Originally posted by The_Doctor
"I do take umbrage at your remark about Christ being a 'street magician'. To paraphrase your own post - did you ever see him?"

Did you....

I have seen ample proof to show that "Christ was not even the real name of Jesus and that many Christs existed in that time period.

Ample proof? Reputable scholarly proof? Or 'internet scholarship'? Now, Jesus was likely called 'the Christ'; 5 seconds with a dictionary will tell you that the definition of Christ is messiah or redeemer. Were there others? There were a lot of people who asked John the Baptist if he was the Christ. But, seeing how Jesus the Christ is wordy; we have eliminated the preposition.

I am the wrong person to ask if I've seen Christ. While I haven't laid my eyes on Him - yet - I feel Him quite a bit. But that's a matter of faith. My problem with the flippant tone that is used is the lack of respect. I am not a Jew or a Muslim, but I respect their traditions, holidays, and beliefs. I am not a Wiccan or Druid or other pagan, but I refrain from being offensive or abusive - if I were even so inclined. No, my friend, it's the people who tend either to believe in absolutely nothing or have serious doubts about their own beliefs and values that seem to be so viscious in attacking others. Its rude, disrespectful, petty, and a sign of a weak mind. If you don't want to be lumped into any of these groups, I recommend you be more civil. We don't have to agree on anything, but that does not excuse being offensive.

Originally posted by Bibliophile

Originally posted by shantyman

...This is what the DaVinci Code attacks...

This book attacks nothing. It is a work of fiction. That means it is make-believe, not real.

This idea -- that because it is 'fiction' that it is not offensive, or will not be believed to be fact -- is part of the marketting spin. Whether we are gullible enough to believe so transparent a tactic is up to us.

That large numbers of people believe that the novel has a factual background (which it does not) may surely be verified reasonably easily.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the da vinci code is based on that age old 'what if' selling point..

pretty much like the bible infact..

there's really no difference.. they both play on the imagination.

That large numbers of people believe that the novel has a factual background (which it does not) may surely be verified reasonably easily.

This could as easily read:

That large numbers of people believe that the Bible has a factual background (which it does not) may surely be verified reasonably easily.

In the two posts of yours since my last, I had hoped to read an answer to the question I had asked you regarding the list of books you posted.
Dan Brown stated that his book is fiction, but that the secret groups that he names are real organizations. This book is a fabrication. It is a story made up by Brown, which includes real places, and real organizations. Michener is the master of such novels, if anyone would care to read some excellent historically accurate, yet fictional, works of fiction. In my personal opinion, Mr. Browns references to Opus Dei are total conjecture. In my 25 years of reading on this subject, I have never read about them. Maybe he knows something I don't, thats possible, of course. But, he himself, as far as I know, is on record as admitting that although there are real groups and places mentioned in the DVC, it is fiction. He made it up, and from what I know of the book, even if he was trying to tell an allegedly true story, he missed, imo.

This book is a fabrication. It is a story made up by Brown,

While the characters are fictional the storyline is not. The Magdalene Sects have
been documented as early as the 7th century. The Priory ( or more properly Order)
of Sion was formed in 1099 and continued until at least the 15th century. Is there
a connection to the " Modern Priory" who knows?

IMHO, The Da Vinci Code, has gone beyond mere market success to become a cultural phenomenon. The Da Vinci Code is custom made fiction for our time: pretentious, posturing, self-serving, arrogant, self-congratulatory, condescending, glib, illogical, superficial, and deviant." Given how our 'elites' in the major media and entertainment industry have fawned all over Dan Brown and his book--and how they tend to behave in general, I believe I hit it firmly on the mark with the above statement.

Oh yeah, and the movie was a snooze as well.