The Da Vinci Code: Do you believe?

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:23 am

Didymus wrote:

I've actually seen the Mona Lisa in Paris.

So have I; she's not that big.

ramrod · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:25 am

Beyond the Grave wrote:

Second, Necromancy is bad.

Axctually. no, you're wrong. Necromancy is wrong if the post says nothing that really matters. But DGS's post was meaniful, thus making it ok. If he just said 'It rules', then it would be wrong.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:29 am

IanTheGecko wrote:

Didymus wrote:

I've actually seen the Mona Lisa in Paris.

So have I; she's not that big.

Oh yeah. When I saw the Mona Lisa, it was the biggest letdown of my life.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:32 am

DGS is a lady-type. I know, bizarre name for a lady-type, but who knows? Maybe she didn't want a bunch of guys flirting with her like we do with Da Sistahood all the time.

Norman Rorqual · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:35 am

DJ Soul Camel wrote:

thefreakyblueman wrote:

There were many truths in the book, like the organization of the Priory with Da Vinci being one of the head honchos

The Priory Of Scion is a grand surrealist prank which was pulled on the authors of the book Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and had already been roundly dismissed by the time that earlier book came out. Its origins extend all the way back to the ancient days of the early 1950s

Come on, you guys. Am I the only one who thinks Monty Python when I read this grail stuff? Or has that subject just been done to death...

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:00 pm

I have only one thing to say about that: Where'd You Get The Coconuts?

Trog-dork · **Joined:** Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:56 am **Posts:** 95

Didymus wrote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure Leonardo was a real person. I've actually seen the Mona Lisa in Paris.

You know who I meant.

ramrod · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:09 pm

norman rorqual wrote:

Come on, you guys. Am I the only one who thinks Monty Python when I read this grail stuff? Or has that subject just been done to death...

Nope, definately not. It keeps popping into my mind, and then I giggle. Then it freaks out the person sitting next to me in the computer lab.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:19 pm

Trog-dork wrote:

Didymus wrote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure Leonardo was a real person. I've actually seen the Mona Lisa in Paris.

You know who I meant.

Doesn't change the fact it's an unsubstantiated claim. As I've already demonstrated on another thread, with actual historical documentation, we are not in fact talking about a "fictional character" but a real historical figure. Your opinion about exactly who and what he was may be different than mine, but that's beside the point.

Trog-dork · **Joined:** Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:56 am **Posts:** 95

I did some research, and came out with this, that I found on another board (vulgar language censored to please the mods):

Quote:

Strange question.

The Bible is the only source we have for the existence of Jesus, there are no other contemporary sources that mention him or his many 'works'. Isn't that strange? Who are you going to compare Bible-Jesus to? There's no Jesus anywhere else. So it's 100% accurate, if you believe the Bible. Which I don't. It has no contemporary historical accounts backing up its bull**** whatsoever. For example (and this is one of a few gems):

You'd figure saints rising from the dead and talking to people around jerusalem as a consequence of the alleged SON OF GOD ARISING FROM THE DEAD as described in one of the (contradictory, of course) resurrection accounts in the 'good' book, would draw some attention from the contemporary historians eh?

A not unreasonable conclusion resulting from the lack of supporting evidence: it's f******g bull****.

What's even more wonderful is you have these self-righteous liars inserting passages into a secondary historical sources like Flavius Jospehus: the passage goes kind of like this:

"and so the King did this blah blah there was a flood and a war blah blah blah the Roman administrators blah blah blah there was a famine blah blah ..."

and immediately after:

"The JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD WAS CRUCIFIED, HE WAS THE CHRIST OUR SAVIOR (even though, I Jospehus, am a pharisaic JEW) AND THE SON OF MAN AND ALL MUST BELIEVE IN HIM"

and then

"and then there was a war and a famine blah blah blah"

needless to say, this entire passage has been universally condemned as a forgery; except by the ignorant of course.

And remember, this is the best source

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:07 am

That was totally uncalled for. Even if you agreed with this person's arguments, the least you could have done was rephrased them in a friendly way.

Nor am I entirely convinced that some kid on a forum using this kind of language should be considered a reliable source for anything.

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:30 am

This isn't the right thread for this Trogdork - and Didy's right, you really should know better - but I'll add as toastpaint....

Now, I have my own doubts as to whether Christ is what Christians say he is, but his existance can't be questioned. And this person doesn't seem to be any authority - not that I'm claiming to be - and is pretty ignorant (to say the least) about what he or she is talking about.

Quote:

The Bible is the only source we have for the existence of Jesus, there are no other contemporary sources that mention him or his many 'works'.

No, it's not. Roman historian Tacitus very much mentions Christ.

Tacitus in the Annals wrote:

But neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire [the Great Fire of Rome] had been instigated. To suppress this rumour, Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus.

It's believed that Tacitus had also recorded the trial of Christ - but these documents have been lost, so we can't talk about that.

Suetonius also makes mention of a figure named "Chrestus" whose followers, called Jews by Suetonius, were the instigators of disturbances in Rome. Now, there are lingering reservations as to whether this "Chrestus" is Christ, but it's agreed that it was the Christians who were causing disturbances at the time Suetonius is writing about (the reign of Emperor Claudius), and that "Chrestus" lived at the same time and region as Christ, as well as having a similar name of course.

On top of that, there are Pliny the Younger, Philo and Josephus. Though I don't know their texts to comment on them, I very much doubt your friend from the other forum has ever read Josephus him- or herself.

Trog-dork · **Joined:** Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:56 am **Posts:** 95

Like it says, those were hoaxes created by people later in time editing the text, just like that 'James burial box' where someone had carved the name Jesus into it several hundred years after it was made.

Didymus · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:01 am

And you expect me to take the word of some foul-mouth kid who rants on a forum?

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:05 am

Trog-dork wrote:

I did some research, and came out with this, that I found on another board (vulgar language censored to please the mods):

Quote:

Strange question.

The Bible is the only source we have for the existence of Jesus, there are no other contemporary sources that mention him or his many 'works'. Isn't that strange? Who are you going to compare Bible-Jesus to? There's no Jesus anywhere else. So it's 100% accurate, if you believe the Bible. Which I don't. It has no contemporary historical accounts backing up its bull**** whatsoever. For example (and this is one of a few gems):

You'd figure saints rising from the dead and talking to people around jerusalem as a consequence of the alleged SON OF GOD ARISING FROM THE DEAD as described in one of the (contradictory, of course) resurrection accounts in the 'good' book, would draw some attention from the contemporary historians eh?

A not unreasonable conclusion resulting from the lack of supporting evidence: it's f******g bull****.

What's even more wonderful is you have these self-righteous liars inserting passages into a secondary historical sources like Flavius Jospehus: the passage goes kind of like this:

"and so the King did this blah blah there was a flood and a war blah blah blah the Roman administrators blah blah blah there was a famine blah blah ..."

and immediately after:

"The JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD WAS CRUCIFIED, HE WAS THE CHRIST OUR SAVIOR (even though, I Jospehus, am a pharisaic JEW) AND THE SON OF MAN AND ALL MUST BELIEVE IN HIM"

and then

"and then there was a war and a famine blah blah blah"

needless to say, this entire passage has been universally condemned as a forgery; except by the ignorant of course.

And remember, this is the best source

well, this does seem like something my friend would say, then again, he listens to what anton levey says.

well, aparantly i should finish this book before saying anything else.

cowbertiv · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:15 pm **Posts:** 4

Th e facts may be true but it is fiction

DanBo · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:56 pm

I find it funny that Dan Brown put in a little disclaimer saying "The story in this book is fiction, but based off of facts, such as the existence of the Priori of Sion." Methinks he should do more research, and see that PS was indeed a hoax, created by three rich Frenchmen with nothing better to do than mess with people.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The Da Vinci Code: Do you believe?

Who is online