Where did you get those dates? Christ doesn't appear to have been executed at all, as far as historians can trace, the commonest dates given by biblical scholars for the Gospel of Mark is 70-90 CE, Matthew is 80-100, Luke 80-130, and John 90-120. Agreement is general among biblical scholars (Ehrman, Metzger, many others, it's not hard to find) that the gospels WERE NOT written by the people whose names are on them, Pagels herself considers the Letters of Paul (50-80) to be Gnostic documents, and in my own judgement, the Gospel of Mark has the foottracks of Gnosticism all over it. (Not that my judgement is authoritative, but at least I state my source.)
And, as someone whose major subject of study was mathematics, I'm here to tell you the kind of odds calculation Cameron did is bushwah. The figure is essentially made up.
In fact much evidence suggest that most of the Gospels were done by the very people traditionalist say did them. Christ's execution appears to have occured around 27 AD. Mark, Matthew Luke and John were all know of before 90 AD and Mark as early as 56 AD. Meanwhile none of the so-called Gnostic gospels seem to have been written much prior to the late 2nd century long after those to whom they were attributed had died.
As for camerons work it is indeed largely fiction
He quotes the odds as being one in six hundred what he doesn't mention is that Jerusalem before its destruction may well have contained at its peak as many as six thousand such tombs, meaning mathematically that there were at least ten such tombs
Danny B - I may have "gotten" you, but you managed a very thoughtful answer.
I think you may have more to offer your spiritual leaders than they have to offer you -- for instance, you statement that, "If [Jesus were not the Messiah], I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority."
I think your clergy should know that. I suspect they may be keeping up a show, presuming that parishioners have higher expectations.
I think it's detestable that many clergy, who know better, keep their flocks in a childish Sunday school understanding of Christianity.
They're in a bind, I'm sure, but it's got to stop somewhere. Trusting, but questioning, thinking people like you might be able to change it.
Sorry if this seems rambling or vague. I get depress sometimes when I think about what Christianity could be, compared to what it is.
You've got me on this one. Without fully researching the impact this would have on my faith, I can only say this; I feel less threatened by the disproving of many OT stories.
If it were proven that Noah died at 30, or that there really was no tower of Babel, or that Lot's wife actually fell off a cliff because she was looking the wrong way as she fled, I'd be less ruffled than if it were proven that Jesus never rose on the third day.
I don't think it could be conclusively proven that Jesus was not the Messiah, that's a pretty tall order. If it were though, I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority.
At that point I would have to rely very heavily on the guidance of my spiritual leaders. I would have to separate my emotion from the real task at hand...finding out how to achieve salvation now.
Danny B - I appreciate your carefully thought out response. I'm trying get a better understanding of how people process information that is contrary to what they know and what society has actively or passively been telling them their whole lives.
It sounds like the more serious or universally impactful the information was, the more you'd be likely to want the truth and feel obliged to hear the truth.
So, getting down to brass tacks, what if you learned conclusively (respected scientists, archeologists and theologians concurring) that the old testament stories were not factual and that the Jews and the Palestinians were essentially the same people and had occupied the same land from the earliest times?
I try at all times not to blatantly lie. That being said, my possible approaches to finding out that a family "myth" may be false are:
Totally tell the truth by informing the family that there simply is no proof and letting them decide how they feel about that, whether they will still beleive the original story or whatever.
If the lack of eveidence about a percieved fact surfaced, and it involved widely chronicled history, like world history, I would feel that the need for the world to have facts (bearing in mind that in this scenario the fact is that there is no proof one way or another).
If it only affects the family, and I felt it would cause unnecessary turmoil, I would choose to say nothing. Technically, a sin of omission is a lie, but not in the sense that I am leading anyone to believe something they did not already believe. In this scenario, I would simply be maintaing the status quo.
If this relative's accomplishments are so highly prized by the family, and so far removed that none of know him personally anyway, and the information does not compromise information used by the world at large, I can't see making waves in that particular situation.
Remember that in out hypothetical situation we have only dicovered that a belief suddenly cannot be proven, which isn't the same as proving it untrue.
If suddenly documents surfaced showing that this relative was on the fast track to graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, but was expelled the week of graduation...that would be the kind of proof that I beieve should be shared, regardless of what any member of the family thought.
Many (MANY) years ago I read "Even Cowgirls Get The Blues". That was Tom Robbins, wasn't it. I really don't remeber much more that the character who liked to hitch-hike because she had unnaturally large thumbs.
I will try out some of his work. I don't remembering him making much of an impression, but I was a teen then. I've re-visited other works as an adult and have discovered that more life experience really changes your appreciation of things.
Danny B thanks for your observations- as i stated before i didnt see this show- as far as you know they didnt claim to prove anything conclusively so the more attention paid to it- the more curiosity and buzz it will create- the more people will see it i guess-
i read a book several years ago called Holy Blood Holy Grail- apparently ron brown did also as he names his characters after the authors of this book-
the whole davinci thing was clearly lifted from it-
I really like what "Acarpist" says. He is right on regarding religion and supernaturalism. The bottom line is: most if not all of the Old Testament and the New Testament is fiction. Read Burton Mack, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Funk, Earl Doherty, and a host of other serious biblical literature critics and you will see what I mean. When we can get past the biblical literalism and get on with serious critical thinking then maybe our world will be a better place. The same, obviously, goes for the Qu'ran. But, lots of blog sites don't want to publish this kind of viewpoint, and maybe this one is in that camp. I would hope not. I admire Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for what they are doing and hope they will continue to have freedom of expression on their site.
Do a google search on "Jesus exist" for some interesting, documented history.
The tomb documentary should not be taken for fact, the producers, in a comment about withdrawing the show from India stated it was just a postulation. What if?
The story about the Ark was a total farce, as admitted by the person to "discover" the Ark, and filmed in the movie, to expose the charletains that prey on the faithful and gullible for profit. This isn't anything new.
What is new is that publishers and hollywood are cashing in as well as the church.
This is by Acharya S, with a new book "Who Was Jesus?", at www.truthbeknow.com. Prior to her book, she had several writings, one of which pointed to a quote by the Pope recorded in Catholic records as saying, paraphrased because the pages have been removed, I assume it's in the book: "This myth (of Jesus) has certainly been profitable for us".
Hello Danny B – There’s been a lot of conversation since my last visit here. Thanks for your additional musings on this. Fascinating –especially about your aunt supposedly dying of the Spanish flu.
Would I be right in saying you wouldn’t upset the family myth (the one I concocted about great, great-granddad) unless it had consequences outside the family?(You mentioned the story not being true wouldn’t matter unless it affected world history). You wouldn’t lie straight out right, but you would leave an opening so people could believe what they wanted, is that right? What is your reasoning for this? How upset do you think people would be to know the truth? How do you think they might feel about you for finding the truth about their ancestor?
And, here’s something else to think about – getting back to the original Bible story. Let’s say, not only is there no evidence of Jews being enslaved in Egypt and wandering 40 years through the desert on their way to Israel (that is, no pottery, no bones, no signs of ancient campsites), but that there is abundant evidence of the Jews being in Israel during all the time that the stories say they were in Egypt. For instance, pottery, bones, settlements, synagogues, agriculture. In fact, there’s no discernible difference between them and the Canaanites who were also there through that same period of time. Also, recent advances in DNA testing indicate that the Hebrews and the Canaanites also have very similar DNA – they are essentially the same people. How important a finding do you think that is?
I watched the documentry..and no where did it say it was proof of anything.
While I was still grinning from the original announcement it was coming on...the grin was for all the Christians that told me I was going to hell for not believing that Jesus died for me. I really enjoyed the moment that each Christian had that "gasping for air" moment.
I giggled at the thought that Mary of Magdala got married and had a child...whether true or not, I played The What if Game. I do remember reading some where that you had to be married to be called Rabbi...
For me the "Mary the Master" tiggled me...just thinking of the number of Religious men that would have to eat the words- Women can't be Priests because none of the apposles were women...and the men that claimed women should not speak up in church...except there is no "church" in the bible...The aposles would never have said that, church is not a hebrew word...it is Scottish, it comes from Kirk.
Cameron never claimed his documentry was proof, he said it would, he hoped, cause discussion...it is.
And I still am a bit smug about the anger that documentry caused...the religious folks that was on after it, was angry. Not just talking about it..but mad. Which I find very interesting.
Cameron has been called A lier, a cheat, and everything between...why the anger...?
The original Israelites were from Egypt, says Gary Greenberg in _101 Myths of the Bible_ and _The Moses Mystery_. His theory is that Moses was a priest of Akhenaten, the pharoah who established a monotheistic worship of the sun, and whose followers were driven out of Egypt.
I don't know that Greenberg has the best credentials as a scholar, but he makes a plausible case, and it's fun to read.
Toni Bourlon wrote:
"Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research..."
Thanks for the comment, Tony - and for making my point. As you point out, you didn't really know anything about the church's history. You were inspired to look into the early church by a myth-based movie that was released only last yeat (2006). I don't know if you had converted after marriage a year ago or twenty years ago, but for whatever length of time you had attended chruch, you hadn't heard a whiff about the early church, and, apparently, nothing your church told you inspired you to look into its history, as the Da Vinci Code movie did. Point proven.
"Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works."
Yes, I know that work. However, I tend to agree with the author's findings that the early Israelites were actually Caananites, and I'll continue to believe it until new archaeological evidence (not Biblical, theological or "traditional" evidence) proves otherwise.
I would like to believe that even if the research you did didn't change your religious beliefs an iota, it at least enriched your beliefs to some extent.
I forgot to ask you earlier, have you ever read anything by Tom Robbins. He's a very amusing guy. You should try reading Another Roadside Attraction, and Jitterbug Perfume. It's amazing where our imaginations can take us when supplied with a little information on a wide variety of topics.
Very interesting commentary, Elaine. So what do you have to say on the fact that creationism also sells - extremely well - in America? What do you have to say about the wholesale fraud of cottage industries that sell creationist books, market "young earth" field trips to Mount St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, and trot out phony "proof" of the lost Ark? (So many "Arks" on Mount Ararat! Was the Ark carrying a male and female Ark, too?)
Americans blame Bush for the Iraq war and for skewing evidence of global warming, forgetting that they too allowed themselves to be swept away by war fever and compartmentalized thinking. Yet they have not yet shaken off Bush's proclamation that we should teach intelligent design in schools! Conveniently, they still follow Bush's line about "the jury's still out" on evolution when that's simply false, and while we are falling behind in science literacy compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It's time that Americans removed the log from their own eye, first.
Da Vinci's Last Supper originally included the image of Saint John sleeping beneath the table at Christ's feet. It was the image of St. John beneath the table which conclusively proved that the image to Jesus's right to be Mary. However, this image and all painted copies that included it were destroyed when the monks cut the doorway, ostensibly to reflect the monastary rules that prohibited women from eating in the same dining hall as the men.
I mentioned in the case of the hypothetical relative, that it would be different if they had been president, or if it affected world history.
When it comes to being cut off from my five-dollar bill from grandma on my birthday...maybe that is not worth it. <--Meant tongue-in-cheek. But really, in that hypothetical situation I think that sort of sin-of-omission would fall into the category of a white lie. She told me there was Santa Claus, I don't tell her our esteemed relative has no record of graduating magna cum laude...we love each other, it evens out.
I am certain that real historic facts of all kinds have been suppressed by many different entities for as long as there has been recorded history. I feel confident that THAT is a fact.
Carefule making definitive statement David C. Unfortunately in today's world with all it's technology and the laziness it affords many americans, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people learn their history from the movies.
I knew I'd run into you again. Hope things are well.
Quick question, you said, "While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone."
Do you think that may be the stance that Christian authorities the world over and from the beginning may have had. What if the vatican holds evidence that disproves the Bible's claims and they keep it to themselves because to release it would upset so many people and create such havoc in the religious community, that who knows what might happen?
Kind of a silly question but something that I've always thought about. The Vatican, just like government, hides so many secrets based on the assumption that the people can't deal with truth. Well, that and to keep the balance of Power in their favor.
Let's not forget that fiction actually is a made up story pretending to be fact. I've never seen a play or read a book that periodically reminded the audience or reader that this didn't actually happen. The fact is that we don't really know much to be fact if we weren't actually there. Much of history is suspect because only governments who won wars were around to record history. The Jews wrote the Bible saying that Jews are God's chosen race; how convenient. There's no proof of a God. There just seems to be something in us that hopes for and yearns for something more. I don't mind people believing what they want, but they need to approach everything with common sense. We don't go to movies to learn history or get our news. There are plenty of places to get news.
Speaking for myself, to contiually find new pieces to a puzzle would intrigue me. If ever presented with enough information to draw an actual conclusion, I could live with the outcome.
As far as what I might tell my family, I mentioned before that I could do no more than toss out the fact and let them do with it what they may. I have actually re-thought that answer.
Knowing how people can be when confronted with things like this, if I could anticipate any of my relatives being truly upset by it (even though I consider the information unemotional) I would choose to say nothing at all. If the only fact is that there is no fact, and grandma would be devasted even by that, I would choose to say nothing.
My father does not drink, and my mother rarely does, but when my mother was a child her side of the family drank a lot. There's been no disputing that throughout the family.
My mother once made the simple statement, "If my parents had not drank so much we would have had more growing up."
One of my cousins, who just worshipped Grandpa (mind you both grandparents are gone at this point)was very put out that my mother said that. He claimed that she was bad-mouthing them.
All my mother did was state a fact, with no judgement attached to it. No one has ever disputed the level of drinking the family did in the past. How could that not affect the finances. My mother and aunt have always talked about how there was not a lot of money when they were young. So why the shock from my cousin that it was because of alcohol?
He was jumping to the conclusion that my mother was implying all sorts of horrible things about our grandparents. She has never done any such thing. It was a plain fact. I've never heard anyone say a thing against them. The "drinking stories" are usually pretty funny...but there are A LOT of them!
While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone. In the grand scheme of things, that would ultimately only matter if this esteemed relative had been the president or something. Something that might affect world history.
Here’s another twist: What if you decided to check further, to try to find evidence of your great-great grandfather somewhere else. So you started checking the records of other schools, and found a record of him at a state college near where he grew up – same spelling, the right year, right home town, right major (according to the family stories) but not summa-cum-laude. You checked further and found no other people anywhere with the same name, except one of your cousins, many years later.
Now what would you think and what would you tell you family?
I just remembered something about my family history that is true. I can't believe this slipped my mind!
I have always been told that my Grandma's sister died in the Spanish flu epidemic as a little girl. The family was so poor that she was buried in an unmarked grave, so that with my Grandma gone no one will ever know where she is.
Recently her death certificate surfaced. According to that document, she actually died of malaria several years after the flu epidemic. Furthermore, my Grandma did eventually buy a head stone.
I personally found that death by Malria, of all things, was actually more interesting than the poor girl's participation in a great historic tragedy.
I have read the posts and have read the books, yet unfortunately was unable to see the documentary. I agree, there may not be enough evidence to prove the points being made, and yes, the Davinci Code is fiction, but you know what? It was a good book. You know why it was a good book? Because it made a person think and raise questions. That is what makes a discovery or a book standout, its ability to make us think. Would we even be talking about this if we weren't curious ourselves about what the truth is?
I know that I'd love to know, but for now, all we have is guessing and questioning. Is what we were told all our life a crock? Is it real? Many questions can come out of all of this and many answers can also come, but there will probably be alack of real evidence for quite awhile. What we tell our children regarding religion is what we were either told, taught, or learned. Whether or not a child actually belives Jesus was born on Christmas is up to him or her to decide, that is waht its about. Find your own way of thinking. Keep the questions coming, and hopefully, one day we can al lhave the answers we seek.
This article is pathetic. The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Dale Brown - you know, the guy who wrote it - has never claimed otherwise. Anyone in this country has the right to produce whatever piece of fiction they choose, and if you're offended, tough. Read the Constitution. That is fact.
--In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.
I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.--
Yes, I read about that too. I also read that many villages in France and Latin America too, have patron saints that are not recognized by the Catholic Church. The town recognizes them through tradition anyway.
As that relates to the DaVinci Code, the fact of that tradition makes for more compelling fiction, doesn't it?
What I meant above was that Sophie Neveu is a ficticious character, therefore she cannot be the progeny (got it right this time) of Jesus and Mary Magdalene even if it were true that they did have children together.
I'm just pointing out that DaVinci Code is fiction, and as far as I can see doesn't claim to be otherwise.
What I would think is, that it is very curious. Harvard not having the record though doesn't really prove he did not attend there. Things like that can be lost over time.
I personally would think that THAT is now the interesting story.
As for what I would tell my family, I don't really know. I might not say anything at all. That doesn't leave much to say.
If I did, all I COULD say is, "I contacted Harvard for more information, and they say they have no record of him." It's the truth, a fact, and let them do with that what they will.
If relatives say he did. Harvard says, "No record". The only fact: There is no proof of anything.
This was a very well written article. I understood the precepts and evevn though I haven't seen the documentary I understood where the Author was coming from. I enjoy the study of Religion and have tried to become knowledgable about it. I think I know a little bit and I know that there is alot more for me to learn. The one thing that I do know is that during the period of Jesus, the word Virgin had a different meaning. Virgin meant a unattached woman and had nothing to do with sex. I do not know how or when the definition changed, I will have to do more research. Please think about this. I personally believe that Jesus was a great man and teacher, as for the rest I do not know. Be Blessed.
--Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence...--
What I took away from that is this; There is no evidence. That is the conclusion.
As a result of that lack of evidence, they are taking archaeological facts about the period in question to try and create an image of the time, place and culture these stories refer to.
I don't get the impression that they are trying to disprove the Bible at all.
You wrote: "The proginy [sic] of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed."
In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.
I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.
Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research on the subject. No, I'm a long way from an expert, but I read "The Concise History of the Catholic Church," which had stuff in it that was far scarier than anything the movie suggested! Next I read "Prisoner of the Vatican," and found out the reason the Pope is "infallible" is because Pious IX had quite an ego, go figure. Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works. Finally I watched Cameron's film, and again I didn't buy his conclusions, but the DNA testing was interesting. He also attempted to use Gnostic text to explain why Mariamne was Mary Magdalene, even though Jesus had a sister by that name? Except DNA said they didn't have the same mother. So what? Catholics believe Joseph had children from another wife. He also didn't explain how a poor family could afford their own family tomb, or how a family of carpenters would even know how to write. Most poor people didn't know how to write. Oh well, as you said people believe what they want to, yourself included. Have a nice day!
Thanks, Danny B -- It's interesting to get your perspective, too: "To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened."
What if, according to your family’s tradition, your great-great grandfather had graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. You had never seen the diploma or his yearbook, but had heard many stories over the years from older family members about great-great-grandfather’s adventures and great achievements at Harvard. One cousin had even written down some of the stories, bound them up and distributed them among the family. They were among the family’s most treasured possessions.
A big family reunion was coming up, and you decided it would be a great idea to get even more information about this most esteemed family member, so you contacted Harvard. Much to you surprise, there was no record of him. You had them check multiple years and multiple possible spellings of the family name. You went there to see for yourself, but to no avail. There was no record of great-great grandfather at Harvard.
What would you think? What would you tell your family?
If I am correct, you are saying that my confusion comes from not projecting on to these works more than they themselves offer.
That would be a good way of sorting out my confusion. I think that's the case, but was coming up short with the right words to descibe it.
I feel today, just as I did before, that my faith is intact despite exposure to these ideas. Ideas aren't bad or harmful. I think that not bothering to check for yourself is harmful.
Just like the book review you quoted. To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened. It doesn't shake my faith to hear someone say that, and I am not afraid of someone investigating whether or not that is true.
It's funny, whenever there is a book, movie, etc...where people are just in an uproar, wanting it banned and such, it just makes it more likely that I will go see for myself.
If someone know what they are talking about, then they have read, or seen it. Why shouldn't I then. This is where I really se the American in me...no one is going to tell me what I can and cannot read or see.
"Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories."
Actually it is yet another theory. Even in their own words, Finkelstein and Silberman say their book is an "attempt to formulate a new archaeological vision of ancient Israel," which is hardly saying they have irrefutable evidence. Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence, which is unfortunately how so much of the scientific world expects us to accept their theories as fact.
Danny B – You’re confused that you “had” to go to the fiction section to get a fiction book. You’re also confused that a TV show, short on conclusive evidence, gives you the impression of being speculative. I'm not sure, but perhaps what you're missing is an expectation that a book clearly labeled as fiction and a TV show clearly labeled as speculative somehow really should be something more than that.
Maybe this stems from the hype typically associated with religion, in which sensational but unproven or unprovable claims are regularly made by clergy and accepted by their congregations. Could be you’re so used to this that when obvious questions are raised, you recognize them, but don’t know what to make of them. I’d guess that whatever it is that you are “missing” is a common malady in our culture.
Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories. Even so, it’s hard to believe, perhaps because it’s not a fiction thriller, and it hasn’t been front page news or a hugely hyped TV special.
Here’s the first sentence of the review: The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.
It's killing me. I watched James Cameron's program on Discovery, but missed the first five minutes. Is that where I missed the assertion that they had ACTUALLY found the tomb of the Jesus Family? Throughout the program I got the impression that they were speculating, that they were attempting to prove that speculation one way or another. They presented findings, then calculated and re-calculated the statistical probability that this was Jesus' tomb, but never claimed that they believed 100% that it was. The program ended with them saying they would probably never know.
I keep hearing conversations about this program, but never about the actual content. I keep thinking it's "much ado about nothing".
Likewise with DaVinci Code. I had to get it from a shelf of works of fiction at the bookstore. The book itself was labelled fiction. I found it thoroughly entertaining, but new that it was fiction.
Further reading led me to discover that the elaborate security system in the Louvre is fiction. Saunier never existed, therefore his membership in a secret society protecting these dangerous secrets never existed. The proginy of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed.
Elaine Pagels is indeed a scholar. She is Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, She was one of the translators of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, and wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels," which the Modern Library has named as one of the hundred best books of the twentieth century.
Of course, if you really wanted to know, you would have typed her name in Google yourself.
I attended a New Testament class in a liberal Episcopal church with highly educated, mainly middle-aged and older people. At the beginning of the course, it was established that most had not studied the NT since Sunday school. People are astounded and obviously boggled by what they are learning. I’m glad they decided to take the class, but it also seems unconscionable that they should be allowed to be practitioners of a religion for so long, knowing so little about it. I think they probably researched their last car purchase more than they had their lifelong religion. The church shouldn’t allow such ignorance and parishioners should be aware that what they hear in church on Sunday is not nearly enough to appreciate the religion they practice.
Unfortunately, this is the state of religion education in the US today.
When I went to Bible Study, the thrust of the effort was to use the bible to show that the bible is right.
There are certain things that were not allowable topics: such as "What if the bible is just a pile of crap made up by men along time ago who were relatively ignorant?"
First she states, praises the Da Vinci Code and states that it "did much to raise public awareness" then she goes on to warn about "commercialized trash" and finally makes a veiled pitch for us to buy her books on the dead sea scrolls (a source written 400 years after the fact).
Pangels is just another sycophant looking to make a buck off the of the Christian bashing trend publishing/media.
I wonder who is a the head of many of these media companies?
Having not seen this film- i dont have an opinion-
after reading the guests opinions- i still dont have one- no actual facts were presented to dispute the authenticity or to invalidate the films assertion one way or another-
besides a misleading connection between a hollyowod film- and complaints about sensationalism-
i have come away no more informed one way or another-
if i wanted a film critics thumbs down id have gone to imdb-
is this a scholar? where did the dead sea scrolls deal with christianity?
to my opinion- it is sensationalisim to equate one film with another without offering any reason why the film should be dismissed scientifically-
"1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?"
Absolutely, which is why I'm so glad I found my church. How in the world could I possibly decide for myself what I believe if my church told me I shouldn't study something? Churches' refusal to even discuss these topics is based on fear and control. It's as if they don't differentiate between education and practice.
"2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?"
We are never expected to end up at some pre-set church-accepted conclusion. I would never want to be led that way. It is much more gratifying to me to see that there are people who can have differences of opinion here and there, and still come to the same general belief in God and Saviour.
You want to hear Christians argue? Ask them if Jews will go to Heaven. That was a good one! (by the way, I believe that they will.)
One more thing. You wrote:
"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."
First, these statistics are only 10 years old. Were they statistics about the penetration of DVD players in American households, we could rightly doubt their veracity. In the case of what Americans know about the items cited by Ms Jacoby, I doubt very much that there has been a sea change in Americans' awareness of such things. We take a census only every 10 years, yet we go with those statistics until a new set comes out. It's entirely possible that the 1997 stats are the most recent stats available. At least they're not from 1950...or 33CE, for that matter.
D. wrote:
"The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). snip
"At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.
"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."
Thanks for adding to the conversation. Your post was enlightening, and I read it eagerly.
I have two questions:
1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?
2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?
The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). We have a very extensive education system in place, with 8 or so 8- to 12-week courses offered every 3 months, year-round on different subjects. We always have a class of guest scholars who have enlightened us on many topics. We study everything from Jewish history and beginning Christianity to end-times and current events. 80% of our adult membership attends classes every week, and many of the topic discussions carry over into the huge number of small groups that we have, which meet weekly to increase our knowledge of various subjects. We also throughout the year have a variety of guest speakers come by for a one-evening lecture on some topic of interest. We have had studies on the Gnostics, an incredibly interesting topic, and how there is a school of thought that the texts seem to be writings from the beginings of a faith that blended Christianity and Eastern religion (much of the wording is very similar to Hindu and Buddhism teaching). We also recently had a class discussing the failures of the Church in speech and practice.
At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.
Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable.
All Comments (71)
http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/
December 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2007 09:04
http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/
December 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2007 09:04
http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/
December 13, 2007 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2007 09:04
I'm beginning to notice a pattern with these fundamentalists. You lay a few hard facts on them and they disappear.
March 29, 2007 12:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 29, 2007 00:33
Where did you get those dates? Christ doesn't appear to have been executed at all, as far as historians can trace, the commonest dates given by biblical scholars for the Gospel of Mark is 70-90 CE, Matthew is 80-100, Luke 80-130, and John 90-120. Agreement is general among biblical scholars (Ehrman, Metzger, many others, it's not hard to find) that the gospels WERE NOT written by the people whose names are on them, Pagels herself considers the Letters of Paul (50-80) to be Gnostic documents, and in my own judgement, the Gospel of Mark has the foottracks of Gnosticism all over it. (Not that my judgement is authoritative, but at least I state my source.)
And, as someone whose major subject of study was mathematics, I'm here to tell you the kind of odds calculation Cameron did is bushwah. The figure is essentially made up.
March 26, 2007 8:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 26, 2007 20:29
In fact much evidence suggest that most of the Gospels were done by the very people traditionalist say did them. Christ's execution appears to have occured around 27 AD. Mark, Matthew Luke and John were all know of before 90 AD and Mark as early as 56 AD. Meanwhile none of the so-called Gnostic gospels seem to have been written much prior to the late 2nd century long after those to whom they were attributed had died.
As for camerons work it is indeed largely fiction
He quotes the odds as being one in six hundred what he doesn't mention is that Jerusalem before its destruction may well have contained at its peak as many as six thousand such tombs, meaning mathematically that there were at least ten such tombs
March 25, 2007 9:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 25, 2007 09:43
Victoria:
I read the interview you cited. What's the what? Are we surprised that a student of Christianity is a Christian?
March 18, 2007 1:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 18, 2007 01:43
E Favorite,
As always, it's a pleasure to converse with you.
I look forward to seeing you again soon!
Peace,
Danny B.
March 15, 2007 8:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 15, 2007 08:13
Danny B - I may have "gotten" you, but you managed a very thoughtful answer.
I think you may have more to offer your spiritual leaders than they have to offer you -- for instance, you statement that, "If [Jesus were not the Messiah], I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority."
I think your clergy should know that. I suspect they may be keeping up a show, presuming that parishioners have higher expectations.
I think it's detestable that many clergy, who know better, keep their flocks in a childish Sunday school understanding of Christianity.
They're in a bind, I'm sure, but it's got to stop somewhere. Trusting, but questioning, thinking people like you might be able to change it.
Sorry if this seems rambling or vague. I get depress sometimes when I think about what Christianity could be, compared to what it is.
March 14, 2007 11:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2007 23:33
E Favorite,
You've got me on this one. Without fully researching the impact this would have on my faith, I can only say this; I feel less threatened by the disproving of many OT stories.
If it were proven that Noah died at 30, or that there really was no tower of Babel, or that Lot's wife actually fell off a cliff because she was looking the wrong way as she fled, I'd be less ruffled than if it were proven that Jesus never rose on the third day.
I don't think it could be conclusively proven that Jesus was not the Messiah, that's a pretty tall order. If it were though, I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority.
At that point I would have to rely very heavily on the guidance of my spiritual leaders. I would have to separate my emotion from the real task at hand...finding out how to achieve salvation now.
March 14, 2007 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2007 11:25
Danny B - I appreciate your carefully thought out response. I'm trying get a better understanding of how people process information that is contrary to what they know and what society has actively or passively been telling them their whole lives.
It sounds like the more serious or universally impactful the information was, the more you'd be likely to want the truth and feel obliged to hear the truth.
So, getting down to brass tacks, what if you learned conclusively (respected scientists, archeologists and theologians concurring) that the old testament stories were not factual and that the Jews and the Palestinians were essentially the same people and had occupied the same land from the earliest times?
March 11, 2007 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 22:50
E Favorite,
I try at all times not to blatantly lie. That being said, my possible approaches to finding out that a family "myth" may be false are:
Totally tell the truth by informing the family that there simply is no proof and letting them decide how they feel about that, whether they will still beleive the original story or whatever.
If the lack of eveidence about a percieved fact surfaced, and it involved widely chronicled history, like world history, I would feel that the need for the world to have facts (bearing in mind that in this scenario the fact is that there is no proof one way or another).
If it only affects the family, and I felt it would cause unnecessary turmoil, I would choose to say nothing. Technically, a sin of omission is a lie, but not in the sense that I am leading anyone to believe something they did not already believe. In this scenario, I would simply be maintaing the status quo.
If this relative's accomplishments are so highly prized by the family, and so far removed that none of know him personally anyway, and the information does not compromise information used by the world at large, I can't see making waves in that particular situation.
Remember that in out hypothetical situation we have only dicovered that a belief suddenly cannot be proven, which isn't the same as proving it untrue.
If suddenly documents surfaced showing that this relative was on the fast track to graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, but was expelled the week of graduation...that would be the kind of proof that I beieve should be shared, regardless of what any member of the family thought.
March 11, 2007 5:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 17:56
Lily,
Many (MANY) years ago I read "Even Cowgirls Get The Blues". That was Tom Robbins, wasn't it. I really don't remeber much more that the character who liked to hitch-hike because she had unnaturally large thumbs.
I will try out some of his work. I don't remembering him making much of an impression, but I was a teen then. I've re-visited other works as an adult and have discovered that more life experience really changes your appreciation of things.
March 11, 2007 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 17:44
Danny B thanks for your observations- as i stated before i didnt see this show- as far as you know they didnt claim to prove anything conclusively so the more attention paid to it- the more curiosity and buzz it will create- the more people will see it i guess-
i read a book several years ago called Holy Blood Holy Grail- apparently ron brown did also as he names his characters after the authors of this book-
the whole davinci thing was clearly lifted from it-
at least you commented on content-
Mr Connelly it was a rhetorical statement
heres a small interview she did-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week706/profile.html
peace all
March 10, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 10, 2007 13:48
I really like what "Acarpist" says. He is right on regarding religion and supernaturalism. The bottom line is: most if not all of the Old Testament and the New Testament is fiction. Read Burton Mack, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Funk, Earl Doherty, and a host of other serious biblical literature critics and you will see what I mean. When we can get past the biblical literalism and get on with serious critical thinking then maybe our world will be a better place. The same, obviously, goes for the Qu'ran. But, lots of blog sites don't want to publish this kind of viewpoint, and maybe this one is in that camp. I would hope not. I admire Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for what they are doing and hope they will continue to have freedom of expression on their site.
March 10, 2007 12:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 10, 2007 00:45
Here are some books that help clear up the mystery:
http://astore.amazon.com/truthbeknownfoun
March 9, 2007 11:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 23:46
Do a google search on "Jesus exist" for some interesting, documented history.
The tomb documentary should not be taken for fact, the producers, in a comment about withdrawing the show from India stated it was just a postulation. What if?
The story about the Ark was a total farce, as admitted by the person to "discover" the Ark, and filmed in the movie, to expose the charletains that prey on the faithful and gullible for profit. This isn't anything new.
What is new is that publishers and hollywood are cashing in as well as the church.
I love the following, Christians, beware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvYem4E0Ug
This is by Acharya S, with a new book "Who Was Jesus?", at www.truthbeknow.com. Prior to her book, she had several writings, one of which pointed to a quote by the Pope recorded in Catholic records as saying, paraphrased because the pages have been removed, I assume it's in the book: "This myth (of Jesus) has certainly been profitable for us".
March 9, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 23:20
Hello Danny B – There’s been a lot of conversation since my last visit here. Thanks for your additional musings on this. Fascinating –especially about your aunt supposedly dying of the Spanish flu.
Would I be right in saying you wouldn’t upset the family myth (the one I concocted about great, great-granddad) unless it had consequences outside the family?(You mentioned the story not being true wouldn’t matter unless it affected world history). You wouldn’t lie straight out right, but you would leave an opening so people could believe what they wanted, is that right? What is your reasoning for this? How upset do you think people would be to know the truth? How do you think they might feel about you for finding the truth about their ancestor?
And, here’s something else to think about – getting back to the original Bible story. Let’s say, not only is there no evidence of Jews being enslaved in Egypt and wandering 40 years through the desert on their way to Israel (that is, no pottery, no bones, no signs of ancient campsites), but that there is abundant evidence of the Jews being in Israel during all the time that the stories say they were in Egypt. For instance, pottery, bones, settlements, synagogues, agriculture. In fact, there’s no discernible difference between them and the Canaanites who were also there through that same period of time. Also, recent advances in DNA testing indicate that the Hebrews and the Canaanites also have very similar DNA – they are essentially the same people. How important a finding do you think that is?
March 9, 2007 10:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 22:49
I watched the documentry..and no where did it say it was proof of anything.
While I was still grinning from the original announcement it was coming on...the grin was for all the Christians that told me I was going to hell for not believing that Jesus died for me. I really enjoyed the moment that each Christian had that "gasping for air" moment.
I giggled at the thought that Mary of Magdala got married and had a child...whether true or not, I played The What if Game. I do remember reading some where that you had to be married to be called Rabbi...
For me the "Mary the Master" tiggled me...just thinking of the number of Religious men that would have to eat the words- Women can't be Priests because none of the apposles were women...and the men that claimed women should not speak up in church...except there is no "church" in the bible...The aposles would never have said that, church is not a hebrew word...it is Scottish, it comes from Kirk.
Cameron never claimed his documentry was proof, he said it would, he hoped, cause discussion...it is.
And I still am a bit smug about the anger that documentry caused...the religious folks that was on after it, was angry. Not just talking about it..but mad. Which I find very interesting.
Cameron has been called A lier, a cheat, and everything between...why the anger...?
March 9, 2007 9:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 21:09
The original Israelites were from Egypt, says Gary Greenberg in _101 Myths of the Bible_ and _The Moses Mystery_. His theory is that Moses was a priest of Akhenaten, the pharoah who established a monotheistic worship of the sun, and whose followers were driven out of Egypt.
I don't know that Greenberg has the best credentials as a scholar, but he makes a plausible case, and it's fun to read.
Is it true? I dunno.
March 9, 2007 6:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 18:08
Toni Bourlon wrote:
"Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research..."
Thanks for the comment, Tony - and for making my point. As you point out, you didn't really know anything about the church's history. You were inspired to look into the early church by a myth-based movie that was released only last yeat (2006). I don't know if you had converted after marriage a year ago or twenty years ago, but for whatever length of time you had attended chruch, you hadn't heard a whiff about the early church, and, apparently, nothing your church told you inspired you to look into its history, as the Da Vinci Code movie did. Point proven.
"Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works."
Yes, I know that work. However, I tend to agree with the author's findings that the early Israelites were actually Caananites, and I'll continue to believe it until new archaeological evidence (not Biblical, theological or "traditional" evidence) proves otherwise.
I would like to believe that even if the research you did didn't change your religious beliefs an iota, it at least enriched your beliefs to some extent.
March 9, 2007 5:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 17:10
Hey Danny B,
I forgot to ask you earlier, have you ever read anything by Tom Robbins. He's a very amusing guy. You should try reading Another Roadside Attraction, and Jitterbug Perfume. It's amazing where our imaginations can take us when supplied with a little information on a wide variety of topics.
March 9, 2007 5:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 17:00
Very interesting commentary, Elaine. So what do you have to say on the fact that creationism also sells - extremely well - in America? What do you have to say about the wholesale fraud of cottage industries that sell creationist books, market "young earth" field trips to Mount St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, and trot out phony "proof" of the lost Ark? (So many "Arks" on Mount Ararat! Was the Ark carrying a male and female Ark, too?)
Americans blame Bush for the Iraq war and for skewing evidence of global warming, forgetting that they too allowed themselves to be swept away by war fever and compartmentalized thinking. Yet they have not yet shaken off Bush's proclamation that we should teach intelligent design in schools! Conveniently, they still follow Bush's line about "the jury's still out" on evolution when that's simply false, and while we are falling behind in science literacy compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It's time that Americans removed the log from their own eye, first.
March 9, 2007 2:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 14:27
Da Vinci's Last Supper originally included the image of Saint John sleeping beneath the table at Christ's feet. It was the image of St. John beneath the table which conclusively proved that the image to Jesus's right to be Mary. However, this image and all painted copies that included it were destroyed when the monks cut the doorway, ostensibly to reflect the monastary rules that prohibited women from eating in the same dining hall as the men.
March 9, 2007 1:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 13:38
Hello Lily,
Good to see you again.
I mentioned in the case of the hypothetical relative, that it would be different if they had been president, or if it affected world history.
When it comes to being cut off from my five-dollar bill from grandma on my birthday...maybe that is not worth it. <--Meant tongue-in-cheek. But really, in that hypothetical situation I think that sort of sin-of-omission would fall into the category of a white lie. She told me there was Santa Claus, I don't tell her our esteemed relative has no record of graduating magna cum laude...we love each other, it evens out.
I am certain that real historic facts of all kinds have been suppressed by many different entities for as long as there has been recorded history. I feel confident that THAT is a fact.
March 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 13:30
Carefule making definitive statement David C. Unfortunately in today's world with all it's technology and the laziness it affords many americans, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people learn their history from the movies.
March 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 13:13
Danny B,
I knew I'd run into you again. Hope things are well.
Quick question, you said, "While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone."
Do you think that may be the stance that Christian authorities the world over and from the beginning may have had. What if the vatican holds evidence that disproves the Bible's claims and they keep it to themselves because to release it would upset so many people and create such havoc in the religious community, that who knows what might happen?
Kind of a silly question but something that I've always thought about. The Vatican, just like government, hides so many secrets based on the assumption that the people can't deal with truth. Well, that and to keep the balance of Power in their favor.
March 9, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 13:09
Let's not forget that fiction actually is a made up story pretending to be fact. I've never seen a play or read a book that periodically reminded the audience or reader that this didn't actually happen. The fact is that we don't really know much to be fact if we weren't actually there. Much of history is suspect because only governments who won wars were around to record history. The Jews wrote the Bible saying that Jews are God's chosen race; how convenient. There's no proof of a God. There just seems to be something in us that hopes for and yearns for something more. I don't mind people believing what they want, but they need to approach everything with common sense. We don't go to movies to learn history or get our news. There are plenty of places to get news.
March 9, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 13:09
Danny B.,
Thanks for your reply post.
Regards.
March 9, 2007 12:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 12:25
E Favorite,
Speaking for myself, to contiually find new pieces to a puzzle would intrigue me. If ever presented with enough information to draw an actual conclusion, I could live with the outcome.
As far as what I might tell my family, I mentioned before that I could do no more than toss out the fact and let them do with it what they may. I have actually re-thought that answer.
Knowing how people can be when confronted with things like this, if I could anticipate any of my relatives being truly upset by it (even though I consider the information unemotional) I would choose to say nothing at all. If the only fact is that there is no fact, and grandma would be devasted even by that, I would choose to say nothing.
My father does not drink, and my mother rarely does, but when my mother was a child her side of the family drank a lot. There's been no disputing that throughout the family.
My mother once made the simple statement, "If my parents had not drank so much we would have had more growing up."
One of my cousins, who just worshipped Grandpa (mind you both grandparents are gone at this point)was very put out that my mother said that. He claimed that she was bad-mouthing them.
All my mother did was state a fact, with no judgement attached to it. No one has ever disputed the level of drinking the family did in the past. How could that not affect the finances. My mother and aunt have always talked about how there was not a lot of money when they were young. So why the shock from my cousin that it was because of alcohol?
He was jumping to the conclusion that my mother was implying all sorts of horrible things about our grandparents. She has never done any such thing. It was a plain fact. I've never heard anyone say a thing against them. The "drinking stories" are usually pretty funny...but there are A LOT of them!
While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone. In the grand scheme of things, that would ultimately only matter if this esteemed relative had been the president or something. Something that might affect world history.
March 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 12:24
Thanks Danny B, for thinking about this with me.
Here’s another twist: What if you decided to check further, to try to find evidence of your great-great grandfather somewhere else. So you started checking the records of other schools, and found a record of him at a state college near where he grew up – same spelling, the right year, right home town, right major (according to the family stories) but not summa-cum-laude. You checked further and found no other people anywhere with the same name, except one of your cousins, many years later.
Now what would you think and what would you tell you family?
March 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:54
E-Favorite,
I just remembered something about my family history that is true. I can't believe this slipped my mind!
I have always been told that my Grandma's sister died in the Spanish flu epidemic as a little girl. The family was so poor that she was buried in an unmarked grave, so that with my Grandma gone no one will ever know where she is.
Recently her death certificate surfaced. According to that document, she actually died of malaria several years after the flu epidemic. Furthermore, my Grandma did eventually buy a head stone.
I personally found that death by Malria, of all things, was actually more interesting than the poor girl's participation in a great historic tragedy.
March 9, 2007 11:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:49
I have read the posts and have read the books, yet unfortunately was unable to see the documentary. I agree, there may not be enough evidence to prove the points being made, and yes, the Davinci Code is fiction, but you know what? It was a good book. You know why it was a good book? Because it made a person think and raise questions. That is what makes a discovery or a book standout, its ability to make us think. Would we even be talking about this if we weren't curious ourselves about what the truth is?
I know that I'd love to know, but for now, all we have is guessing and questioning. Is what we were told all our life a crock? Is it real? Many questions can come out of all of this and many answers can also come, but there will probably be alack of real evidence for quite awhile. What we tell our children regarding religion is what we were either told, taught, or learned. Whether or not a child actually belives Jesus was born on Christmas is up to him or her to decide, that is waht its about. Find your own way of thinking. Keep the questions coming, and hopefully, one day we can al lhave the answers we seek.
March 9, 2007 11:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:30
This article is pathetic. The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Dale Brown - you know, the guy who wrote it - has never claimed otherwise. Anyone in this country has the right to produce whatever piece of fiction they choose, and if you're offended, tough. Read the Constitution. That is fact.
March 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:20
Norrie Hoyt:
--In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.
I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.--
Yes, I read about that too. I also read that many villages in France and Latin America too, have patron saints that are not recognized by the Catholic Church. The town recognizes them through tradition anyway.
As that relates to the DaVinci Code, the fact of that tradition makes for more compelling fiction, doesn't it?
What I meant above was that Sophie Neveu is a ficticious character, therefore she cannot be the progeny (got it right this time) of Jesus and Mary Magdalene even if it were true that they did have children together.
I'm just pointing out that DaVinci Code is fiction, and as far as I can see doesn't claim to be otherwise.
March 9, 2007 11:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:11
Regarding the resarch of my esteemed ancestor:
What I would think is, that it is very curious. Harvard not having the record though doesn't really prove he did not attend there. Things like that can be lost over time.
I personally would think that THAT is now the interesting story.
As for what I would tell my family, I don't really know. I might not say anything at all. That doesn't leave much to say.
If I did, all I COULD say is, "I contacted Harvard for more information, and they say they have no record of him." It's the truth, a fact, and let them do with that what they will.
If relatives say he did. Harvard says, "No record". The only fact: There is no proof of anything.
Good question!
March 9, 2007 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:57
This was a very well written article. I understood the precepts and evevn though I haven't seen the documentary I understood where the Author was coming from. I enjoy the study of Religion and have tried to become knowledgable about it. I think I know a little bit and I know that there is alot more for me to learn. The one thing that I do know is that during the period of Jesus, the word Virgin had a different meaning. Virgin meant a unattached woman and had nothing to do with sex. I do not know how or when the definition changed, I will have to do more research. Please think about this. I personally believe that Jesus was a great man and teacher, as for the rest I do not know. Be Blessed.
March 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:51
Anonymous,
I read that too.
--Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence...--
What I took away from that is this; There is no evidence. That is the conclusion.
As a result of that lack of evidence, they are taking archaeological facts about the period in question to try and create an image of the time, place and culture these stories refer to.
I don't get the impression that they are trying to disprove the Bible at all.
March 9, 2007 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:43
Danny B.,
You wrote: "The proginy [sic] of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed."
In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.
I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.
March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:30
Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research on the subject. No, I'm a long way from an expert, but I read "The Concise History of the Catholic Church," which had stuff in it that was far scarier than anything the movie suggested! Next I read "Prisoner of the Vatican," and found out the reason the Pope is "infallible" is because Pious IX had quite an ego, go figure. Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works. Finally I watched Cameron's film, and again I didn't buy his conclusions, but the DNA testing was interesting. He also attempted to use Gnostic text to explain why Mariamne was Mary Magdalene, even though Jesus had a sister by that name? Except DNA said they didn't have the same mother. So what? Catholics believe Joseph had children from another wife. He also didn't explain how a poor family could afford their own family tomb, or how a family of carpenters would even know how to write. Most poor people didn't know how to write. Oh well, as you said people believe what they want to, yourself included. Have a nice day!
March 9, 2007 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:15
Thanks, Danny B -- It's interesting to get your perspective, too: "To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened."
What if, according to your family’s tradition, your great-great grandfather had graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. You had never seen the diploma or his yearbook, but had heard many stories over the years from older family members about great-great-grandfather’s adventures and great achievements at Harvard. One cousin had even written down some of the stories, bound them up and distributed them among the family. They were among the family’s most treasured possessions.
A big family reunion was coming up, and you decided it would be a great idea to get even more information about this most esteemed family member, so you contacted Harvard. Much to you surprise, there was no record of him. You had them check multiple years and multiple possible spellings of the family name. You went there to see for yourself, but to no avail. There was no record of great-great grandfather at Harvard.
What would you think? What would you tell your family?
March 9, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 10:12
If anything, I need to investigate the "preview" button. Sorry abowt tha typoes.
March 9, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 09:05
E Favorite,
Thanks for the input.
If I am correct, you are saying that my confusion comes from not projecting on to these works more than they themselves offer.
That would be a good way of sorting out my confusion. I think that's the case, but was coming up short with the right words to descibe it.
I feel today, just as I did before, that my faith is intact despite exposure to these ideas. Ideas aren't bad or harmful. I think that not bothering to check for yourself is harmful.
Just like the book review you quoted. To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened. It doesn't shake my faith to hear someone say that, and I am not afraid of someone investigating whether or not that is true.
It's funny, whenever there is a book, movie, etc...where people are just in an uproar, wanting it banned and such, it just makes it more likely that I will go see for myself.
If someone know what they are talking about, then they have read, or seen it. Why shouldn't I then. This is where I really se the American in me...no one is going to tell me what I can and cannot read or see.
Thanks for the post.
March 9, 2007 8:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 08:52
E Favorite wrote:
"Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories."
Actually it is yet another theory. Even in their own words, Finkelstein and Silberman say their book is an "attempt to formulate a new archaeological vision of ancient Israel," which is hardly saying they have irrefutable evidence. Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence, which is unfortunately how so much of the scientific world expects us to accept their theories as fact.
March 9, 2007 8:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 08:51
Speed123,
See John Conolley's post for Pagels' credentials as a scholar.
"I wonder who is a the head of many of these media companies? The descendants of the Pharisees."
I don't understand the meaning of that comment. Would you explain?
March 9, 2007 8:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 08:27
Danny B – You’re confused that you “had” to go to the fiction section to get a fiction book. You’re also confused that a TV show, short on conclusive evidence, gives you the impression of being speculative. I'm not sure, but perhaps what you're missing is an expectation that a book clearly labeled as fiction and a TV show clearly labeled as speculative somehow really should be something more than that.
Maybe this stems from the hype typically associated with religion, in which sensational but unproven or unprovable claims are regularly made by clergy and accepted by their congregations. Could be you’re so used to this that when obvious questions are raised, you recognize them, but don’t know what to make of them. I’d guess that whatever it is that you are “missing” is a common malady in our culture.
Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories. Even so, it’s hard to believe, perhaps because it’s not a fiction thriller, and it hasn’t been front page news or a hugely hyped TV special.
Read the Amazon description of Jewish archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=
Here’s the first sentence of the review: The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.
March 9, 2007 8:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 08:23
It's killing me. I watched James Cameron's program on Discovery, but missed the first five minutes. Is that where I missed the assertion that they had ACTUALLY found the tomb of the Jesus Family? Throughout the program I got the impression that they were speculating, that they were attempting to prove that speculation one way or another. They presented findings, then calculated and re-calculated the statistical probability that this was Jesus' tomb, but never claimed that they believed 100% that it was. The program ended with them saying they would probably never know.
I keep hearing conversations about this program, but never about the actual content. I keep thinking it's "much ado about nothing".
Likewise with DaVinci Code. I had to get it from a shelf of works of fiction at the bookstore. The book itself was labelled fiction. I found it thoroughly entertaining, but new that it was fiction.
Further reading led me to discover that the elaborate security system in the Louvre is fiction. Saunier never existed, therefore his membership in a secret society protecting these dangerous secrets never existed. The proginy of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed.
Again, much ado about nothing.
With all due respect I ask, "What am I missing?"
March 9, 2007 6:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 9, 2007 06:11
Victoria:
"Is this a scholar?"
Elaine Pagels is indeed a scholar. She is Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, She was one of the translators of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, and wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels," which the Modern Library has named as one of the hundred best books of the twentieth century.
Of course, if you really wanted to know, you would have typed her name in Google yourself.
March 8, 2007 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 22:04
Mr Mark and D –
I attended a New Testament class in a liberal Episcopal church with highly educated, mainly middle-aged and older people. At the beginning of the course, it was established that most had not studied the NT since Sunday school. People are astounded and obviously boggled by what they are learning. I’m glad they decided to take the class, but it also seems unconscionable that they should be allowed to be practitioners of a religion for so long, knowing so little about it. I think they probably researched their last car purchase more than they had their lifelong religion. The church shouldn’t allow such ignorance and parishioners should be aware that what they hear in church on Sunday is not nearly enough to appreciate the religion they practice.
Unfortunately, this is the state of religion education in the US today.
March 8, 2007 9:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 21:46
When I went to Bible Study, the thrust of the effort was to use the bible to show that the bible is right.
There are certain things that were not allowable topics: such as "What if the bible is just a pile of crap made up by men along time ago who were relatively ignorant?"
March 8, 2007 8:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 20:26
HA!
First she states, praises the Da Vinci Code and states that it "did much to raise public awareness" then she goes on to warn about "commercialized trash" and finally makes a veiled pitch for us to buy her books on the dead sea scrolls (a source written 400 years after the fact).
Pangels is just another sycophant looking to make a buck off the of the Christian bashing trend publishing/media.
I wonder who is a the head of many of these media companies?
The decendants of the Pharisees.
March 8, 2007 7:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 19:02
Having not seen this film- i dont have an opinion-
after reading the guests opinions- i still dont have one- no actual facts were presented to dispute the authenticity or to invalidate the films assertion one way or another-
besides a misleading connection between a hollyowod film- and complaints about sensationalism-
i have come away no more informed one way or another-
if i wanted a film critics thumbs down id have gone to imdb-
is this a scholar? where did the dead sea scrolls deal with christianity?
to my opinion- it is sensationalisim to equate one film with another without offering any reason why the film should be dismissed scientifically-
March 8, 2007 5:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 17:51
"1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?"
Absolutely, which is why I'm so glad I found my church. How in the world could I possibly decide for myself what I believe if my church told me I shouldn't study something? Churches' refusal to even discuss these topics is based on fear and control. It's as if they don't differentiate between education and practice.
"2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?"
We are never expected to end up at some pre-set church-accepted conclusion. I would never want to be led that way. It is much more gratifying to me to see that there are people who can have differences of opinion here and there, and still come to the same general belief in God and Saviour.
You want to hear Christians argue? Ask them if Jews will go to Heaven. That was a good one! (by the way, I believe that they will.)
March 8, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 16:52
To D -
One more thing. You wrote:
"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."
First, these statistics are only 10 years old. Were they statistics about the penetration of DVD players in American households, we could rightly doubt their veracity. In the case of what Americans know about the items cited by Ms Jacoby, I doubt very much that there has been a sea change in Americans' awareness of such things. We take a census only every 10 years, yet we go with those statistics until a new set comes out. It's entirely possible that the 1997 stats are the most recent stats available. At least they're not from 1950...or 33CE, for that matter.
March 8, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 16:26
D. wrote:
"The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). snip
"At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.
"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."
Thanks for adding to the conversation. Your post was enlightening, and I read it eagerly.
I have two questions:
1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?
2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?
Thanks for your answers.
March 8, 2007 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 16:16
The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). We have a very extensive education system in place, with 8 or so 8- to 12-week courses offered every 3 months, year-round on different subjects. We always have a class of guest scholars who have enlightened us on many topics. We study everything from Jewish history and beginning Christianity to end-times and current events. 80% of our adult membership attends classes every week, and many of the topic discussions carry over into the huge number of small groups that we have, which meet weekly to increase our knowledge of various subjects. We also throughout the year have a variety of guest speakers come by for a one-evening lecture on some topic of interest. We have had studies on the Gnostics, an incredibly interesting topic, and how there is a school of thought that the texts seem to be writings from the beginings of a faith that blended Christianity and Eastern religion (much of the wording is very similar to Hindu and Buddhism teaching). We also recently had a class discussing the failures of the Church in speech and practice.
At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.
Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable.
March 8, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 8, 2007 15:57
Anyone who believes in gods, ghosts, ...