Is the Da Vinci code any good?

[Aquatic]

"Critics" are saying it is terrible. But they are never right. So has anyone here seen it? I am most interested in hearing opinions of people who both read and liked the book. I loved the book, except the stupid ending...and it sounds like a fun movie? So what do ya'll think?

[MarcUK]

reading the book right now (thought I'd better read it before I pass comment on it)

My hypothesis (knowing what the main outcome is about)was that Dan had stumbled upon some 'truth' but had made the fundamental mistake of thinking that Jesus, Mary etc were "real" people and had not realised that Jesus' marriage was symbolic.

But having read the first 100 or so pages, clearly he understands more than I've imagined him to, so it might well be that by the time I've finished it, although the majority of people seem to take his book 'literally', he might have actually been concluding the story 'symbolically' aswell. That the cryptologist is called "Sophie" is a major clue to this.

Oh, havn't seen the film yet - I've been told the reason the critics were scathing/pissed is because they were not allowed any pre-screening time - and we all know what a bunch of jumped-up twats journalists are!

[sammi jo]

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I went to opening night here, where it played to a packed house and received an ovation when the credits started rolling. The plot adhered to the original story well, but I'm sure that it's one of those movies that comes across more easily for those who have already read the novel. Dan brown apparently said that "had he been in charge, his version would be 10 hours long". I think a really good job was done in the cutting room.

IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out. The custom 2000 years back was for Jewish males to marry at a young age and to father children. It was also custom for Rabbis to be married and raise a family, and it is not impossible that Jesus undertook rabbinical studies, borne out by his ability to converse with learned spiritual figures at a very young age. Furthermore, there is no biblical record as to where Jesus was located for some 18 years between the age of 12 and when he started his ministry around 30 years old; there are accounts in Nepalese and Tibetan monasteries that a traveling spiritual master "Issa" from "parts west" at the appropriate time in history, who fiited Jesus' description.

Jesus was a historical figure, a human being, and we have but a patchy history of the smaller part of his life. Even for those of faith who attach divinity to him, how does the likelihood of his fathering children take away from that divinity? Just because there is no record in the canon (as established by a vote in the 4th century) of Jesus having no children, this cannot realistically be taken as proof that he remained single and/or childless.

[Voxapps]

I liked the book, although I think there are better authors of this genre than Dan Brown, whose characters are always rather two-dimensional and whose endings seem to me to be rushed ("Whoops, we're at 700 pages. Better end this...NOW.")

As an adventure/thriller, I consider the movie (not the story itself) mediocre. (I'll leave a discussion of the religious aspects alone, for now.) It *really* needed a better editor. After the first 30 minutes, I seriously considered walking out simply because I wasn't being entertained.

The story as-written doesn't lend itself to a screenplay: there are too many details to communicate, which makes it as much a lecture as a thriller. The characters aren't generally interesting or sympathetic. The overall tone of the movie is "dark," but not in a film noire sense - more like a "can we open the lens another f-stop or two?" sense. The few action scenes (with the exception of one stunning car crash) are edited so poorly it's hard to understand what's going on, and by the time you figure it out, the scene's over.

With a different screenwriter, editor, and cinematographer, this movie might have been much better. On the other hand, it was true to the book, so perhaps the weaknesses of Brown's storytelling are simply magnified on the big screen.

In contrast, consider the "Harry Potter" movies (comparing the movie-making, not the plots): huge amounts of detail to communicate, yet the characters are interesting, the stories move along with action and humor, the cinematography is entertaining, and significant editing was done without compromising the basic story line.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by sammi jo


IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out.

It isn't preposterous at all, Jesus' marriage is in the frigging Bible if you read past the literal black and white. The only reason this is a controversy is because as usual we have been completely lied too about the meaning and symbolism of the story, and have long forgotten the spiritual 'wisdoms' of the ancient world.

[segovius]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Dan brown apparently said that "had he been in charge, his version would be 10 hours long".

That's when I'd have to reach for my revolver.

Originally posted by MarcUK
It isn't preposterous at all, Jesus' marriage is in the frigging Bible if you read past the literal black and white.

Yes, no doubt at all that the marriage at Cana was Jesus's own.

This Jesus stuff (in relation to the DVC) is pure bollocks. There is NO connection whatsoever between the Rennes le Chateau mystery and Jesus other than the fact Sauniere happened to be a priest.

As it is, one of the most fascinating and intriguing mysteries of all time is heaped under a pile of steaming horse manure. If Sauniere had discovered anything like this Jesus/Magdalene crock (which undoubtedly is true - my point is it is not the secret of Rennes that made Sauniere rich) then the Church wouldn't PAY him off ffs - a tighter bunch of money-obsessed greedy bastards than the Church is a metaphysical impossibility - they'd merely do what they do best: KILL him.

And that Dan Brown wouldn't get anywhere near a publisher if there was a word of truth in it. This is the friggin Church we're talking about - the same guys with a body-count pushing 30 million notches on the gun and their still in bat.

:no:

[dmz]

Guys, this is just a novel. Unfortunately, Brown took enormous liberties with the facts -- couple that with the lack of Christians who got past the "B-I-B-L-E, that's the book for me" stage, and near complete ignorance or early Church history at large, the book has been taken to be more than a work of fiction.

LiveScience.com (http://www.livescience.com/history/050524_davinci_code.html) has a good, brief, piece on this.

Alas, the whole basis of The Da Vinci Code—the "discovered" parchments of Rennes-le-Château, relating to the alleged Priory of Sion—were part of a hoax perpetrated by a man named Pierre Plantard. Plantard commissioned a friend to create fake parchments which he then used to concoct the bogus priory story in 1956. (See Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax, 2004.)

Of course, Dan Brown—with the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation—was also duped by the Priory of Sion hoax, which he in turn foisted onto his readers. But he is apparently unrepentant, and his apologists point out that The Da Vinci Code is, after all, fiction, although at the beginning of the novel, Brown claimed it was based on fact. Meanwhile, despite the devastatingly negative evidence, The Da Vinci Code mania continues. Perhaps Brown should go on his own quest—for the truth.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
LiveScience.com (http://www.livescience.com/history/050524_davinci_code.html) has a good, brief, peice on this.

No it doesn't.

The Priory de Sion stuff being debunked is just to get the sheep back in the comfort zone. Of course it was a *****ing hoax. The parchments were forged but that's not the point.

The point is that this is a fact: Sauniere was exiled to the Rennes area as a poor priest on a pittance of a salary with a handful of parishioners.

A decade later his expenditure had reached millions of dollars in today's money. Question is: how?

[trailmaster308]

Originally posted by MarcUK
That the cryptologist is called "Sophie" is a major clue to this.


Hagia Sophia? Queen Sophie Magdalene?

[trailmaster308]

double post

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by trailmaster308
Hagia Sophia? Queen Sophie Magdalene?

sophia is the greek for 'wisdom'. mary magdelena=sophia, thus jesus marries wisdom.

Mary is a personification of self, there are 3 mary's in the story, but the point is they are all aspects of the same person.

The origin of this is lunar, waxing (new moon = virgin, full moon = mother), waning (old moon = old parallels wisdom).

Magdelena is the old, wise moon, a metaphor of 'state of mind', as are the other mary's, not a real person.

Therefore Jesus marries the wisdom as you would expect. The crucifixion is a similar story of 'self', consumating the 'marriage' if you like, taking the path of wisdom rather than foolishness, Jesus dies (stupid aspect of 'self') but resurrects as the wise self, reborn.

Probably better to ask someone else who understands it better than me though.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
No it doesn't...The parchments were forged but that's not the point.

The point is that this is a fact: Sauniere was exiled to the Rennes area as a poor priest on a pittance of a salary with a handful of parishioners.

A decade later his expenditure had reached millions of dollars in today's money. Question is: how?
segovius, conspiracy theories aren't my thing, I find garden-variety history exotic enough --- at any rate, here is one explanation from wikipedia: Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenger_Sauniere)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
segovius, conspiracy theories aren't my thing, I find garden-variety history exotic enough --- at any rate, here is one explanation from wikipedia: Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenger_Sauniere)

I'm going to dispute that Wiki when I get round to it - bet it is Paul Smith, a notorious loon.

The fact is that the conspiracy theories are irrelevant. The Diana conspiracy theories do not mean she did not exist or die in Paris. The 911 conspiracies do not mean there was never a World Trade Centre.

This is just taking lame no- thinking into the stratosphere. I know it is de rigeur these days to be a brainwashed sheep and 'in step' with the Stepford Citizens but in the name of God, get a grip.

There is a mystery. Neither the loons or those who are uncomfortable with any 'alternate history' emanating from anywhere but our enfranchised overlords have come up with a satisfactory explanation.

[dmz]

A mystery of what?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
A mystery of what?

Ok, once again (sigh - I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion, I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion......):

The mystery of where Sauniere got his paws on French Francs amounting to millions of dollars in today's money.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by sammi jo
IMHO, the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child or more isn't as preposterous as some would make out. It's not presposterous, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's true. None of the stories about Jesus mention him being married (let alone to any specific individual), and many religious Jews like Jesus (i.e., apocalyptic preachers) were celibate. Contrary to what this Dan Brown says, it would not have been unusual at all for someone like him to be unmarried.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Ok, once again (sigh - I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion, I MUST remember Jesus's teachings of compassion......):

The mystery of where Sauniere got his paws on French Francs amounting to millions of dollars in today's money.
I thought it was pretty clear that he was involved in "trafficking in masses" -- and that the evidence for the wealth itself is in question. Seriously, you are more than welcome to believe the RC's are involved in a coverup; I just wanted to point out that explanation, and that I've heard that from more than one source, none of which were Canadian.

I actually thought you meant 'mystery' in that there is "evidence" that Christ was married.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
none of which were Canadian.


:lol:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz

I actually thought you meant 'mystery' in that there is "evidence" that Christ was married.

do we really expect to find 'evidence' of a spiritual metaphor?

The Bible is the evidence. It is a spiritual metaphor - of life. The trick is to read it 'spiritually' and not in black and white.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
do we really expect to find 'evidence' of a spiritual metaphor?

The Bible is the evidence. It is a spiritual metaphor - of life. The trick is to read it 'spiritually' and not in black and white.
I know, I know... but that gets into interpretation -- I meant more of the whole gnostic gosple thing --- 'Jesus used to kiss MM on the [hole in manuscript]... .

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I thought it was pretty clear that he was involved in "trafficking in masses" -- and that the evidence for the wealth itself is in question. Seriously, you are more than welcome to believe the RC's are involved in a coverup; I just wanted to point out that explanation, and that I've heard that from more than one source, none of which were Canadian.

I actually thought you meant 'mystery' in that there is "evidence" that Christ was married.

No, I do not believe the mystery has anything to do with the Church or Jesus being married (which as you know I regard as perhaps the most reliable inference from the Bible's intolerable mish-mash).

The 'evidence' for Simony is ludicrous. Really, impossible to believe - here are just some reasons why"

1) Selling masses was a serious crime. If Sauniere had been doing it would he very visibly spend the proceeds on the CHURCH and his own HOUSE??????

I mean, stash it away maybe but actually renovate his employer's property when they were paying his paltry wages and would know that there were large sums of money swilling about .....no.

2) Rennes le Chateau had a congregation in single figures. it was an impoverished area. Ditto Rennes le Bains and Aix.

Who could have paid the equivalent of millions?

3) The money seemed to still be pouring in after Sauniere's death. His housekeeper (who inherited it) burnt all her share when a law ending the old currency and introducing the Franc was introduced.

Apparently she burnt hundreds of thousands of dollars worth rather than declare it and change into the new currency. She is quoted as saying something like 'it doesn't matter - if the inhabitants of Rennes only knew, they are walking on gold'.

Personally I think Sauniere had found a clue to some treasure or other and was being bankrolled to find more by some rich patrons. The building work was a cover for excavations and the 'myths' were spread by Sauniere himself to distract attention. Just my theory though.

It is an intriguing mystery.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
I know, I know... but that get's into interpretation -- I meant more of the whole gnostic gosple thing --- 'Jesus used to kiss MM on the [hole in manuscript]... .

symbolizing Jesus's deepest love for Wisdom.

[segovius]

I was kissed on the hole in the manuscript once but I was drunk at the time......

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
symbolizing Jesus's deepest love for Wisdom.

Actually - and I know you will find this difficult to believe - the Holy Grail legend has nothing to do with Christ but is a corruption of an Islamic motif which reached France via the Troubadours from Islamic Spain.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
I was kissed on the hole in the manuscript once but I was drunk at the time......

you should stay away from Swindon:D

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
you should stay away from Swindon:D

Yes, usually that is a golden rule....

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes, usually that is a golden rule....

you're diabolical, I'll get Anna in here to kick it...

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Actually - and I know you will find this difficult to believe - the Holy Grail legend has nothing to do with Christ but is a corruption of an Islamic motif which reached France via the Troubadours from Islamic Spain.

show me more...

[dmz]

Here's something I bet neither one of you knew about Christ's parents --- Mary and Joseph -- that PMS is mentioned in the Gospels. It distinctly says that 'Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way Bethlehem.'

FYI

[blackbird_1.0]

Originally posted by dmz
It distinctly says that 'Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way Bethlehem.'
:wow:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
Here's something I bet neither one of you knew about Christ's parents --- Mary and Joseph -- that PMS is mentioned in the Gospels. It distinctly says that 'Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way Bethlehem.'

FYI

:lol:

I bet there was a big hole in his manuscript then...

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
show me more...

Mysticism is essentially the union of the male and female opposites. This is explicit in alchemy and of course is stated as such in books like Christian Rosenkreuz's Chymical Wedding - ie, the marriage of male and female opposites or yin and yang.

As we know, the Church opposed the feminine principle (and still does) but palmed off the sheep with an ersatz substitute in Mary, all the while keeping going the age-old patriarchal Abrahamic bullshit we all know and live so well.

But the feminine principle went underground. You have to 'find' it. Hence the search for the Grail is the search for the feminine - the counterpart that has been removed from orthodox religion.

The Troubadours made this quite clear: they were always singing of 'their Lady' and essentially it is a feminine goddess cult of sorts.

The idea originated in Islamic Spain where one of the methods of finding the feminine was called the 'Holy Recital' and was a sort of chant or mantra. Of course the language was Arabic and the exact arabic words for 'Holy recital' are 'Garrael Muqqadas' which was transliterated at one remove as 'Holy Garrael'.

The idea is also identical with the Tarot cards - which are another device to the same end. If you look at the Tarot atouts you will see clearly the motifs of the story - including the Cups (grail), Wands (spear that pierced Christ's side), Disks (round table) and Swords (Excalibur) which make up the suits.

The main Arcana is also a pure source of the Grail myth. There is no doubt that the Tarot is an Islamic invention from medieval Spain. The name derives from the Arabic turuq which means 'four ways' (ie the four suits) and thence to 'Tarrocci'.

[Aquatic]

Yeah Voxapps I have to agree. the book was fun, but the last 10 pages or whatever where Teabing pulls the Scooby Doo and is like "Hey it was ME! Suprise! Ahahaha!" was fucking lame. Really, really lame. Like something a gradeschooler wrote. I remember being so pissed. I was just so angry, what did he just get fuckin lazy!?

So anyone else who liked the book see the movie?

I think I'll see it tonight or tomorrow, and post my opinion.

[tonton]

For anyone who's read the book, watching the movie is meaningless. It adds absolutely nothing.

For anyone who might read the book, read it, and don't watch the movie. It's a good yarn.

For anyone who WON'T read the book, go ahead and see the movie. It's not any worse than the usual Hollywood drivel.

It's just pointless to do both.

[tonton]

Originally posted by dmz
Here's something I bet neither one of you knew about Christ's parents --- Mary and Joseph -- that PMS is mentioned in the Gospels. It distinctly says that 'Mary rode Joseph's ass all the way Bethlehem.'

FYI

LOL maybe it meant she had a strap-on.

[midwinter]

/me avoids all this fuss.

Answer:

1) the book is a fine read. Brown is a one-trick pony (I've read all his books), but by god, it's a good trick and I don't mind watching it.

2) TDVC is not as good as _Angels & Demons_.

3) The movie is ho hum. It's a much better story when it's all vague and in the imagination than it is when it's splayed out in front of you on the screen; in the end, it comes off as kind of hokey. I felt kind of bad not liking it, since I can't imagine that Howard could've done a better job. It's just that the story works better on the page than on the screen.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
2) TDVC is not as good as _Angels & Demons_. I bet we'll see that as a movie in 2008. It could be a Bond-like franchise. Maybe Langdon will go after Skull and Bones next.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
I bet we'll see that as a movie in 2008. It could be a Bond-like franchise. Maybe Langdon will go after Skull and Bones next.

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, if they let it go long enough we'll wind up with taglines like "Robert Langdon searches frantically for a set of lost keys...TO HIS CAR!"

[dmz]

I think this hoopla is analogous to people seeing Star Wars, believing it was filmed on location.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I think this hoopla is analogous to people seeing Star Wars, believing it was filmed on location.

Or reading the New Testa.......oh, never mind.........bygones......

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Or reading the New Testa.......oh, never mind.........bygones......
Ha!

I've got this idea for a new thriller: '...in which the stars investigate the origins of Islam. Pursued by a murderous Muslim cleric, they uncover a series of shocking discoveries: Mohammed was no prophet! The Koran is a hoax, the work of self-serving hypocrites! Modern-day Muslims are dupes, if not deranged psychopaths!'

I'm certain if we could just hammer out a plotline, every publisher on the planet would jump at the chance to print it, and Hollywood would fight over who got to make the movie.

Who's with me!? We'll make millions!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
I've got this idea for a new thriller: '...in which the stars investigate the origins of Islam. Pursued by a murderous Muslim cleric, they uncover a series of shocking discoveries: Mohammed was no prophet! The Koran is a hoax, the work of self-serving hypocrites! Modern-day Muslims are dupes, if not deranged psychopaths!'

I'm certain if we could just hammer out a plotline, every publisher on the planet would jump at the chance to print it, and Hollywood would fight over who got to make the movie.

Who's with me!? We'll make millions! My plagiarism spidey sense just went off. If this was a paper you'd written for me, I'd go search on google. :p

[dmz]

Originally posted by BRussell
My plagiarism spidey sense just went off. If this was a paper you'd written for me, I'd go search on google. :p
Yes, but if I was really sneaky, I would have left off the ellipsis and the single quotes!

(which I actually thought about doing)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Ha!

I've got this idea for a new thriller: '...in which the stars investigate the origins of Islam. Pursued by a murderous Muslim cleric, they uncover a series of shocking discoveries: Mohammed was no prophet! The Koran is a hoax, the work of self-serving hypocrites! Modern-day Muslims are dupes, if not deranged psychopaths!'

I'm certain if we could just hammer out a plotline, every publisher on the planet would jump at the chance to print it, and Hollywood would fight over who got to make the movie.

Who's with me!? We'll make millions!

Great idea.

I'll definitely promote it in Teheran for you - in fact I'll even pay to send you on a signing tour of the whole region.

In fact I'm speaking to some friends at the al-Jihadi mosque about your idea now. They all think it's great - all we need is your full name and address and we'll take care of the rest.....

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Great idea.

I'll definitely promote it in Teheran for you - in fact I'll even pay to send you on a signing tour of the whole region.

In fact I'm speaking to some friends at the al-Jihadi mosque about your idea now. They all think it's great - all we need is your full name and address and we'll take care of the rest.....

Very interesting response. Very interesting indeed.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Great idea.

I'll definitely promote it in Teheran for you - in fact I'll even pay to send you on a signing tour of the whole region.

In fact I'm speaking to some friends at the al-Jihadi mosque about your idea now. They all think it's great - all we need is your full name and address and we'll take care of the rest.....
:lol:

...only if I get to proselytize during the signing tour!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
My plagiarism spidey sense just went off. If this was a paper you'd written for me, I'd go search on google. :p

yeah, mine too (http://newsbusters.org/node/5387).

[NOFEER]

Originally posted by dmz
I think this hoopla is analogous to people seeing Star Wars, believing it was filmed on location.

very funny:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dmz]

Not that I don't enjoy a bit of sporting misdirection from my original point......you both missed the single quotes and ellipsis? Yes, per TCMoS, single quotes s/b reserved for quotes within quotes or can be used in philosophy to set of certain words.

Wouldn't you rather make a fuss over my punctuation? :p

[MarcUK]

well, im about 1/3 of the way through the book now, so here's my opinion so far.

Firstly, I dont have the slightest clue as to the accuracy of the claim that there are codes or conspiricy's as stated within and isn't something I am terribly interested in at the moment. My primary reason for reading the book is that I am interested in the claim that Jesus married and has a bloodline - and how Dan came to that conclusion or whether he knows enough about the hidden truths of religion to conclude that he is claiming it as a metaphor.

So far, I think I've read enough accurate information in the book about about mystery religions to conclude that he has studied them in some detail. That doesn't mean im in a position to judge him as self proclaimed expert on the subject, im a complete novice! but what I have read so far seems to tally with my own understanding of the subject, and nothing has popped out at me as being in error.

So I cant really believe that he knows all this mystery religion stuff, yet is ignorant of the fact that the Jesus story is an archetype or meme, so it must be that he is giving some credence to the gnostic interpretation of the story.

My main opposition to Brown is that as the majority of people who read it understand it literally, his book gives credibility to the illusion that Jesus was a real historical character, albeit of different makeup than orthodox religion tells us. All he really has achieved IMO is to replace one false position with one 'less false' position amongst his readers.

But IF the hysteria and popularity surrounding this book, actually gets people off their dumb asses and gets them to question the authenticity of orthodox religion, and to seek the truth of what really happened, then that could be a good thing.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MarcUK
[B]Firstly, I dont have the slightest clue as to the accuracy of the claim that there are codes or conspiricy's as stated within and isn't something I am terribly interested in at the moment. My primary reason for reading the book is that I am interested in the claim that Jesus married and has a bloodline - and how Dan came to that conclusion or whether he knows enough about the hidden truths of religion to conclude that he is claiming it as a metaphor.

He explains that in the foreward/author's note at the beginning when he talks about _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ (or whatever it's called), which is where he got the idea.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
how Dan came to that conclusion or whether he knows enough about the hidden truths of religion to conclude that he is claiming it as a metaphor.

So far, I think I've read enough accurate information in the book about about mystery religions to conclude that he has studied them in some detail.

I don't think so.

I think he studied Holy Blood, Holy Grail (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440136482/104-8506909-4431135?v=glance&n=283155) in detail.

Ok, he lost the plagiarism case and I agree he was not plagiarizing - his book is a novel. Still, every single idea is drawn from HBHG (or twisted somewhat - Da Vinci for Poussin for example to make it easier for the drongos) - but all the same, the debt is acknowledged even by him with the many references and anagrams which confirm the source.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
I don't think so.

I think he studied Holy Blood, Holy Grail (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440136482/104-8506909-4431135?v=glance&n=283155) in detail.

Ok, he lost the plagiarism case and I agree he was not plagiarizing - his book is a novel. Still, every single idea is drawn from HBHG (or twisted somewhat - Da Vinci for Poussin for example to make it easier for the drongos) - but all the same, the debt is acknowledged even by him with the many references and anagrams which confirm the source.

I think I have that book, will go off to see if it is indeed the case....back soon...

So do you think that he doesn't really understand the depths of mystery religions and is just parotting it?

[MarcUK]

ok the book I have is

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841812676/203-2719142-0019157

but I have yet to open it, just wasn't interested in it, an unwanted Sol Invictus present!

have you read it? is it any good?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I think I have that book, will go off to see if it is indeed the case....back soon...

So do you think that he doesn't really understand the depths of mystery religions and is just parotting it?

Can't say, have never read his stuff.

Btw - you will find a fascinating chapter on Constantine in the HBHG. You'll love it - they prove that he wasn't a Christian at all but was initiated into the Sol Invictus cult.

This is why he moved the Sabbath from Saturday to sunday and instituted Sol's day (Dec 25) as the celebration of his cult.

On his death bed when he was too weak to resist the Xian religious toadies railroaded him into accepting their doctrine and when he was safely dead they set about re-writing history to portray him as a Christian.

He never was. Far from it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
ok the book I have is

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841812676/203-2719142-0019157

but I have yet to open it, just wasn't interested in it, an unwanted Sol Invictus present!

have you read it? is it any good?

Don't know that one. A lot of books on this topic are by loons though.

Imo, the best research into the Rennes mystery (if that is your thing) is on the net. There are two very good researchers who don't publish anywhere else.

The Sol/Jesus stuff you can get from history books more beneficially imo.

I actually suspect that the Church has a department that cranks out this nonsense/conspiracy stuff to cause thinking people to (rightly) ridicule it and thus, by law of counter-balance, cause them to be more accepting of any odious doctrine the Church might put out.

I wouldn't be at all surprized if Dan Brown was on the payroll - of course when he has made his millions or achieved his objective he will have a miraculous 'conversion'.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Can't say, have never read his stuff.

Btw - you will find a fascinating chapter on Constantine in the HBHG. You'll love it - they prove that he wasn't a Christian at all but was initiated into the Sol Invictus cult.

This is why he moved the Sabbath from Saturday to sunday and instituted Sol's day (Dec 25) as the celebration of his cult.

On his death bed when he was too weak to resist the Xian religious toadies railroaded him into accepting their doctrine and when he was safely dead they set about re-writing history to portray him as a Christian.

He never was. Far from it.

Hi ho, hi ho, off to amazon I go...

[OccamsAftershave]

How can an Apple forum with a thread like this not yet have a link to http://www.icryptex.com/
Help me out.
In the bottom right, "O Draconian Devil" anagrams "Leonardo Da Vinci", but what's "O Lame Saint"? "Alias, Not Me"? No...

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by OccamsAftershave
How can an Apple forum with a thread like this not yet have a link to http://www.icryptex.com/
Help me out.
In the bottom right, "O Draconian Devil" anagrams "Leonardo Da Vinci", but what's "O Lame Saint"? "Alias, Not Me"? No...

a transsexual.

[BRussell]

Don't read that Holy Blood Holy Grail shite, not when there's real work done on early Christianity. An excellent critique of the religious claims made in the Davinci Code is Bart Ehrman's book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195307135/sr=8-1/qid=1148502714/ref=sr_1_1/104-6828554-5602362?%5Fencoding=UTF8). It gets in to the Constantine stuff, was Jesus married, etc., but it doesn't go into the secret societies and all that. And it's actually based on real scholarship, not tripe like that HBHG.

[dmz]

Also, MarcUK, CT has a long article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/10.24.html) on DVC, Ehrman, lost Gospels, etc.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
Also, MarcUK, CT has a long article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/10.24.html) on DVC, Ehrman, lost Gospels, etc. I'm glad you posted that, to give Ehrman some cred. So many of the DVC criticisms have been religious in nature - "DVC is bad because it will harm people's faith!" Ehrman's book is quite tough on DVC, but not from a religious perspective, from an historical one.

[segovius]

I echo BRussell's comments - the HBHG is indeed a heap of smouldering crap.

Having said that, I think there is a lot of truth in the Bloodline theory though not in the simplistic way peddled by Brown and the authors of HBHG. There is a lot of historical hard evidence for it too.

While I personally believe Jesus's significant other was actually Mary Magdalene, I don't think this is the origin of the bloodline myth. It is more interesting than that.

The 3rd Century Christian writer Julius Africanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Africanus) writes about a group of people who he calls Desposyni - ie, "The Master's People".

Desposyni Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desposyni)

This term referred to the blood relatives of Jesus: that is, his brothers James and Jude and possibly Thomas who was called 'the twin', though this last's actual blood relationship is a matter of debate.

So we have an acknowledged group of blood relatives of Jesus being recorded by an orthodox Christian writer in the 3rd century.

The later writer Eusebius (poss died 4th century) says the following:

Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.

Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus.

For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.

From Christian Classics Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xx.html)

According to Eusebius, the Desposyni were the heads of specific Christian churches in the time of Trajan (ie circa 117).

There is a record of them still having this role as late as 318 as we know Pope Sylvester met personally with eight Desposyni in that year. Each of these eight presided over a Church and they were seeking at this meeting a confirmation of their doctrine and recognition of their head Church (in Jerusalem) as the head of the Christian religion as opposed to Rome.

Naturally Sylvester refused these requests but it shows two very important things:

1) That the original doctrine of Jesus immediate circle was at variance with the established Church.

2) That it was a well established Christian group in its own right.

From this point in history the Desposyni literally disappear. Perhaps they went underground and continue as a hidden current - perhaps they were hunted down and massacred by the Church.

If they survived - and I would suggest they did and that their doctrine is still current although highly stigmatized - then this would be an exact equivalence of the Bloodline metaphor complete with heterodox (ie original and true) secret teaching.

It is strange at the end of the day that the real teaching of Christ is persecuted and suppressed and what people generally regard as 'Christianity' is at the very least the opposite of it and perhaps even, it seems more than likely, possibly demonic and evil.

[MarcUK]

sego, rather than quote you, ill just ask the question as it's meant for you.

I cant help but feel a huge "So What" coming on. Perhaps its my ignorance again, but if Jesus is an archetype or meme of astrological origin and/or a gnostic system of spiritual revelation, isn't this whole bloodline/marriage/children stuff in the context of 'historical secrecy/coverups/conspiricy' just a bunch of 'clever' bullshit?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
sego, rather than quote you, ill just ask the question as it's meant for you.

I cant help but feel a huge "So What" coming on. Perhaps its my ignorance again, but if Jesus is an archetype or meme of astrological origin and/or a gnostic system of spiritual revelation, isn't this whole bloodline/marriage/children stuff in the context of 'historical secrecy/coverups/conspiricy' just a bunch of 'clever' bullshit?

You say Jesus is a meme/archetype - I wouldn't proceed from that supposition.

So Constantine was a sun worshipper, so the Church grafted a made up doctrine on to him, so the Church's teaching has nothing to do with Christ.

So what?

How does any of that imply that Jesus had anything to do with that or that he didn't exist?

That's the connection I can;t make in all this. Of course it's true but what does that have to do with Jesus and his message - whatever it was?

You might as well say that in terms of the WOT the only options are accepting that Blair and Bush really want democracy and freedom for the ME or else if they don't, that democracy and freedom don't exist.

Doesn't make sense.

[MarcUK]

Im just saying that I think its a bit silly to "assume" Jesus was really married in a literal historical context and has a bloodline and children, and provide evidence of such, because the first wrong assumption is that Jesus ever existed in the first place.

I don't doubt that there are mysteries and conspiricies connected to him, and all the artifacts, such as grails, swords, codes in davinci's work etc are 'real', but all these things happened because these people thought Jesus was 'real'.

But thats making one assumption too far. How can you have a real 'spear' that was thrust into Jesus side? The spear might exist as a 'real' physical object, but Jesus wasn't.

[MarcUK]

ps I'm not commentating on Constantine, or the church grafting a history onto him, just the claim that Jesus married and has kids in a real historical context.

[BRussell]

MarcUK, you seem pretty convinced that Jesus didn't exist. That seems pretty hard to believe, and takes quite a conspiracy. I certainly believe that much of his life was "revised" by Christians in the decade or so after his death. If that's the case, a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua that had many followers and was executed by Rome is hardly difficult to believe.

I'll give you an example: In DVC, brown says that Jesus has a "royal" bloodline because he was related to King David, and therefore his ancestors are also "royal" in a way. But I believe that early Christians invented Jesus' relation to David in order to buff up his credibility as the messiah. He was really from Nazareth, not Bethlehem, the city of David. It's interesting that DVC buys into a far-fetched historical notion that most scholars reject - that Jesus was Jewish "royalty" - while asserting an implausible claim with no evidence - that Jesus was married and had children.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
This term referred to the blood relatives of Jesus: that is, his brothers James and Jude and possibly Thomas who was called 'the twin', though this last's actual blood relationship is a matter of debate. Yeah, although I believe Jesus was unmarried, I find it hard to believe that he wasn't an uncle. :)

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
ps I'm not commentating on Constantine, or the church grafting a history onto him, just the claim that Jesus married and has kids in a real historical context.

Ok, let's see your best argument with hard evidence that he never existed. What is it based on?

As far as I can tell it is just something you choose to believe (the reasons why this might be so are far more interesting than the overt discussion actually) but I have yet to see any evidence to back it up other than the fall-back 'there is no evidence he did'.

You can apply that logic to many, many historical figures, many far more recent. Shakespeare being the classic example as I often have to trot out.

There is not a single manuscript in Shakespeare's hand ever know to anyone, not a single not, three alleged signatures on wills of dubious authenticity and absolutely no proof whatsoever that he existed in the form he is known to us today.

There is a dubious grave. But then there is a grave of Jesus in Kashmir.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, although I believe Jesus was unmarried, I find it hard to believe that he wasn't an uncle. :)

Yes, I don;t think the Virgin Mary is a Virgin anymore - does this invalidate all prayers and visions of her I wonder or did she somehow re-Virginize herself?

And if so why? Wasn't it enough she was a Virgin at the time of Jesus birth? Did she have to stay one? And if so why not have all the other sprogs miraculously also?

Questions, questions....

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes, I don;t think the Virgin Mary is a Virgin anymore - does this invalidate all prayers and visions of her I wonder or did she somehow re-Virginize herself?

And if so why? Wasn't it enough she was a Virgin at the time of Jesus birth? Did she have to stay one? And if so why not have all the other sprogs miraculously also?

Questions, questions.... It's interesting that so many of the Biblical literalists and social conservatives think that sex is only for procreation, and yet they hold in such high esteem this woman that procreated without having sex. ;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's interesting that so many of the Biblical literalists and social conservatives think that sex is only for procreation, and yet they hold in such high esteem this woman that procreated without having sex. ;)

Yes it is strange. There are definitely sexual issues amongst many in the literalist Christian community.

When I was deciding on a Doctorate thesis in Religious Studies I considered researching sexual symbolism in Charismatic Evangelical Worship but I couldn't go through with it.

The war/army/militaristic and gun fetishization is clearly rooted in an security relating to the male sexual organs of the practitioners but I was more interested in the glossolalia and altered states.

I once witnessed - and this is absolutely true - a preacher foaming at the move. jumping up and down shouting "Come Jesus come! Come, come...come inside us now!" while sundry women from the congregation rolled around the floor in an ecstatic swoon.

I couldn't face a whole thesis after that.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Ok, let's see your best argument with hard evidence that he never existed. What is it based on?

As far as I can tell it is just something you choose to believe (the reasons why this might be so are far more interesting than the overt discussion actually) but I have yet to see any evidence to back it up other than the fall-back 'there is no evidence he did'.

You can apply that logic to many, many historical figures, many far more recent. Shakespeare being the classic example as I often have to trot out.

There is not a single manuscript in Shakespeare's hand ever know to anyone, not a single not, three alleged signatures on wills of dubious authenticity and absolutely no proof whatsoever that he existed in the form he is known to us today.

There is a dubious grave. But then there is a grave of Jesus in Kashmir.

But what 'Jesus' are we talking about?

The 'gospel' Jesus? - Astrology Jesus, A montage of many different religious characters and pagan wisdoms rolled into an archetypal personification. It would be silly to argue this Jesus never existed.

The 'gnostic' Jesus? - A symbolic system of self awareness where the aim is to become a Christ. Im real, you're real, if we follow gnosticism to its goal, then we could both become Jesus as have many other people in history, it would be silly to argue that this Jesus never existed.

"Josephus' Jesus's" - Smalltime agitators, terrorists, thugs, hippies and travellers, but little nothing to do with a religion called Christianity or sons of God. Bit silly to argue these Jesus' never existed.

SO, it comes down to the age old problem of context and understanding.

So if you believe in 'gospel' Jesus, but dont understand the astrology/pagan wisdom that forms its foundation, im sorry your Jesus never existed.

If you believe in 'gnostic' Jesus, (i cant imagine how you could be foolish enough to believe 'gospel' Jesus ever existed as a historical person anyway if you follow this path of Jesus), but dont understand the symbolism behind it, then this Jesus never existed.

Perhaps you believe in 'terrorist' Jesus, but then WTF? This isn't Jesus of the gospels, this isn't gnostic Jesus, this isn't Jesus who Christianity is founded on, so in the context of what were speaking about, Jesus never existed.

As for proving Jesus never existed, 1) Why should i? 2) Cant be bothered 3) Faith vs knowledge

Lets expand on that a bit more...

1) Everyone who's claiming Jesus existed should provide the evidence. But there isn't any. Why should it be my responsibility to prove he didn't? Anymore than its possible to prove there isn't a golden giraffe in orbit around Pluto. There is a very very small possibility there is a giraffe, but given every possible understanding of how a golden giraffe could get into orbit around Pluto, short of being a 'miracle' how could there be? Same with 'Gospel' Jesus.

2) Attempting to prove he didn't exist is a waste of time. The fact that people believe he did because of the gospels shows that noone really cares much for truth. I could spend weeks giving evidence, but for the large part I would only convince 'believers' that I have been really really tricked by Satan and am going to a fiery pit on my death. Unfortunately after 2000 years of telling lies and having 'cute' answers for everything - which only serve to re-inforce a 'believers' belief in the gospels when faced with unbelievers, there is no point. Its perverse reverse psychological trickery. All that happens is that 99% of the evidence gets ignored, and they just look for you to 'slip up' on something, then run with it for all their life. I cant be bothered with people like that. You're either are open to a genuine debate about truth, or youre a professional shister. 99% are shisters.

3) There comes a point when arguing about it - providing evidence etc, becomes a test of your own faith. I had hundreds of links on various texts that show exactly what/who Jesus is, should I be confronted with such a question. But its pointless. All it shows is that I have 'faith' and can defend my position. It is an expression of my weakness and doubts. But that position of faith that 'Jesus never existed', was replaced by an understanding of what Jesus is, I dont doubt it, dont need to have a thousand pages of backup to prove it. I know it, and am at peace with it.

I think it was you who told me the story of a man carrying a boat around on his back so he could cross a river - well the river is symbolic of moving from 'faith' to 'knowing'. You only need to cross it once, so carrying the boat around after the crossing is unwise - a burden.

Holding all the evidence of Jesus' non-existance is a boat. I crossed over and discarded the boat by deleting every bookmark I had on the subject. The consequence of that is that I cant make myself look really clever and shove a thousand links down your throat, but thats just a stupid game which proves my own weakness, and I am done with that.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BRussell
MarcUK, you seem pretty convinced that Jesus didn't exist. That seems pretty hard to believe, and takes quite a conspiracy. I certainly believe that much of his life was "revised" by Christians in the decade or so after his death. If that's the case, a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua that had many followers and was executed by Rome is hardly difficult to believe.

I'll give you an example: In DVC, brown says that Jesus has a "royal" bloodline because he was related to King David, and therefore his ancestors are also "royal" in a way. But I believe that early Christians invented Jesus' relation to David in order to buff up his credibility as the messiah. He was really from Nazareth, not Bethlehem, the city of David. It's interesting that DVC buys into a far-fetched historical notion that most scholars reject - that Jesus was Jewish "royalty" - while asserting an implausible claim with no evidence - that Jesus was married and had children.

considering you are open to the fact that many of Jesus' attributes are 'inventions' - something you can only ascertain by gaining knowledge, why dont you complete the journey and gain the knowledge that Jesus himself is purely an 'invention'.

Why is it that there needs to be a 'real' person and 'real' rewards of heaven, or 'real' threats of hell for people to get off their lazy asses and make some positive change to their life. These things only need to be 'real' when you are in contempt of the wonder of life and hate yourself.

Is the Bible (or for that matter any other religious document) worthless, meaningless and fake because there exists no 'real' Jesus, heaven or hell? Cant you extract the wisdoms from it if Jesus never existed? Can you even accept the wisdom in it if it turns out to be justpagan astrology? Would you even bother if there exists no reward of eternal life?

As i've said before, if you are in such contempt of life that you cannot live it without a 'real' Jesus, heaven or hell, then its probably better that you do deceive yourself and believe it to be true, lest you end up being a miserable, lazy, bum. But for some of us that don't have this issue, the path of truth awaits.

[segovius]

@MarcUK: Ok, re Jesus's historical existence - let's nail this bad boy down once and for all.

You say that the Jesus never existed but when pressed fall back on "the Jesus portrayed by the Church is a fiction".

Of course this is true. Imo it is a fiction based on the astro/sun pagan motif of which you are so enamoured. These too are a fiction imo, so you have a fiction on a fiction. The latter one even being a lie while the first at least was sincere.

BUT where we differ from each other is on that knowing that the second is a lie/fiction you infer that the central figure of the myth could have had no existence.

Presumably you would apply the same (lack of) logic to Robin Hood, King Arthur, and other figures but you would be wrong.

1) When a myth accrues around a central figure it makes it all the more likely that they did exist in order for it to be grafted successfully - it is when the myth is dispersed amongst a nebulous 'group' or various figures such as in folklore (Till Eulenspiegel, Nasrudin, Joha, Ponchinello etc) that it is more likely the 'target' is completely fictitious. Also such motifs tend to be culturally exclusive and, where they do cross cultures, transmute into terms defined by that culture, updating over time.

2) There are historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible. All sane people know and accept this.

But, oth, there are factual accuracies also. Ones that place the Gospel accounts (or the originals they are based on) very near the time they claim to be written.

This does not constitute any proof but it does mean that if you are correct and Jesus never had a historical reality then a conspiracy involving hundreds of people - and the Roman/Jewish authorities knowledge if not consent - was under way very early on with no-one talking.

This is a serious flaw in your argument.

3) Following on from the above: The Church weren't even around at this point to do the conspiring. Nor was Paul. The only people who could have done this would be a group who wished to position themselves as the mundane equivalent of the 'Disciples' who would also be fictitious necessarily and who this Group X would have invented at the same time.

So you need to posit TWO conspiracies and TWO bad guys with TWO different agendas.

a) The 'Disciples' - a group inventing the original lie to aproject a teaching we don't know.
b) The Later Church warping the original lie into the lie we do know.

Obviously this is possible and it would explain my first point n the post about the problem of a 'fiction on a fiction' but it is unwieldy and yiou need to continually resort to new theories and explanations to support it.

Why not just accept the easiest obvious solution?

A man - a human being - called Jesus lived in Palestine 2000 years ago and, as humans do (as we are doing now) he talked a lot about religious stuff and philosophy. People even listened.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
@MarcUK: Ok, re Jesus's historical existence - let's nail this bad boy down once and for all.

You say that the Jesus never existed but when pressed fall back on "the Jesus portrayed by the Church is a fiction".

Agreed, there is no need for an historical figure for the gospels, because as we know, it is based on the pagan/sun astro motif.

Also, there is no need for an historical figure for 'gnosticism' becuase it is a spiritual path, very similar to alot of other spiritual paths where to claim a historical figure existed as the centre of their theology, would border on insanity.


Of course this is true. Imo it is a fiction based on the astro/sun pagan motif of which you are so enamoured. These too are a fiction imo, so you have a fiction on a fiction. The latter one even being a lie while the first at least was sincere.

well, i was thinking about this the other day when a friend asked me a question. Here's roughly what I said.

Take for instance a well known story "snow white and the seven dwarves", (lets assume for arguments sake its a completely ficticious story), if we looked back how this story developed, we might find there were only five dwarves to start with, a different culture might have "sun yellow and the six elves", another "crystal green and the eight pixies" or even "coal black and the ten giants"...Yet are any of these alternate versions lies or corruption? NO, because its just a fun story, a myth, and each culture, each era has evolved a different meaning or tale of the original for their own purposes and maybe just for fun.

Infact the only way you can really misunderstand and corrupt a myth or story is if you suddenly thought "Snow White" was a real historical person.

As it is with Jesus, the story goes back far beyond 3B.C, you can see it in every culture, religion from all over the world. The closer to 1AD you get the story is more similar than it is if you look back to 3000B.C, but its still there.

Yet noone is foolish enough to believe the likes of Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Mithra, Dionysus ad infinitium are anything more than personifications of nature, spirit and soul.


BUT where we differ from each other is on that knowing that the second is a lie/fiction you infer that the central figure of the myth could have had no existence.

ok, so we differ...


1) When a myth accrues around a central figure it makes it all the more likely that they did exist in order for it to be grafted successfully - it is when the myth is dispersed amongst a nebulous 'group' or various figures such as in folklore (Till Eulenspiegel, Nasrudin, Joha, Ponchinello etc) that it is more likely the 'target' is completely fictitious. Also such motifs tend to be culturally exclusive and, where they do cross cultures, transmute into terms defined by that culture, updating over time.

I've italicized some of the above. You just shown exactly why Jesus is ficticious. His story was built up amongst many groups, who all disagreed somewhat with eachother, taking several hundred years to be completed. If thats not positive proof that the stories aren't based on a ficticious character, what is? - and when the final story echoes exactly what has become before it, a collage of all the 'ficticious' characters i mentioned above, where is the 'historical person' in that?


2) There are historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible. All sane people know and accept this.

But, oth, there are factual accuracies also. Ones that place the Gospel accounts (or the originals they are based on) very near the time they claim to be written.

At very best, the gospels would be akin to you writing an historical account of WWII now, if no-one had bothered to document it at the time, and its history and events had only been transmitted by word of mouth for 60 years. No doubt such 'truths' such as "Germany, Hitler, Churchill, Pearl Harbour, Atom Bomb" would remain, but i wouldn't fancy your chances of getting anything else historically correct.


This does not constitute any proof but it does mean that if you are correct and Jesus never had a historical reality then a conspiracy involving hundreds of people - and the Roman/Jewish authorities knowledge if not consent - was under way very early on with no-one talking.

This is a serious flaw in your argument.

Hardly! we know there were hundreds of people working on the story of Jesus for hundreds of years, we know that alot of it got rejected, and we know that for several hundred years, people were debating, critisizing, even taking the piss out of the Christians for their story - and even that the Christians were pleading for their story to be accepted - because it was - paraphrasing - "little different than the mythology that came before it". Who needs an historical catalyst for that?


3) Following on from the above: The Church weren't even around at this point to do the conspiring. Nor was Paul. The only people who could have done this would be a group who wished to position themselves as the mundane equivalent of the 'Disciples' who would also be fictitious necessarily and who this Group X would have invented at the same time.

So you need to posit TWO conspiracies and TWO bad guys with TWO different agendas.

a) The 'Disciples' - a group inventing the original lie to aproject a teaching we don't know.
b) The Later Church warping the original lie into the lie we do know.

IMO, the Jesus story wasn't intended to be centered around a physical person from its outset, very few people could have been that stupid. Considering all the other similar myths around at the time, this would have been seen as just another. The only reason we have difficulty recognising it as a myth today, is that all the others have been exterminated by force.

All that really happened was the 'spiritual, mythical' Jesus story developed alongside other myths and a few psychotics ran with it to create an historical Jesus and then wriggled their way into power, and then conspired to destroy all evidence of the myth. No big leap of faith there.


Obviously this is possible and it would explain my first point n the post about the problem of a 'fiction on a fiction' but it is unwieldy and yiou need to continually resort to new theories and explanations to support it.

I think I've been pretty consistant in my theory, im not changing it every other week, yet as new things are uncovered by me, I incorperate them into my understanding.


Why not just accept the easiest obvious solution?

A man - a human being - called Jesus lived in Palestine 2000 years ago and, as humans do (as we are doing now) he talked a lot about religious stuff and philosophy. People even listened.

Well that isn't the easiest obvious solution. The easiest is that I just accept the gospels, ignore everything contradictory and shout off like a fundie. Thats easy.

Of this man called Jesus living in Palestine 2000 years ago? What do you know about him? How can his story be related in the gospels, when we know it is just a mismash of astrology and syncretization. Is this the same guy Paul was preaching in Rome about? Was he divine? Was he one of the many Jesus' Josephus mentions?

If there was such a Jesus, face the fact, that whatever he said or did, died with him the moment he died. There is no religion or church formed around him or his teachings, and give up your Bibles, Qurans and Talmuds, because they have nothing to do with him.

Infact, your theory makes no sense. You chose to claim that there was a historical figure, yet everything you do/think concerning religion or spirituality has nothing to do with him.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MarcUK
considering you are open to the fact that many of Jesus' attributes are 'inventions' - something you can only ascertain by gaining knowledge, why dont you complete the journey and gain the knowledge that Jesus himself is purely an 'invention'.The reason I don't "complete the journey" and conclude that Jesus is an invention is that I don't believe it's logical to do so. Segovius said it well above, but I'll just say this: You're a gnostic, MarcUK. Your gnosis is this secret knowledge that Jesus never existed. "Completing this journey" is, for you, a kind of gnostic quest for truth. Well, congratulations, but I've always found gnosticism kind of creepy. ;)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BRussell
The reason I don't "complete the journey" and conclude that Jesus is an invention is that I don't believe it's logical to do so. Segovius said it well above, but I'll just say this: You're a gnostic, MarcUK. Your gnosis is this secret knowledge that Jesus never existed. "Completing this journey" is, for you, a kind of gnostic quest for truth. Well, congratulations, but I've always found gnosticism kind of creepy. ;)

I would say that it is illogical not to complete the journey.

To start off along the path seeking the truth, as everyone does who picks up a bible or quran or whatever - must mean that you are prepared to find it, or you were never genuine about the search in the first place. You cant just stop when you have found enough to make you feel 'fuzzy' and ignore the rest. If you really want to know that bad, you have to be prepared to destroy yourself finding out. If you find that everything you thought you believed was a lie and you're staring the abyss of nothingness straight in the face - Do you jump in or backtrack to a more comfortable place? If you are genuine in your search, it is illogical not to jump in whatever the consequences.

Then comes the question of how you label yourself, I've thought about being a gnostic, a Christian, agnostic, athiest, or just making up some cute title for my belief, like Apollonian, but I think Athiest is probably the best fit.

No doubt that draws some critisism from people who would like to frame me as making a decision about something impossible to answer - but I think their claim that it is impossible is not true. I think it is possible, and their claims are just ways of getting their hooks back into you to try to make you reconsider.

But i've thought of a very simple test for God's existance and it comes out a resounding NO.

"If I was the only person on earth, and I had no knowledge of anything, would I end up believing in God, be him Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Mithra, Dionysus? Would I end up a gnostic? Would I end up a Christian, a Muslim or a Satanist?"

If any of these things were 'literally' real, you could say that some way or another that this truth would be sent to me.

If however these things are just the product of thousands of years of refinement of slowly gained knowledge, then it would be impossible to find out any of this in my sole 80 odd years on Earth.

Therefore God cannot be a 'literal' truth, and must be a product of the refinement of Science and Knowledge of mankind.

PS. Whats creepy about gnosis anyway? Whats more creepy is wanting to know the truth and deliberately not finding it.

[MarcUK]

OK, Im about 3/4 of the way through the book now

It seems my hypothesis about what this book claims is wrong

What this book really is, is a cold calculated plot to undermine the chances of the 'truth' ever getting out.

Certainly there is an awful lot of 'factual' evidence in this book that has given me some 'glee' when I've been reading it, virtually confirming everything I have been studying for the past few years. But it's there not because some wise author is trying to get some real truth out into the public domain.

It exists in a phrase i'd call "guilt by association". Alot of this stuff is easily found in many 'critical' books of Christianity, including some I have read myself. Books by real scholars, collecting real evidence and making real arguments. These books are the 'evidence' of the truth, and pose a real threat to the established orthodoxy.

The reason it is 'guilt by association' is because this book will evidently be exposed as a pile of crock. And its by design. When certain aspects of this are rightly exposed as crock, it will take down all the genuine evidence with it, and thus discredit all the good work that has been done into the real truth of the Church, Christianity and Jesus.

So while certain elements of Christendom are publicy throwing a strop, behind closed doors, they must be laughing so hard their lungs are exploding.

This book is just their plan to discredit all the evidence that exists that they are a bogus operation.

[a_greer]

Dan Brown has started writing for NBC daytime...watch for it this fall, I have his first script right here...here is a brief synopsys...

Announcer: Like sand through an hourglass, so were the days of our Lord...

Jesus to a set of distrout sisters: Where is this Lazarus fellow...

Sister 1: It is so terrible; He is in...(whipes away a tear)

Cue dramatic stepdown...dun-dun-dun

sister 2: a coma!

Thomas: Come hither, let me comfort you... Giggidy Giggidy!

Cue announcer guy: Will Jesus be able to help Lazarus? will Thomas score a two way with the sisters and deny it...thrice? for the answers to those questions and more; tune into the next chapter in the saga of the Days of Our Lord!

Will it sell?
</comic releif>

It is BS, it is a work of fiction, nothing less nothing more, I'd rather just watch a good Batman flick...

[MarcUK]

So Segovius, did we but the bad boy to bed? :D :)

Anyway, whatever you believe is almost irrelavent to me, the only issue I have with religion is fundamentalism. Jesus, buddha, krishna, paganism, wicca are all fair game to me, if thats the path you chose, im fine with it.

I've been meaning to ask you about Apollonius of Tyana. I think by far the most influential person in the 1st Century.

How do you think he fits into all of this mystery?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I would say that it is illogical not to complete the journey.

To start off along the path seeking the truth, as everyone does who picks up a bible or quran or whatever - must mean that you are prepared to find it, or you were never genuine about the search in the first place. You cant just stop when you have found enough to make you feel 'fuzzy' and ignore the rest. If you really want to know that bad, you have to be prepared to destroy yourself finding out. If you find that everything you thought you believed was a lie and you're staring the abyss of nothingness straight in the face - Do you jump in or backtrack to a more comfortable place? If you are genuine in your search, it is illogical not to jump in whatever the consequences.

Then comes the question of how you label yourself, I've thought about being a gnostic, a Christian, agnostic, athiest, or just making up some cute title for my belief, like Apollonian, but I think Athiest is probably the best fit.

No doubt that draws some critisism from people who would like to frame me as making a decision about something impossible to answer - but I think their claim that it is impossible is not true. I think it is possible, and their claims are just ways of getting their hooks back into you to try to make you reconsider.

But i've thought of a very simple test for God's existance and it comes out a resounding NO.

"If I was the only person on earth, and I had no knowledge of anything, would I end up believing in God, be him Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Mithra, Dionysus? Would I end up a gnostic? Would I end up a Christian, a Muslim or a Satanist?"

If any of these things were 'literally' real, you could say that some way or another that this truth would be sent to me.

If however these things are just the product of thousands of years of refinement of slowly gained knowledge, then it would be impossible to find out any of this in my sole 80 odd years on Earth.

Therefore God cannot be a 'literal' truth, and must be a product of the refinement of Science and Knowledge of mankind.

PS. Whats creepy about gnosis anyway? Whats more creepy is wanting to know the truth and deliberately not finding it. I don't see it as a journey, I think that's the difference. My goal is to determine what makes the most sense, empirically and rationally. I mean, why not go even more to the extreme, why stop where you have? If it's a journey, that is.

If you believe there's affirmative evidence that people invented the person of Jesus, that's one thing. I haven't seen any evidence of that. What seems most parsimonious and consistent with the evidence to me is that there was a man named Yeshua who was from Nazareth and was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who had a very strong impact on a lot of people before he was executed by Palestine's Roman rulers. Then a fellow Jew, Paul, who had never met Jesus, started this religion around him, and he and others started exaggerating aspects of his life - virgin birth, from Bethlehem, came back to life after execution, etc., and it went on from there, until the "Jesus Christ" of just a few decades later looked almost nothing like the real Yeshua. But the idea that they invented someone totally from scratch makes less sense to me.

I mean, we know for certain that Yeshua was a common name, like "James" still is today, we know for certain that there were plenty of apocalyptic preachers running around, and we know that the Romans executed people on the cross by the zillions. It's almost inconceivable that there wasn't someone who fit the general life story. And that's what you're saying - that there was no Jewish apocalyptic preacher executed by Rome who later became the basis for Christianity.

What creeps me out about gnosticism is that the gnosis they inevitably find is absurd. After all, scientology is gnostic as well. If you think the canonical Christian gospels and beliefs are ridiculous, the gnostic Christians are even more absurd. It's not just a search for truth, it's a search for some crazy invention that makes the "journey" all the more worthwhile for them.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
So Segovius, did we but the bad boy to bed? :D :)

Anyway, whatever you believe is almost irrelavent to me, the only issue I have with religion is fundamentalism. Jesus, buddha, krishna, paganism, wicca are all fair game to me, if thats the path you chose, im fine with it.

I've been meaning to ask you about Apollonius of Tyana. I think by far the most influential person in the 1st Century.

How do you think he fits into all of this mystery?

Fundamentalism: there is no-one more fundamentalist than me if it comes to adhering to the original pure form of things and I am proud to be one in the real sense. However, this is a word which is much abused by the twin idiots that plague our blighted lives in this time: the media and the literalists.

I often use the term in a derogatory sense as a stand in for literalists because it amuses me to annoy them and I find it ironic. I would much prefer to enter into intelligent and rational debate with them but they are not capable of this - so I call them fundies when really I am a fundie and they are not. They are just literalists incapable of free-thought.

The very people who have polluted all real and beautiful religious frameworks from day one whatever the tradition in fact.

In any event, it seems strange you claim to have an animus against fundamentalism when you deny that there is a historical figure which the Church can diverge from. how then can there be fundamentalism - ie, as opposed to what if Jesus never existed?

There can only be a 'fundamentalism' with its putative opposite - that is to say: an original doctrine and a corrupt one.

If there was no Jesus and it is all made up then there only ever has been one doctrine - a false one perhaps but only one: the Church's.

I say this - and don't take this the wrong way - because I have come to suspect you are of their number. You are not a religionist for sure, but I'm suspecting you are some breed of literalist and this is why you cannot countenance a historical Jesus: because that to you would validate the Church.

But on: Apollonius of Tyana is also one of my favourite characters of history. I have no insight into his place in any 'mystery' but - in my warped view - he is of the same metaphorical lineage of Jesus.

In his memoirs (great read btw) Casanova - I think it was Casanova - perhaps Bellini - claims to have successfully summoned the ghost of Apollonius in a ritual in Rome's Coliseum. Interesting idea.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
What creeps me out about gnosticism is that the gnosis they inevitably find is absurd. After all, scientology is gnostic as well. If you think the canonical Christian gospels and beliefs are ridiculous, the gnostic Christians are even more absurd. It's not just a search for truth, it's a search for some crazy invention that makes the "journey" all the more worthwhile for them.

In what sense is the Gnosis absurd? Could you be specific?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't see it as a journey, I think that's the difference. My goal is to determine what makes the most sense, empirically and rationally. I mean, why not go even more to the extreme, why stop where you have? If it's a journey, that is.

who ever said I stopped?


If you believe there's affirmative evidence that people invented the person of Jesus, that's one thing. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Just because you havn't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either you dont want to find it, or you are scared of finding it. Or maybe you have found it, but the implications of it are too scary for you to endorse at the moment.


What seems most parsimonious and consistent with the evidence to me is that there was a man named Yeshua who was from Nazareth and was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who had a very strong impact on a lot of people before he was executed by Palestine's Roman rulers. Then a fellow Jew, Paul, who had never met Jesus, started this religion around him, and he and others started exaggerating aspects of his life - virgin birth, from Bethlehem, came back to life after execution, etc., and it went on from there, until the "Jesus Christ" of just a few decades later looked almost nothing like the real Yeshua. But the idea that they invented someone totally from scratch makes less sense to me.

They didn't invent someone from scratch, they took lots of already existing ideas and rolled them into one. As far as the rest of that paragraph goes, I completely understand why many people think that. But, you have achieved this level of understanding by seeking out knowledge. Therefore knowledge supercedes faith. But then this knowledge becomes faith. Thus, you must keep searching out knowledge. Knowledge only allows a person to move from one false position, to another position less false. Infact, the big 'secret' is there is no truth, all there are, are positions less false than the last one.

Even my position is false. The only difference is that while your position is less false than 'fundamentalism', my position is still less false than yours.


I mean, we know for certain that Yeshua was a common name, like "James" still is today, we know for certain that there were plenty of apocalyptic preachers running around, and we know that the Romans executed people on the cross by the zillions. It's almost inconceivable that there wasn't someone who fit the general life story. And that's what you're saying - that there was no Jewish apocalyptic preacher executed by Rome who later became the basis for Christianity.

There were apocalyptic preachers who were executed by Rome, some of them were even called Jesus. They even had followers. People even listened to them.

What i am saying is that the gospels have nothing to do with these people. Im even saying 'gnostic' christianity has nothing to do with them.

Nothing in the gospels, needs a 1st Century Jesus to explain them. Nothing in 'gnosticism' needs a 1st century Jesus to explain them. Both forms were fully functional before the 1st Century.

Of all history, the remaining actual physical historical "Jesus'" were little else but Roman agitators, terrorists and hippies. They might have been good people, had a few followers etc, spoke wise words etc etc, but they are nothing to do with "Christianity" or "gnosis". The only thing they have in common, is having the name "Jesus"


It's not just a search for truth, it's a search for some crazy invention that makes the "journey" all the more worthwhile for them.

And thats why I ultimately reject gnosis. I dont think its a bad thing, but to me, it is just another "Matrix" for the people who were wise enough to escape from the first.

There are alot of truths in gnosis, but at the end of the day, you have 'invented' a place for yourself where you feel safe by knowing you know more than everyone else. Its a kind of intelligent elitism, smugness, and arrogance.

I quite like gnosis, and its fun to explore, and you can contemplate and philosophize until you disappear up your own ass (allegoricall speaking!) walking that path. All things Im quite fond of as a matter of fact. But someday you realise it for what it is, and it isn't the truth. Just a position less false. But its not the 'least' false position.

Sooner or later you have to face the truth (known as the least false position you are capable of!), yet it in itself is the most ridiculous explanation!, yet the ridiculous is the obvious and the simplest - that there is no God, and you have not the slightest explaination for the reasons of existance. Knowing you know nothing. Its the only truth there is.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Fundamentalism: there is no-one more fundamentalist than me if it comes to adhering to the original pure form of things and I am proud to be one in the real sense. However, this is a word which is much abused by the twin idiots that plague our blighted lives in this time: the media and the literalists.

I often use the term in a derogatory sense as a stand in for literalists because it amuses me to annoy them and I find it ironic. I would much prefer to enter into intelligent and rational debate with them but they are not capable of this - so I call them fundies when really I am a fundie and they are not. They are just literalists incapable of free-thought.

The very people who have polluted all real and beautiful religious frameworks from day one whatever the tradition in fact.

Yes, but these are just 'words' and 'labels' we use as common ground so we understand what we are talking about. In context - I know who you are, you know who I am, we both know that common-ground we are talking about - lets not suddenly redefine the common ground to make ourselves feel clever.


I say this - and don't take this the wrong way - because I have come to suspect you are of their number. You are not a religionist for sure, but I'm suspecting you are some breed of literalist and this is why you cannot countenance a historical Jesus: because that to you would validate the Church.

I cant take it the wrong way, because I fully understand the statement to be false, infact its so false I find it only amusing.

What you're really claiming is a lack of imagination and refinement of spirituality or contemplation in how we can take all these false things and make something true and just out of them to purely reflect the essence of what Jesus is. So mote it be! But youre wrong!

What we'll never know, despite even infinite contemplation of eachothers position, is what is really in our hearts that drives us to make the arguments we do. Only you and I can ever know fully ourselves.

Yet, as far as I can possible know, I know why it is you speak of Jesus, the disciples, the gospels, favourably, despite knowing everything I know - and more - about them being false from the POV of common understanding of them.

As with BRussel and yourself, my argument with you, is only about how we best deal with these untruths, not particularly with the untruths themselves. As i've said, if you follow Jesus, thats fine with me, but I know, you know the truth about Jesus. My argument about Jesus is with the people who claim to follow Jesus, but don't know who he was and what he represents.

That Jesus, never existed and never will. That Jesus (gospel) is an astrological motif. Gnostic Jesus is a spiritual motif, neither of which ever existed, or needed to exist in the flesh in the 1st Century as a catalyst for a religious movement.

Josephus' Jesus' were agitators, terrorists and hippies. Unless you think otherwise - then I would be happy to hear your opinion, these Jesus' have nothing to do with Christianity, either Orthodox or gnostic.

So do we speak of Jesus knowing who he was - "favourably" to try to keep alive the spark of wisdom he bought, knowing that 99% of people will never understand it, and unwittingly give credibility to the 'lies' told about him.

or do we try to keep alive the spark of 'wisdoms' the world needs as 'personified' by the character of Jesus, and tell the truth that 'literally' Jesus did not exist in the 1st Century as an historical figure?


But on: Apollonius of Tyana is also one of my favourite characters of history. I have no insight into his place in any 'mystery' but - in my warped view - he is of the same metaphorical lineage of Jesus.

In his memoirs (great read btw) Casanova - I think it was Casanova - perhaps Bellini - claims to have successfully summoned the ghost of Apollonius in a ritual in Rome's Coliseum. Interesting idea.

I've recently postulated that Apollonius and Paul are highly connected - if not the same entity - be then historical people , semi-mythical, or entirely mythical. So far I have no definitive 'answer' other than my position of 'faith' on the matter. I would agree that "he is of the same metaphorical lineage of Jesus", but i'd like you to help me out a little. :)

[MarcUK]

And heres why I am right.

There are 2 possible outcomes to this.

The first is that there is a position of 'faith'. The further you go down this path, the more knowledge to have to dismiss - infact the highest position of 'faith' is that of having rejected all knowledge and believe only in God. Knowledge can only serve to reduce 'faith' because it forces questions about 'what God is'. The end path of this route is 100% faith, 0% knowledge.

The second is the path of 'knowledge'. The further you go down this path, the more faith you have to dismiss. The highest position of knowledge is having rejected all faith in God, because it only serves to undermine what knowledge is. The end path of this route is 0% faith, 100% knowledge.

Now the uber-smart person, is the one who realises why both end points are the same state of mind.

He who has faith in knowing he knows nothing but knows he has faith in no faith is God.