Originally posted by fjordFjord: "That Jesus and Maria Magdelena would have had a love relationship seems not so implausible to me."
Badly written. Little or nothing proved. Just another story about Jesus.
That Jesus and Maria Magdelena would have had a love relationship seems not so implausible to me.
It puzzles me how you can write so lofty about a critic on the book, while you haven't written the book itself.
fjord
..... hey, I am supposed to be the gullible one here 😉 😀
I was under the impression they had found good evidence jesus didn't die on the cross and moved to india and had a family? I only bring this up because as I recall the catholic church semi-accepted it by saying his ressurection was symbolic and his sacrifice was the important thing.
This was a looong time ago though, so I could either be mis-remembering or it was just a crackpot documentary/article that I saw.
MÅ¥HÅRM
1 edit
Originally posted by MayharmMust have been a crackpot documentary/article ......
I was under the impression they had found good evidence jesus didn't die on the cross and moved to india and had a family? I only bring this up because as I recall the catholic church semi-accepted it by saying his ressurection was symboli ...[text shortened]... it was just a crackpot documentary/article that I saw.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Mayharm: "I was under the impression they had found good evidence jesus didn't die on the cross and moved to india and had a family?"
..... and his wife must have been Mary Magdalene, 🙄🙄🙄
Mayharm: "I only bring this up because as I recall the catholic church semi-accepted it by saying his ressurection was symbolic and his sacrifice was the important thing."
There are a lot of Christians, you may even find them here on RHP, who are advocates of these views but these views certainly are not part of Roman Catholic teachings. If you can give us evidence to back up your claims I will be most grateful.
If you can prove this to be a part of Roman Catholic teachings I instantly will become a free lance Christian .... loool ....
Originally posted by ivanhoe"If you can give us evidence to back up your claims I will be most grateful. "
Must have been a crackpot documentary/article ......
Mayharm: "I was under the impression they had found good evidence jesus didn't die on the cross and moved to india and had a family?"
..... and his wife must have been Mary Magdalene, 🙄🙄🙄
Mayharm: "I only bring this up because as I recall the catholic church semi-accepted it by saying h ...[text shortened]... of Roman Catholic teachings I instantly will become a free lance Christian .... loool ....
I was going to say I wouldn't know where to look, then I went "doh!", where else but google...
Seems there's a lot of stuff floating around out there, most of it I dismissed as christian bashing, though it appears some christians give the theory a fair amount of credit. However what I couldn't find was any reference to the vatican accepting it, which was the intresting aspect for me.
As an aside, I made no claims, I was asking the question to see if anyone else had any knowledge on the subject.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by fjordLittle or nothing proved? Well I'm NOT saying that the Da Vinci Code is the truth, I kinda see it as a thought provoking novel (despite logical loopholes) which just interprets what evidence there is in a totally different way......... if you look at the catholic church as being innocent over the years its time to take off the Rose Petalled glasses........... political corruption, control, power I think these are arguments that shouldn't just be eliminated without further thought. Until something is proven 100% you have to have an unbiased open mind to other alternatives. Remember theres not alot of hardcore proof to substantiate the Catholic Church claims either, so why cant there be unsubstantiated claims against the faith????
Badly written. Little or nothing proved. Just another story about Jesus.
That Jesus and Maria Magdelena would have had a love relationship seems not so implausible to me.
It puzzles me how you can write so lofty about a critic on the book, while you haven't written the book itself.
fjord
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedThe author claimed that the content of his story was based on facts. That is not true. If the book was presented as a speculative theory it would have been al right. Although still poorly written.
Little or nothing proved? Well I'm NOT saying that the Da Vinci Code is the truth, I kinda see it as a thought provoking novel (despite logical loopholes) which just interprets what evidence there is in a totally different way......... ...[text shortened]... so why cant there be unsubstantiated claims against the faith????
It didn’t say that the Catholic Church holds the right view. I agree with you, that they also make claims about Jesus life that have no solid scientific basis.
That is no reason to come with a another story, wrapped up as truth.
Fjord
Edit> I made a confusing mistake in my original post to Ivanhoe. 😳 I wrote "It puzzles me how you can write so lofty about a critic on the book, while you haven't written the book itself."
"Written" should read as "read".
1 edit
Originally posted by fjordIs there anywhere where it lists what facts were actually true, which parts were theories and which were just complete fabrications for the benefit of the novel? Because I suppose if theres at least one fact that the story centres around, then the statement "based on fact" is actually true....... Will check that with a friend who works in publishing and get back with the answer.
[b]The author claimed that the content of his story was based on facts. That is not true. If the book was presented as a speculative theory it would have been al right.
Despite all the fact arguments against the book, do you not believe its POSSIBLE the CC created icons / stories for there own power / control?
Because I suppose if theres at least one fact that the story centres around, then the statement "based on fact" is actually true....... Will check that with a friend who works in publishing and get back with the answer.OK after speaking to my friend in publishing, she tells me that the term "based on fact" is a pretty vague statement that hides a multitude of sins. The book has to have genuine factual elements although there is no measure of how many..... the term is used commonly as a marketing tool to help sell the book itself rather than a legally binding claim to its content.
Despite all the fact arguments against the book, do you not believe its POSSIBLE the CC created icons / stories for there own power / control?[/b]
So the term "based on fact' is infact a fair statement in this example.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedThe copyright page makes it very clear that the entire novel is
OK after speaking to my friend in publishing, she tells me that the term "based on fact" is a pretty vague statement that hides a multitude of sins. The book has to have genuine factual elements although there is no measure of how man ...[text shortened]... term "based on fact' is infact a fair statement in this example.
a work of fiction. Anything following that page must be interpreted
as such, including the statement that the novel is based on fact.
I don't see why there is such a fuss, unless you failed to read the
copyright page, in which case you are just an irresponsible reader
and deserve whatever confusion you have from neglecting that
responsibility.
Cribs
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsNo confusion Cribs....... I took the (alledged) facts in this novel with a pinch of salt, like I said thought provoking rather than taking the written text as gospel. Irresponsible reader? More accurate would be curious reader and wanted to know if there was a definition of "based on fact" eg a legal standpoint / measurement of correctness....... as it turns out its more of a marketing tool as previously posted.
The copyright page makes it very clear that the entire novel is
a work of fiction. Anything following that page must be interpreted
as such, including the statement that the novel is based on fact.
I don't see why there is such a fuss, ...[text shortened]... confusion you have from neglecting that
responsibility.
Cribs
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedYes, much like when you see a quote like "Riveting!!!" on the back cover.
No confusion Cribs....... I took the (alledged) facts in this novel with a pinch of salt, like I said thought provoking rather than taking the written text as gospel. Irresponsible reader? More accurate would be curious reader and wante ...[text shortened]... as it turns out its more of a marketing tool as previously posted.
I've read a lot, but I'm not sure that I have ever been riveted, unless
I just didn't notice it.
Cribs
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsHey, this sounds like insurance company talk 😕
The copyright page makes it very clear that the entire novel is
a work of fiction. Anything following that page must be interpreted
as such, including the statement that the novel is based on fact.
I don't see why there is such a fuss, ...[text shortened]... confusion you have from neglecting that
responsibility.
Cribs
I am one of these irresponsible persons who didn't read that.
If I had read it, it would have saved me reading 50 pages of thrash and a few bucks
Would you say the same if it had been a book with the holocaust as theme? Or a folder about a 'nice' holiday resort?
fjord
Originally posted by CribsMy favourite was on the cover of Dan Browns Deception point......
Yes, much like when you see a quote like "Riveting!!!" on the back cover.
Unputdownable!!
Classic....... obviously worked though cause I purchased the book, damn cant believe I fell for that :0) and I studied marketing at Uni.
Originally posted by CribsMaybe, that would be a good topic for another debate.
Yes. To answer No would mean that I don't believe those topics
are legitimate topics for fiction. I believe that any topic is
fair game for fiction.
Cribs
But that was not what I meant. I was pointing at the misleading
If you sell something as fiction you should make it clear that it is fiction, certainly when it will have severe consequences if people don't realize that.
If you don't want to do that you are sowing confusion and mistrust. A world in which the smartass wins.
fjord