I think the biblical things he claimed are somewhat ficticious. Claiming that some of Christian tradition evolved from Pagan traditions are well-known facts since a former Pagan was responsible for the evolution of the church in the early times (Constantine).\n\nI just want to know what you think.
206733
It is all open to conjecture. Some of the characters or events are actual historical persons/events e.g. Mary Magdalene did exist..whether she was indeed the "wife" of Jesus is open to debate...the Knight's Templar did exist..whether they were privy to "the great secret of Jesus's marriage and blood descendants" is another story...same goes for Leonardo da Vinci. Dan Brown does not make claim that any of these events are in fact true; they are loosely based on historical facts. Archaeology and in deed biblical history/archaeology has a hard time reconciling events in the bible to factual historical accounts. This is because the bible was borne out of oral traditions. There is little that is "eye witness testimony". It is however safe to say that christian beliefs, rituals and practices are an amalgamation of other religious traditions since nothing is born in a vacuum.
163062
I found the language of the show to be quite interesting. Fore instance, during the first half of the show, they kept asking the question: "Is it real?" This isn't really what they meant, what they meant was "Is it old?" To me, they were implying that "real" = "true".\n\nThey also did not mention several Gnostic beliefs that would have discredited the movement in many people's eyes. You remember the scene at the last supper when they talked about Jesus laughing because the disciples were worshipping the wrong God, that the God who created the universe was actually an inferior God that was not worthy to be worshipped. What they didn't say was that Gnostics believed that this was the God of the Old Testament, so they ignored the Old Testament.\n\nAnother thing that stuck out to me was the phrase "When Jesus appeared on the Earth." Because they believed that the material world was evil, they had what is known as a Docetic view of Jesus. That is, that Jesus only appeared to be human, because God would have never become human and contaminated himself with the material world.\n\nI strongly agree with the speaker at the end who said that the Gospel of Judas provides valuable historical information about the history of Christianity and the movements within it. It shows us that there was never one single Christianity being practiced.  People have beein arguing about who Jesus was since a few minutes after he died.  With that being said, I do not personally believe it provides a historically accurate picture of the characters of Jesus and Judas.\n\nFinally, they seemed to think the fact that there were many Christianities unique. I have to disagree with that. There are many different versions of the Christian faith today, with different holy texts, etc. The book of Mormon is a prime example.\n\nIf you read the other Gnostic texts, you will find they have a lot in common with the Gospel of Judas.  For instance, both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas elevate one of the Disciples above the others.  The Gospel of Mary Magdalene does the same thing for Mary.  None of the four canonical gospels does this for their author.\n\nAnother thing that absolutely amazes me is that we have 4 gospels that tell very similar stories.  There are some minor differences in the order of events or the events included, but they are consistant for the most part.  One new gospel is found that offers a different story and many people jump on that and say, "Wow!  This is the real story."  It just doesn't make any sense.
648819
That is a very intelligent rant there. Good for you. And, thank you for being the christian you are.\n\nNow, for all the laughable responses you got.\nThe bible is not historically accurate. It has been PROVEN many biblical stories were in fact translations of ancient roman, african, and greek stories. NOT the word of god. Also, nothing in the bible is able to be verified. Therefore it cannot be classified as anything but Fiction.\n\nAs for God having the power to make sure his words were conveyed correctly. That is also highly incorrect. It has been discovered much of the bible was not even close to interpreted correctly from it's original form. It has many completely made up parts and was written by christians with alterior motives and an agenda.
359608
Just thinking about your statement.  You could be wrong.  I would tend to believe that the oldest beliefs would more likely be the correct ones..(closer to creation) and polytheism came first.
75250
If you already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the traditional mid-winter and spring timing of the two holidays was Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here. \n\nWhat you'll discover here is that Christianity inherited everything from the Pagans. The core of Christianity—the worship of a godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began in the Near East two thousand years before Jesus. \n\nChristian theology borrowed more than the myth of the saving godman. Initiation by baptism, communion with the God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, and immortality of the soul all belonged many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.\n\nChristianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology. Sons of God born of a mortal woman, and miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. \n\nAnd they had them centuries before Christianity was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye.\n\nWhen Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, \nwe understand that as a myth. \n\nWhen the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.\n\nWhen Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.\n\nWhen Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, \nwe understand that as a myth.\n\nWhen Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.\n\nWhen Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth. \n\nWhen Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.\n\nSo how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God,      born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy,          turning water into wine and how come, in a culture with all those Sons of God, where miracles were science, where Heaven and Hell and God and eternal life and salvation were in the temples, in the philosophies, in the books, were dancing and howling in street festivals, how come we imagine Jesus and the stories about him developed all on their own, all by themselves, without picking up any of their stuff from the culture they sprang from, the culture full of the same sort of stuff?
291051
The Da Vinci Corrode - An Opinion Piece by Schneb\n\nI am amazed at how gullible people are at believing the so-called "facts" that this book brings up. Out of thin air! 80 gospels written!? And Constantine only chose 4, then corrupted them? First, including all the false gnostic gospels, there was hardly a quarter of that amount. Second, Constantine had nothing to do with the Canon of scripture.\n\nDon Brown states through the main character that it was the council of Nicea that voted to say that Jesus was God--and that it was a "close vote". Yeah, a close vote of 316 to 2. Wow, how close. Funny, though, a few months ago they discovered in Megiddo, the oldest Christian church dating back to the 2nd century. 100 years before the council of Nicea did their "close vote", we see a mosaic dedication that reads, "dedicated to the God Jesus Christ". This belief was confirmed by the 2nd century writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenius and Clement of Alexandria (again, 100 years before Nicea).\n\nAnd then he has the gall to say there were true gospels in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Man, this guy is delusional. There is not ONE mention of Jesus in ANY of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet people are eating this nonsense up.\n\nMary was Jesus' mother, and He told John, while on the cross, to take her into his home and take care of her. Mary Magdalene was there as well. If they were married, Jesus would have provided for her as well. Do you think after the resurrection that Jesus would have known that Mary M. was pregnant with their child? Yet, when He spoke to her, she called Him "teacher", not "husband", and neither spoke of activity in the womb. A little common sense is needed here.\n\nIf you don't want to believe, then say so. But don't base it on ignorant revisionist history like the Da Vinci Code. Looks like the world is all ready for the coming deception...\n\n2 Thessalonians 2:11-12\nFor this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
653713
No. god decided to contradict himself by taking away free will for a bit, so he could get the humans to write his book for him.\nAnd of course, that's ignoring all the inconsistancies in the new testament, like made up prophesies and the evidence to support that the old testament was actually copied from ancient Sumerian stone tablets...\n\n:)\n\nTY, shawny  :D
534572
Yea I didn't know much about Paganism. I learned alot from Chris J, a user on here, he is awesome. Also I saw that many of my fellow Christians are absolute NUTCASES on here.\n\n():-D\nshadowgirl
145687
I'm guessing here, but I think he may be referring to the Christian idea of the "old covenant" in the Tanakh, and the "new covenant" of the New Testament. Two laws.\nOn a side note I find his Q&A fascinating. When he's on, he comes up with some really clever stanzas. Seems a little out there quite often, but he truly has the soul of a poet.
521514
The bottom line of Poki's post is "because someone said so". But that isn't true. \n\nThe oldest book on earth, a copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls, is essentially identical to what we have today. Through the dead sea scrolls we have again proven that the Bible that we have is reliable and accurate and consistent in it's message. There is no scholarly authority or archaeological evidence that proves otherwise. Nada. \n\nSaying the Bible is corrupt is just the same old lie; "Yea, hath God said...?"
290622
Sounds about right to me.\n\nBack in cave man days stories were invented to explain away things that could not be explained.  Fire, thunder, tides, rain, sun etc.  These stories evolved into the Greek and Roman gods, stories were made up about them and their heroic deeds.\n\nLater the Christian God came along and to this day is used as a crutch by the intellectually and educationally impaired.  Living in Bible belt as I do this is so very apparent.  There is a horrible lack of education so God and His mysterious ways is used as an explanation for the complexities of the world.  Why bother learning real facts or science when one can just attend church and be spoon fed opinions and stories that explain everything?\n\nBut I think that you forgot one important reason religion was invented by man:  Power and control.  Religion does explain a lot of things with magical theories, but man has also used religion to control others and subjugate women.
633511
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and\nthe writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal\nthat they were constantly forced by the pagan\nintelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other\nChristians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and\nfabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever\nhaving taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says,\n"And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never\ninterrupted succession, but never so strongly and\nemphatically as in the most primitive times, was the\nexistence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5\nEmperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the\nfanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine,\nreturned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone\nshould wish to know the truth with respect to you\nChristians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly\nof the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and\nconfusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together\nnot the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."
300424
I agree with you. the bible has a very seedy background and its a damn shame that christians refuse to question where thier bibles came from.
253395
Well all this bloodline business is pure speculation, however that Jesus was married to the Magdalene is more than speculation since we have evidence in the writings of the earliest christians. You are right to say the christians never thought Jesus was god and such ideas crept into christianity centuries later. Once the church voted on the divinity of Jesus, they picked & chose the writings which suited them (and it's interesting that even with all the picking & choosing the so-called NT still does not declare that Jesus is god). DC is simply stirring up the old issue again and people are sick & tired of churches dictating what god is. And no, the churches do not like people to go sniffing into the past.
189869
Uh, no. \n\nThe concept of a trinity is nothing new. While the word itself isn't in the Bible, the concept was around for a long time before; that's why and how the apostles understood it even without it being specifically named. But it doesn't work at all the same as any mythology.\n\nThere's a blog on my 360 that explains it in detail, but there's too much to include here and still hope to be literate. Anyway, the idea has nothing to do with Adam, Abraham, or Moses. The message of Jesus is hardly to worship 3 gods, nor is it to worship the trinity. He did say to worship the God who sent him, but made very clear comments about his own deity.
505041
The God of the Old Testament appears to have more than one personality. The identity of God seems to vary with the author. I see religion as an evolutionary process.
220208
Christianity is paganism and has no relation with the original Hebrew religion.\n\nConstantine attempted to invent a universal religion by incorporating Hebrew myths into his pagan religion, but it appears Hebrews would have nothing to do with it.