Saw Da Vinci Code last night

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I heard that Fargo is fictional, and that the intro "based on a true story" was just creativity on the Coen's part. Sometimes, the Coens really turn my head.

fargo is fictional? no freakin' way!

Saw the Da Vinci Code Saturday...fell asleep about halfway through.

Aries wrote: Saw the Da Vinci Code Saturday...fell asleep about halfway through.

Good money for a good sleep, ha?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Anyone who actually believes such bullshit is surely an idiot. Of course, even if it were true, it would hardly surprise me. Who gives a damn what Jesus did with his penis? If he had a whole harem it wouldn't bother me one bit. The "family values" loyalists just can't seem to get around the idea that their benevolent savior might want a family of his own too. And yet they applaud when Mel Gibson tears the shit out of The Christ because it's "morally uplifting," beneath more gore than I've seen in the last 12 horror flicks put together. Bunch of fucking hypocrites. If they didn't have their thumbs up their own asses over the supposed "divinity" of Christ, maybe they'd allow their priests to marry and stop fucking little kids. And don't get me started on the Catholic Church. When an organized religion selectively changes and mistranslates their holy book to fit their political beliefs, launches campaigns of genocide and Inquisition, maintains complicity with fascists, harbors child molesters, condemns homosexuals, and indirectly contributes to the spread of epidemics like AIDS....well then, what they actually do behind closed doors should be of little surprise.

don't be shy david, tell us what you really think.

the coen brothers led us into a similar web of confusion when they declared the events of 'fargo' to be based on true events. how. dare. they.

True, but I have no trouble with people passing off fiction as truth--IF they do it well, and the Coen brothers certainly did. Same can be said for Werner Herzog's documentaries, which are often very stylized, blending fiction and fact. When it's just some pop pap that is repackaged for mass consumption by Hollywood and that overzealous people take too seriously because they either need to latch onto a conspiracy theory or because they're trying to protect their "faith" (as if people with a real commitment to faith would actually need to protect themselves from challenges to it!), then I start to have problems with it.

Guys, this is brilliant. Movie reviews that say more than "better than/just like/not as good as" the book.

Haven't read the book, may see the movie 'cos I just love movies, from Citizen Kane and Kagemusha all the way down via Godzilla vs The Smog Monster to Dances With Wolves. Actually, everything I've heard/read about it says "don't bother."

And now you two have introduced context from the REAL world: Herzog, the Coens, Gibson, the Church, hypocrisy, conspiracy theory, child molestation...all human life is here. But even I wasn't expecting "the Spanish Inquisition". (Monty Python reference for you Python virgins out there.)

The rest of you, take a reality pill. And look for something more challenging. Go find a movie by David Cronenberg, Coen brothers, Richard Linklater, Renoir, Kurosawa, Rivette, Ingmar Bergman.

At least check out Hitchcock's Vertigo if you want something to puzzle over. And if you REALLY like puzzles, find a dvd of Peter Greenaway's The Draughtman's Contract.

Yeah, Greenaway kicks ass. Now his movies I'd happily pay $8.25 to see, especially A Zed and Two Noughts (my fave of his).

hugh mcphail wrote:

At least check out Hitchcock's Vertigo if you want something to puzzle over. And if you REALLY like puzzles, find a dvd of Peter Greenaway's The Draughtman's Contract.

Vertigo is a great movie. Also a good puzzler is "Lost Highway"; had to watch it twice to finally understand the movie's meaning.

JHC

I've seen my share of puzzler movies. On the top of my head, I have seen:

Donnie Darko The Game etc.

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I heard that Fargo is fictional, and that the intro "based on a true story" was just creativity on the Coen's part. Sometimes, the Coens really turn my head.

fargo is fictional? no freakin' way!

Read the trivia from imdb.com. OK, technically the murders were inspired by a true story. As far as the suitcase goes, I don't think so. Go to the site to see what I mean.

ya sure is ya

Shed Peel wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

Shed Peel wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Fargo is actually a top movie.

+1

I truly adore William Macy... he is soooo cool!

he is also Dr Morgenstern in ER.

You should see him in Happy Texas....

that may be another one to check out for me, as Ally Walker is also in it.

NOOLigan wrote:

Shed Peel wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

Shed Peel wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Fargo is actually a top movie.

+1

I truly adore William Macy... he is soooo cool!

he is also Dr Morgenstern in ER.

You should see him in Happy Texas....

that may be another one to check out for me, as Ally Walker is also in it.

it's a bizarre movie.... no femme fatale, but still it makes me laugh and laugh and laugh! Okay, I'm giggling just thinking about it..

PS Now my friends want to see another movie, so Da Vinci Code may be on DVD before I get to see it. :)

just as well I think Em.

no Wendy, well it still sounds good.

Al Jarvis wrote:

Hopefully they'll have cold onion bits for you too (so rare to find in this country, shame.).

Morrisons and Tesco sell them, yum!

yer all whoppers if you go see this film (with a capital Dub)

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: Anyone who actually believes such bullshit is surely an idiot. Of course, even if it were true, it would hardly surprise me. Who gives a damn what Jesus did with his penis? If he had a whole harem it wouldn't bother me one bit. The "family values" loyalists just can't seem to get around the idea that their benevolent savior might want a family of his own too. And yet they applaud when Mel Gibson tears the shit out of The Christ because it's "morally uplifting," beneath more gore than I've seen in the last 12 horror flicks put together. Bunch of fucking hypocrites. If they didn't have their thumbs up their own asses over the supposed "divinity" of Christ, maybe they'd allow their priests to marry and stop fucking little kids. And don't get me started on the Catholic Church. When an organized religion selectively changes and mistranslates their holy book to fit their political beliefs, launches campaigns of genocide and Inquisition, maintains complicity with fascists, harbors child molesters, condemns homosexuals, and indirectly contributes to the spread of epidemics like AIDS....well then, what they actually do behind closed doors should be of little surprise.

Spot on, for the most part, your holiness. I wouldn't call anyone who believes any of it an idiot, though. Just that some people are willing to believe something based on scant facts because it's exciting, or whatever. If you watch one show, they can make a good argument and sway you one way. Then you watch another show with a conflicting point of view and you wonder what the crap you were just watching is all about. People just need to hear both perspectives and decide for themselves if it's bullshit.

Scattermcbrain wrote: i'm seeing the movie tonight and will be having a hot dog AND popcorn

I've read the book and have heard disappointing reviews elsewhere..but I figure it's one of those movies I just have to see anyways for various reasons. besides, I already bought the ticket.. 2 hours till it starts

~Victoria

edit: I also would not have picked tom hanks for the part - or at least NOT with that awful haircut they having him sporting..ugh! I definitely pictured a more clean-cut guy for the part

So how was it??

redphoenix11 wrote: I have no desire to see the movie because I hated the book. It wasn't just that Dan Brown tried to pass off a bunch of pseudo-history as fact, it was that he was suddenly praised for writing a great novel when he's a hack that realized bashing Christianity is better than being a two-bit Tom Clancy ripoff. People who call the book a great thriller are basically giving the finger to authors like Frederick Forsyth, Ken Follettand John Le Carré who, at the top of their game, could beat the crap out of what Dan Brown has regurgitated...

He was a bit arrogant in trying to make his argument seem stronger than it really is. I saw a TV show where they interviewed one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (this is the one author who DIDN'T sue Dan Brown), the book where Brown lifted much of his idea, and this guy was much more reasonable. He said that it was just a theory and there was no way to prove it. He thought Brown had gone too far too. Now, just because somebody liked this book, doen't mean they think any less of Forsyth, Follettand, Le Carre, or anybody else. I thought it was fast moving and kept my interest. The important thing it, IT'S JUST FICTION! Basically, Brown took just enough historical "facts" and historical uncertainties to make in interesting bit of fiction. It is all conjecture, and I certainly don't believe any of it, but it doesn make for an interesting read if that's all you're interested in. Anyone who rips the book for being heretical, especially without reading it (I'm referring here to the religious cnservatives who boycotted the book, most of them without having ever read it) needs to get a life, IMHO. I'm not Catholic, so I'm sure I don't fully perceive the ramifications, but I heard heard all this stuff about how anti-Catholic the book was, and how Catholics and religious conservatives were boycotting the book, but by the time I gont done reading it, I didn't see what all the fuss was about. Minor spoiler alert here- It does seem like the church is being set up to be dastardly, but by the end of the book much isn't as it seemed, and while the church of hundreds of years ago doesn't come across too well, I don't think there is any condemnation on the modern church. Just my opinion, though.

Just been to see it tonight, it was ok, i won't be rushing out to rent the DVD or watch it again is all i'll say.

Shellshocker wrote:

Scattermcbrain wrote: i'm seeing the movie tonight and will be having a hot dog AND popcorn

I've read the book and have heard disappointing reviews elsewhere..but I figure it's one of those movies I just have to see anyways for various reasons. besides, I already bought the ticket.. 2 hours till it starts

~Victoria

edit: I also would not have picked tom hanks for the part - or at least NOT with that awful haircut they having him sporting..ugh! I definitely pictured a more clean-cut guy for the part

So how was it??

the food or the movie? hehe

the movie was good I thought - not excellent, but not bad either. A lot of stuff was left out and a bit was added. I was disappointed with how little 'clue solving' was left in..there were so many more clues and 'detective work' type things in the book that I kind of missed. I found it refreshing how they basically took out the romance/love element in the movie (between sophie and langdon). I understand why ppl didn't like some of the actual technique to the movie (don't know the proper word here...), there were definitely some moments where u'd have a scene, and then suddenly a different scene..there needed to be some kind of transition (fading or movement of camera..something, this isn't really my area), it just felt abrupt at times.

I found that the movie played up the opus dius (sp?) plot a lot more than the book..maybe it was an attempt to be less controversial in terms of 'proving' the jesus being married and having a kid issue..

it was definitely a very quick movie despite being about 2 and a half hours long...

so overall, a little disappointing, but not as bad as I think some people are making it out to be. I'm glad they made the movie but I do think that they shouldn't have had hanks...audrey t was good though, I thought she did really well.

I find it comparable to memoirs of a geisha in terms of transfering the book to a movie format. memoirs went by SO fast and the sense of time was really lost..one minute she's being dragged off and the next she's training to be a geisha by mameha. but in the book you really get the feeling of everything she goes through and how long of a process it was and must have felt like for her. granted, the book for da vinci code took place in a short amount of time (as did the movie), but it felt a lot longer because of the amount of content packed into that short time...

I guess I'm just overall pretty ambivalent about the movie.

it's probably more important that I thought it was worth my money to see, and probably to buy and add to my collection of movies

Thanks for the review, Scattermcbrain. It sounds like they changed too much stuff for my taste but I'll see it anyway. I have Memoirs of a Geisha but haven't read it yet, so I can't see the movie yet. So no spoilers!

Shellshocker wrote: Thanks for the review, Scattermcbrain. It sounds like they changed too much stuff for my taste but I'll see it anyway. I have Memoirs of a Geisha but haven't read it yet, so I can't see the movie yet. So no spoilers!

Don't know what it is, but my wife and her friends (all Japanese) do not like the "memoirs of a geisha". They haven't seen or read it, but the "word on the street" is that it is an Americanized idea of what geisha were, not what they really were and meant to Japanese culture.

I haven't seen the movie, and want to see it so I can confirm this or not. . .but need to talk the wife into watch it with me, as I hate watching movies alone.

JHC

I'm about three quaters through it myself. I find it enjoyable, although the the chapters are a bit short.

Below is a reasonable critique that I found if anybody cares. Mind you it is obviously a religious critique in defence of the faith, but it still raises some valid points.

These are not neccessarily my views. I just put it up as an alternative.

This does not even address actual errors such as Opus Dei's supposed multi-million dollar headquarters in New York.

The Gospel According to Dan Brown With over 40 million copies sold worldwide, translated into 44 languages, and a blockbuster film due out in mid-May, The Da Vinci Code has made Dan Brown a very wealthy man. But a whirlwind of controversy has surrounded his novel, first released in March 2003. “Why all the fuss over a work of fiction?” some might ask. The fuss involves the subject matter of the book, and claims made about it. The Da Vinci Code is about the most important person in history, Jesus Christ, and Dan Brown claims that his book is based on fact. That is where the problems arise. Very briefly, the book contains two main plot lines. The first is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had a daughter, and that the Holy Grail is actually the royal bloodline of Mary, still in existence today in Europe. Moreover, Jesus intended that Mary be the head of the church and that we should worship the “divine feminine”. But patriarchal control and power struggles prevented this original intention. The second plot line is that this story was covered up by the Catholic Church, and the main characters in the book seek to unearth this conspiracy and get the truth out about Jesus and Mary. A number of claims are made about this big church cover up, including: • the idea that belief in the divinity of Christ was a later invention of the church; • the church has suppressed the real story about Jesus; • it has also suppressed numerous other “gospels”; • Mary, rather than Peter, was meant to have led the church; • the Emperor Constantine in the third century converted matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity; • a secret society known as the Priory of Sion still worships Mary as a goddess and is trying to keep the “truth” alive; • Leonardo da Vinci tried to protect these “truths” by planting secret codes in his paintings, especially his painting of the Last Supper. In addition, the book makes other outrageous claims, such as, all religions are based on fabrication; the Bible is just a fabricated and unreliable book; and there is nothing new about Christianity, only a retelling of old pagan mythology. All of these claims of massive church cover-ups are simple fantasy, and the various anti-Christian allegations are wildly speculative and lacking in credible evidence. But because Brown claims that his work of fiction is firmly built on fact and solid research, these claims are all the more troublesome. How many countless individuals have been deceived by these erroneous claims? How many people have left the faith because of such wild assertions? The truth is, this book is one big hatchet job. There are so many major as well as minor inaccuracies, falsehoods, errors and mistakes in this book that a book length expose is required (see the booklist below). There are historical errors, theological errors, errors of art and archaeology, to name but a few. Here only a brief critique can be offered of this seriously marred book. Jesus: Mere Man or God Incarnate? Perhaps one of the most damning assertions of Brown (speaking through his novel) is the claim that neither Jesus nor the early church believed that Jesus was anything other than a mere mortal. Instead, his claims to deity were invented much later (in 325 A.D.). Thus a massive conspiracy to write history was undertaken, and a new Jesus emerged. And we are still being duped today. Brown makes these claims quite clear when he says, through his character Teabing: “almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false”. According to Brown, Jesus himself never claimed to be divine. And the early church did not teach his deity. It was only at the Council of Nicea in 325 that Emperor Constantine invented the idea of the deity of Christ in order to solidify his power. As these claims directly challenge core Christian beliefs, they deserve some attention here. Contrary to Brown, both Jesus and the early disciples asserted boldly that Jesus was not just a human prophet, but indeed God with us. Jesus himself asserted his belief in his equality with the Father in numerous places. “I and my Father are one” he could say (John 10:30). He told Philip that “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 12:44). He claimed attributes (and performed actions) consistent with divinity, including forgiving sins, predicting his death and resurrection, and announcing his role as judge of all things at the end of time. The Jews at the time certainly understood where he was coming from: they sought to kill him, for in claiming God as his father, he was “making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). While the Romans wanted him dead for being a threat to the peace, the Jews wanted him dead for his religious claims which they regarded as blasphemy. His earliest followers also proclaimed his full deity. The first verse of John’s gospel proclaims that “the Word [Jesus] was God”. Paul, writing a few decades after the death of Christ, could speak of Jesus as “being in the very nature of God” (Phil. 2:6) and being “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15-16). Other New Testament writers make similar claims about Jesus. Even doubting Thomas could exclaim as he fell at the feet of Jesus: “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus continually accepted the worship of his followers, not just by Thomas but by many others (blind men, wise men, lepers, Mary Magdalene, rulers, angels, and his disciples. Both he and they were well aware that only God alone could be worshipped (Ex. 34:14; Deut. 6:13; Matt. 4:10). And the early church followed suit. For example, many second century church fathers continued this tradition, clearly proclaiming the deity of Christ, including Polycarp, Ireanaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr. In addition, the willingness of countless followers of Christ to be tortured and go to their deaths was certainly not based on the idea that this man was just another teacher, a mere human prophet. They were convinced that this was God in the flesh, and they worshipped him as they worshipped God. Thus the idea that the full deity of Christ first arose in 325 is sheer nonsense. Both the New Testament and early church history give lie to this claim. Nicea simply affirmed the long standing belief that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of God, and the object of his followers’ worship and devotion. Constantine and Nicea Brown presents all sorts of misinformation when he discusses Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Contrary to Brown, Constantine did not collate the Bible as we know it today. Recognition of the New Testament canon was an evolving affair, but already by the second century AD there was a pretty clear understanding as to which books were authoritative and which were not. The canon, in other words, was not imposed from the top but recognized from below. The church never created the canon, it simply recognized it. And by the time of Constantine this process was pretty well complete. Moreover, the idea that Constantine changed Scripture, by creating a new Bible, while suppressing the old one, is ludicrous. There would have been thousands of copies of Scripture circulating at this time. Does any one seriously believe he managed to track down every single copy of the original version of Scripture, destroy them, and they circulate his new improved version? Talk about the greatest cover up in history! This Constantine must have had superhuman powers to carry out such a feat. And what of the claim that the deity of Christ was here for the first time advanced? As was just mentioned, the church from day one proclaimed the deity of Christ. What the Council of Nicea did at this time was to refute the heresy of Arianism (which denied that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father, but was in fact the first being created by God). This was done by writing a creed to challenge the Arian writings, and this in turn became the blueprint for the Nicean Creed. The Creed merely formulates what had been held to for several centuries: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.” Moreover, contrary to Brown’s assertion that this was done by a very close vote of the Bishops present, the reality is quite the opposite. Of the over 300 Bishops assembled to discuss Christ’s deity, in the end only two did not vote for the new creed. Hardly a close vote. Constantine and the assembled Bishops did not revise history or rewrite history, as Brown so cavalierly asserts. They affirmed what had been common teaching for three centuries. There were no new ideas invented here: simply the formulation and clarification of long-standing beliefs, which go back to the very sayings of Jesus. Gnostic nonsense What about the Gnostic gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, which Brown is so enamoured with? Quite simply, these gospels, while of some cultural and historical interest, offer us little of theological value. And their claims about Jesus and the early church are strictly of limited value. Indeed, these gospels do not contain eye-witness accounts of the life of Jesus, as the New Testament Gospels do, nor were they written soon after the life of Christ. The earliest of these gospels were written at least one and a half centuries after the events described in the canonical gospels. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, on the other hand, were written just decades after the death of Jesus. (Many scholars believe all four were written before 70 A.D., when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed, since none of them mention this event.) A general rule of thumb in historiography is the earlier the better. If we have two sets of accounts, a first hand account of an event, and accounts which were written several centuries later, the earlier accounts are generally deemed to be the most trust-worthy and most reliable. Moreover, while Brown claims there were “more than eighty” of these alternate gospels making the rounds, the truth is much different. Fewer than twenty actual stories of the life of Jesus (or gospels) exist, and these mainly date one and a half to three centuries after Jesus’ life on earth. He also claims that only four gospels were accepted while the rest (of the supposed 80 plus) were rejected. Sorry again, Mr Brown. The four canonical gospels that we know were by the middle of the second century nearly universally accepted. The many other spurious gospels were not even around then, and when they did come on the scene they were generally rejected as spurious. So there is no sinister plot to pick some gospels and reject a host of others. Moreover, these are called Gnostic writings because they present the Gnostic worldview. Briefly, the Gnostic movement sought to blend Platonic ideas with the early Christian teaching. Gnostic beliefs were varied, but there was an emphasis on secret, hidden knowledge (Greek, gnosis) which only an elite minority could attain to. Gnostics were dualistic, despising the body and matter while elevating the spirit and the non-physical. Escaping the bondage of the body through special knowledge was the path to salvation for the Gnostics. Biblical Christianity on the other hand affirms the material world. Not only are we created as physical beings, but God himself became flesh (Latin, incarnation). Moreover, we await resurrection bodies, and a new heaven and new earth. Salvation does not mean fleeing the material world through secret knowledge, but fleeing our sinful self in repentance and resting on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. Mere knowledge alone can never save anyone. But knowledge of what Christ has done for us is the first step in reconciliation with God. Thus the early church rightly rejected as heresy the various Gnostic writings that appeared. One strange fact might be noted. Brown seeks to do two contradictory things: establish the legitimacy of the Gnostic writings, and develop a feminist theology, where goddess worship and feminine spirituality (the “sacred feminine”) are said to be the real essence of Christian faith. Yet interestingly, the Gnostic writings as a whole had a very low view of women. Female leadership was out of the question, and even the much vaunted Gospel of Thomas says that females need to become males in order to enter God’s kingdom (find salvation)! Jesus and Mary In keeping with Brown’s feminist theology, he has lots to say about Mary. The idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child (in France, of all places), is a key theme found in his novel, and to some, it may sound tempting. But the problem is, we do not have a scarp of evidence to confirm this. Such ideas certainly cannot be found in the New Testament. And those spurious gospels that purport to mention it, such as the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, are unreliable at best. For example, Brown appeals to the Gospel of Philip, a third century document, to make his case for marriage. But there are a number of problems here (as there are with most contentions Brown makes). Several crucial words are missing in the relevant passages of the original documents, so we cannot be fully sure what Philip is getting at. And even if the gospel speaks of Jesus kissing Mary, this is hardly a case for marriage. There is, after all, a kiss of fellowship, mentioned often in the New Testament. Moreover, he claims the word ‘companion’ used here stands for marriage, when in fact it most likely refers to friendship. Finally, he is wrong to suggest this is an Aramaic document, when it is actually Coptic. But such sloppy thinking is found throughout this novel. It is third rate scholarship applied to a fourth-rate thesis. But Brown argues that it is very unlikely for a Jewish male during this period to remain unmarried. Several things can be mentioned here. First, we simply have no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was ever married. Second, even liberal biblical scholars agree that Jesus was most likely single. Third, while singleness was the exception in Jesus’ day, that does not rule out Jesus being unmarried. Fourth, many other great prophets, such as Jeremiah and John the Baptist, were not married. Fifth, even if he were married, it would in no way impugn his claims to deity, as critics allege. Other points of evidence could be produced. For example in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul defends the right of the apostles to be married, and cites Peter and the brothers of Jesus. If Jesus were married, he could have clinched his argument by citing Jesus. But he does not. Suffice it to say then that this major premise of The Da Vinci Code is not supported by a shred of evidence anywhere. Conclusion In truth, the Da Vinci Code is one long (454 page) attack on Christianity, especially in its Catholic version. The very core truths of the Christian faith are here assaulted, and a fast-paced work of fiction based on conspiracy theories involving sex, power and religion are used to convey an anti-Christian agenda. Because it claims to be based on fact, even though it is a work of fiction, many people are being deceived as to the true claims of Christianity, actual church history, and current biblical scholarship. [2598 words] For Further Reading Evangelical Protestant Critiques Abanes, Richard, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code: A Challenging Response to the Bestselling Novel. Harvest House, 2004. Boa, Kenneth and John Turner, The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code: The Truth Behind the Writings of Dan Brown. Broadman and Holman, 2006. Bock, Darrell, Breaking The Da Vinci Code : Answers to the Questions Everybody’s Asking. Nelson Books, 2004.Flory, Susanna and Virginia Monroe, Fear Not Da Vinci: Using the Da Vinci Code to Share Your Faith. AMG, 2006. Clark, Stephen, The Da Vinci Code on Trial. Evangelical Press, 2005. Garlow, James, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts. Faithworks, 2004. Garlow, James, The Da Vinci Codebreaker: An Easy-to-Use Fact Checker. Bethany House, 2006. Green, Michael, The Books the Church Suppressed. Monarch, 2005. Gunbel, Nicky, The Da Vince Code: A Response. Alpha International, 2005. Hanegraaff, Hank and Paul L. Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction. Tyndale House, 2004. Lutzer, Erwin W., The Da Vinci Deception. Tyndale House, 2004. Strobel, Lee and Garry Poole, Discussing the Da Vinci Code. Zondervan, 2006. Witherington, Ben, The Gospel Code. IVP, 2004. Catholic Critiques Kellmeyer, Steve, Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code. Bridegroom Press, 2004. Mobbs, Frank, The Incredible Da Vinci Code. Freedom Publishing, 2005. Olson, Carl E. and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code. Ignatius Press, 2004. Thompson, Mary, Mary of Magdala: What the Da Vinci Code Misses. Paulist Press, 2005. Welborn, Amy, De-Coding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of The Da Vinci Code. Our Sunday Visitor, 2004.

Too long to read in one sitting now, but here's a question. If the Da Vinci Code claims that the Church basically rigged the Gospels to "prove" that Christ was divine, then why would the author of this refutation of the Da Vinci Code rely on those same "rigged" gospels to prove that Christ was divine, and therefore, that Dan Brown is wrong?

I know there are other gospels out there. Anybody who cares can perform a quick google search and find gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter etc online. That stuff is out there.

I did say put up that article as an alternative and do not neessarily agree with all points. I'm not telling you where I stand on Christ's divinity.

Anyway I shouldn't even be here right now.:D

NOOLigan wrote: I there are other gospels out there. Anybody who cares can perform a quick google search and find gospe's of Thomas, Mary, Peter etc online. That stuff is out there.

I did say put up that article as an alternative and do not neessarily agree with all points. I'm not telling you where I stand on Christ's divinity.

Anyway I shouldn't even be here right now.:D

Yeah, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm just saying that IF Dan Brown says the church rigged the gospels to prove Christ's divinity (I'm assuming that's what Dan Brown is saying, btw), then it doesn't make any sense to use those same "questioned" gospels to prove that Dan Brown is wrong...

Example:

Dan Brown: "Gospel A was 'rigged' to 'prove' Christ's divinity."

Defender of the faith: "Brown is wrong; Christ was divine, because Gospel A says he was divine."

ok i get your point. i did have a look at some of those other gospels i mentioned before. nothing much that challenges christ's divinity actually sprand out at me. So, even if they were included, i don't think the central argument would be harmed.

P. S. did you really think a christian defending his faith would include non-canon source material.

I have posted that article because it provides some good historical information, such as what actually happend at the council of Nicea.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: I there are other gospels out there. Anybody who cares can perform a quick google search and find gospe's of Thomas, Mary, Peter etc online. That stuff is out there.

I did say put up that article as an alternative and do not neessarily agree with all points. I'm not telling you where I stand on Christ's divinity.

Anyway I shouldn't even be here right now.:D

Yeah, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm just saying that IF Dan Brown says the church rigged the gospels to prove Christ's divinity (I'm assuming that's what Dan Brown is saying, btw), then it doesn't make any sense to use those same "questioned" gospels to prove that Dan Brown is wrong...

Example:

Dan Brown: "Gospel A was 'rigged' to 'prove' Christ's divinity."

Defender of the faith: "Brown is wrong; Christ was divine, because Gospel A says he was divine."

I thought the write up was pretty good, not the best but pretty good. Only used the Gospel A arguement minumially. Agree that it's not a good case for an arguement.

I did notice one problem with his writting, but it is a bit of nitpicking, as his point is not changed. The four gospels were all supposedly written within 120 years after Christ(not 70). John being the closest to Jesus around 50 years (and the only gospel to claim to have known him). Matthew being the furthest at around 100-120 years. This has been figured through the style of writing and carbon dating.

The Discovery Channel was better - the best part: When Brown claims that there is a great super-computer at this one university (sorry wish I could remember the name), and claims it is fact. The discovery Channel went to the university, and talked to the professor of theology who said this supposed compter (as named in the book) was actually a group of 5 people that talk about religon, basically a club. That was just pure humor for me.

JHC

Some would say it's a fictional story based on a fictional story

Barnette wrote: Some would say it's a fictional story based on a fictional story

you could have a point there.

Well, I liked the movie. I read the book before and I must admit that they did a good job in making a film out of it. And I was surprised how good looking Tom Hanks can be.

It's ridiculous what hype the churches made about all this. I bet they neither read the book, nor saw the movie.