now, the church could not single out any established fact in the book as "untrue". Read the book you are refering to...the introduction is hilarious! About that interview thing. Man, I couldn't stop laughing at it.

My point...let us not believe what others have to say (both pro and anti) for all we know, they have their own motives. We should judge by logic. Its not because it is a belief of hundreds of years, it doesn't mean it couldn't be wrong. It doesn't mean also that since they said that they researched about it that they could be right.

ALthough I may sound to be the disbeliever here....I am not to judge, not yet. I reserved my judgement for later.

[The_Child]

oh oh... i kinda like sandy bonty's paintings my fave is his Calumny. pretty much like that. It has such elegance and depth especially with the detail on truth and remorse, truth is naked . So sad they have to cramped that painting in Florence.



"the psychology at that time"----> i think thats actually a copyrighted phrase but im not sure... hehehe that is if phrases could be copyrighted.

What exactly differs those literature from those in the Bible aside from its content credence and scholarship. So may be L.Ron Hubbard was right on his dianetics and maybe psychiatrist and psychologist are wrong, but in the scientific community psychiatry and psychology is quite accepted it is even an established scientific and academic profession. No offense to anybody from scientology and please correct me if im mistaken



We should judge by logic

thats why i sed earlier that Jesus Divinity should not be merely based on the hodge-podge literature one picks up just anywhere it should be traced back to its grassroots. we have to start from the starting point. On God's existence, on the kind of theological system, on the history of religions, on the history of chrisitanity, on the theology of Christ, and on personal belief. and you told me that im complicating things by giving away so much thing to trace. But again i mentioned, Jesus divinity couldnt be oversimplified to do so would reduce the object of inquiry into obscurity.


Judge by logic, start with axioms.



To summarize it:

They kill in the name of God (and it became excusable) --- cite your proofs please. - THE WITCH HUNT OF EUROPE and later, THE WITCH HUNT IN THE U.S.

they destroyed great pieces of art (because of decency) --- cite your proofs please. - SAVONAROLA'S BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES

they force people to lie about their own findings (because of credibility) --- cite your proofs please. - THE INQUISITION TOWARDS GALILEO and its RESULTS

History and understanding of the past are my proof and not a desperate attempt to prove that the church is without sin and the Bible is without mistakes.

You didnt cite any proof actually, only Chapter titles of sorts.
understanding of the past? if you cant factor in the temporal mentality you could never understand the past. temporal mentality=psychology of the time, thought of changing the term

[boxingfan529]

just found this free lecture for the da vinci code. but haven't listened to it yet.

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/davincicode.asp?pc=Search

[IceInHeLL]

The_Child:

Are you trying to tell me that the writters of the Bible got credence and are scholars? Dios Mio! The church doesn't even know who they are originally! Who is Mark in the Gospel of Mark? Who is Luke? Matthew? or John? Who wrote the Old Testament? They were all compilations of oral traditions (meaning: stories passed from one generation to another...further meaning, they could have been edited through time....more further meaning. they could not be accurate). Now what gives the Bible the scholarly power and credence you are bragging about? They don't even have basis, except for those historical events. But with regards to the supernatural effort, what gives those writers in the Bible credence? Proof? Aahhhh...I know, the Church says so and that is all you need.

You are right though, we should dig in the history of Roman Catholicism. First in the Bible, for it is the basis of the church's claim of Jesus' divinity. Then we look into the history of Jesus. Documents during that time. The errors of the church and everything. Then we decide. Which one is the truth and which one is not.

The "psychology of the time" should be understood not just in the church's perspective but in history as a whole. Example, I think you mentioned that the witch hunt was decreed because of the church's psychology at that time. What was the psychology at that time? That the church mistook paganism as devil worship? How could they mistook something that existed before they did? that's the psychology at that time. You once said that how could paganism be the Roman Catholic church's strongest enemy at that time? Psychology and logic my friend. Paganism was so powerful, that the church even patterned their major holidays and some of thier practices from paganism. Christmas Day! Halloween! All Souls' Day! All Saints' Day! and the list runs long to Christmas Trees and gift-giving. They were ALL Pagan in origin. That's how powerful paganism is at that time. Logic? Why would the "very" powerful Roman Catholic Church patterened the date of the birth of Jesus Christ to paganism?

more....isn't it quite interesting, that most of the things associated with the worst person (the devil) is quite similar to the good of paganism. Its like saying that what is good to paganism is bad in Christianity. The devil number 666....isn't it just coincidence that paganism's most powerful number is the number 6? The pentagram or the devil sign....isn't it quite curious that the pentagram is actually the sign of a pagan god? It is the course of Venus....a symbol of female divinity in paganism. The horned being and most specifically the goat is reffered to as evil....but in paganism, the goat is the god of fertility or something. The two-thorns-up pentagram could be attributed to that also. the two points symbolizes the goat's horns, the 2 side tip symbolizes the ears and the last point down is the chin. I find it very amusing. Is it just coincidence that the holy symbols of paganism is referred to the devil's symbol in christianity? Logic! How could it be? It's too much of a coincidence. Then Psychology...is it possible, using black propaganda, the church use those symbols as the devil's to brand and defeat paganism?

The_Child: You didnt cite any proof actually, only Chapter titles of sorts.

Are you actually reading my posts? or more, understanding them? Allow me to post them again....

I already did my friend. You even qoute it yourself. I believe in the witch hunt of europe in which they get to burn, hanged, drowned, etc...thousands of men and women because of the wrong notion of devil worship, which I see as an excuse to topple the church's strongest enemy within them, paganism. Considering paganism, in general, is an old religion (even older than Christianity), how come the church gets to mistook them of devil worshipping individuals? although not all of the witch hunt were carried by the church, but it was the church who decreed it...doesn't it prove anything?

Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi, or more popularly known as Botticelli, is one of the leading painters of the Florentine Renaissance. He developed a highly personal style characterized by elegant execution, a sense of melancholy, and a strong emphasis on line; details appear as sumptuous still lifes. His works with pagan theme were burned during Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities. Only a few of them remains, which includes the Birth of Venus which was painted between 1485-1487 and can now be found in Uffizi Gallery in Florence. A lot of Botticelli's works were burned and he fell into poverty as a result, and would have starved but for the tender support of his former patrons.

Who is Savonarola? Girolamo Savonarola is a Domicican reformer, monk and considered as a martyr.

Again, with Galileo Galilei, On October 31, 1992, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that it had erred in its 359-year-old persecution of the 17th century astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The announcement was made by Pope John Paul II at a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Contrary to the Church position before wherein Galileo was asked to make an Abjuration Letter wherein he signed that he no longer believes in his statements that the earth revovles around the sun (contradicting the church's teaching that the earth is not moving and the sun, as well as the rest of the planet are revolving around the earth). Such a notion of the church, is of course, been proven wrong and Galileo was more accurate in his findings. But still, even with the Abjuration Letter, Galileo was put into house arrest and was in the church's watch since then.

You want me to say more on the topic? What exactly do you want me to do? Elaborate? Bro....you basically have access to internet to be able to read my post, why don't you do your own research? Besides, those are part of history? I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

Just stressing a point brother.



Ladies and gentlemen...my FINAL ARGUMENT on the topic will initially be available by next week. In it, I will try to summarize everything that I have said and with some information on the topic that I may not have discussed (based on the suggested readings that I will be able to do with the given time). I just don't have the hope of finding the answers here, only redundant arguments that is why I intend to close my point. Hope others get to post their own final argument also.

Freakin' exams....looking forward for intramurals and get myself a break or else I'll go nuts!

[dacs]

To dacs:

I already did my friend. You even qoute it yourself. I believe in the witch hunt of europe in which they get to burn, hanged, drowned, etc...thousands of men and women because of the wrong notion of devil worship, which I see as an excuse to topple the church's strongest enemy within them, paganism.

You got it wrong. Christianity is gaining grounds against paganism. Before the advent of Christianity, paganism is the way of worship for most of the civilized world. The Church has no hold for those who ddn't profess to be Christians; but, for those who do, then the practice of pagan worship is prohibited.

(I just wonder why some people would accuse the Catholic Church of having pagan practices and then some would accuse her of having paganism as her strongest enemy.)

Considering paganism, in general, is an old religion (even older than Christianity), how come the church gets to mistook them of devil worshipping individuals? although not all of the witch hunt were carried by the church, but it was the church who decreed it...doesn't it prove anything?

Let me reiterate this : the concern of the Church are those who profess themselves to be Christians. The State (in a given country) is responsible for all (even with the Christians). Records will show that most would prefer being investigated by the Church than by the State.

Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi, or more popularly known as Botticelli, is one of the leading painters of the Florentine Renaissance. He developed a highly personal style characterized by elegant execution, a sense of melancholy, and a strong emphasis on line; details appear as sumptuous still lifes. His works with pagan theme were burned during Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities.

Please add that this was not decreed by the Church. Girolamo Savonarola did that on his own volition. He was excommunicated on 12 May 1497. He was disobedient to the judgment of the Church.

Only a few of them remains, which includes the Birth of Venus which was painted between 1485-1487 and can now be found in Uffizi Gallery in Florence. A lot of Botticelli's works were burned and he fell into poverty as a result, and would have starved but for the tender support of his former patrons.

A lot of Botticelli's works were burned and he fell into poverty as a result --- you mean those paintings that have been burned had not been sold yet? Are you sure?

The Bonfire of the Vanities (Italian: Falò delle vanitÃ*) you mentioned took place on 7 February 1497 when followers of the priest Girolamo Savonarola amassed and publicly burned thousands of materials in Florence, Italy, on the Shrove Tuesday festival. Among these materials were several original paintings on classical mythological subjects by Sandro Botticelli who placed them in the bonfire himself. Let me repeat that : Sandro Botticelli placed them in the bonfire himself.

Again, with Galileo Galilei, On October 31, 1992, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that it had erred in its 359-year-old persecution of the 17th century astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The announcement was made by Pope John Paul II at a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome.

True. Thank God for the Church that is repentant of her wrongs. For those who are interested, the link of the papal speech on the On the Centenary of the Birth of Albert Einstein (the occasion described above) is given here : http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ALEIN.HTM

Contrary to the Church position before wherein Galileo was asked to make an Abjuration Letter wherein he signed that he no longer believes in his statements that the earth revovles around the sun (contradicting the church's teaching that the earth is not moving and the sun, as well as the rest of the planet are revolving around the earth).

The teachings of the Church that should be followed by the faithfuls concerns only faith and morals and, therefore, not science. There are Churchmen, though, who are also men of science. Galileo's problem was mixing both which led to the face-off between him and the Church and him and the intellectuals of his time. Have you not heard that most of the intellectuals of his time did not believe in what Galileo is proposing? Have you not heard that Galileo is just agreeing to what Nicolas Copernicus was proposing? Why was Copernicus not persecuted? Copernicus was a churchman and was supported by his bishop.

Such a notion of the church, is of course, been proven wrong and Galileo was more accurate in his findings. But still, even with the Abjuration Letter, Galileo was put into house arrest and was in the church's watch since then.

Proven wrong on what? Galileo held that the entire universe revolved around the sun in circular (Kepler's laws of planetary mothion says it is elliptical) orbits, and that tides were caused by the rotation of the earth. Galileo was not able to prove conclusively heliocentrism (only after some 200 years later was it conclusively proven). Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church's mistake, but the Holy Office had done so in 1825, and Galileo's written works were permitted in 1741.

Far more embarrassing and numerous "Bible vs. Science" fiascoes in the Protestant world are not nearly as well-known. Martin Luther called Copernicus an "upstart astrologer" in 1539, appealing to Joshua 10:13 as proof that the sun moves. His successor Philip Melanchthon thought that Copernicus exhibited a lack of "honesty and decency," yet was an avid enthusiast of astrology. John Calvin "proved" geocentrism from Psalm 93:1, and contended that belief in a rotating earth would "pervert the order of nature." Francois Turretin, John Owen, and many Puritans followed suit. Catholic philosophers, on the other hand, like Nicholas Oresme (c.1325-1382) and Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) had long since posited a moving earth, and the sphericity of the earth had been taught even earlier by St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Dante. The Protestant University of Tubingen condemned the heliocentrism of the great Lutheran astronomer Johann Kepler (1571-1630), not long before the Galileo incident. Leibniz, the Lutheran philosopher (1646-1716) attacked Newton's theory of gravitation. (taken from http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...and-facts.html)

If you are interested, read :

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0021.html
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...it/galileo.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/His...3_Galileo.html



Shalom.

[The_Child]

Hahaha.. kapoy na kaayo explain but for you ill make an exception.

Paganism was not really powerful but you could say was the "majority". Remember paganism is not an institution.

PAganism is not Devil worship. But there are people who practiced evoking malificient spirits since time immemorial-witchcraft. Witchcraft even before the Church came in was already illegalized by pagan Romans and German themselves thats in their laws you want to chek that up.


Are you trying to tell me that the writters of the Bible got credence and are scholars? Dios Mio! The church doesn't even know who they are originally! Who is Mark in the Gospel of Mark? Who is Luke? Matthew? or John? Who wrote the Old Testament? They were all compilations of oral traditions (meaning: stories passed from one generation to another...further meaning, they could have been edited through time....more further meaning. they could not be accurate). Now what gives the Bible the scholarly power and credence you are bragging about? They don't even have basis, except for those historical events. But with regards to the supernatural effort, what gives those writers in the Bible credence? Proof? Aahhhh...I know, the Church says so and that is all you need.

tell me if this is trying learn or purely venting. it requires scholars to understand those folks. i didnt say those folks were scholars. And with that argument your reducing everything to historical uncertainty. It more likely to deny Christ and Socrates as Historical figures than the four of them because the four of them actually left something, something substantial in History.

and yes they were trying to convert people from paganism. Thats why it was a strategy by the church to Christianized pagan rituals, like Aquinas christianizing Aristotle and Augustine christianizing Plato. Sol Invictus or the Feast of the unsurpassd Sun was christianized to be the Christmas time, its also i think the same with another jewish festival.
So whats wrong with that? You couldnt say Aquinas was wrong when he christianized Aristotle could you? Because aquinas' philosophy contributed not only to the religous but also to the secualar world until this very day.

You want me to say more on the topic? What exactly do you want me to do? Elaborate? Bro....you basically have access to internet to be able to read my post, why don't you do your own research? Besides, those are part of history? I'm pretty sure you are familiar with them.

Dude have you heard about Historical Revisionism? such a malignant problem especially for non-scholars. If scholarly books could even be pointing out some historical reviosionism how much more the internet.



your evoking LOGIC? hehehe
your making conclusions based on unverified and false claims. Tell me is that logic?
traditional, Mathematical, Kantian, Existential logic would pass the same judgement.... its illogical.