The whole "Da Vinci Code" thingy...

[Qdrop]

Is anyone into it....i mean, like buys into the conspiracy and all?

i think it's pretty much been proven to be a hoax, through and through....started back in the early 70's by 3 bored dudes....

alot of people still seriously believe in it....and believe the whole Prior of Scion shit....

what say you?

[Ace42X]

The opus dei guys are a real cult, everything else is just a story.

[ericlee]

If you're non denomination as me, it's kinda hard to believe in it. The story is good and Da Vinci is very sharp in what he believes in..

I'm just waiting for the movie and video game to come out.

[Qdrop]

The opus dei guys are a real cult, everything else is just a story.

replace "opus dei guys" with "christians"....and it still flows perfectly.

[ASsman]

Just something "cool" for white people to like together. Like Harry Potter, crackers.

[like2_drink]

Just something "cool" for white people to like together. Like Harry Potter, crackers.

your not fooling anyone, whitey

[roosta]

well, the Priory Scion stuff is all a hoax, but i believe their maybe some truth in the Jesus being married cover-up thing. Not a conspiracy through the ages type thingy,but something that may have happened back in days of old.

[roosta]

i wouldn't mind joining a fucking cult

[ChrisLove]

Its balls - it perpetuates the myth that Jesus was a real person!

[ms.peachy]

Its balls - it perpetuates the myth that Jesus was a real person!
Well there's nothing really to suggest that he wasn't. He may or may not have been just some guy, not the 'son of God'. Just your average young Jewish carpenter of the day.

[roosta]

Its balls - it perpetuates the myth that Jesus was a real person!

there's no way a religious movement could start at the same time when the so-called leader was about if he didn't even exist.

[kaiser soze]

I don't believe it but the book was good

[Ace42X]

Actually, Roman records show the a Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified. As were many many Jews of that period.

[marsdaddy]

I don't believe it but the book was goodThe book was good? I found the book illogical and with more holes than my "vintage" levis. The movie might be good because you can't turn back to the earlier pages and realize they've contradicted themselves.

Are the Opus Dei guys related to the Skull & Cross Bones set?

[ChrisLove]

Actually, Roman records show the a Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified. As were many many Jews of that period.

LOL


right?

[Ace42X]

LOL
right?

No, really. Jesus wasn't exactly a rare name back then and neither was Nazareth a one horse town. I'm not saying there was religious significance, or it was the same Jesus or anything, just that there is evidence...

[ms.peachy]

The book was good? I found the book illogical and with more holes than my "vintage" levis.
It was crap. I find it incredibly depressing that so many people seem to think it wasn't, because all that says to me is that there are a shitload of people out there who can't tell a good book from a bad one.

[Monsieur Decuts]

the knights templar were real though....now they're masons
i think

[ToucanSpam]

It's all about what you believe, I guess. I'm a Christian and as far as I'm concerned, as long as your believe in Jesus and God, you're good to go. People waste so much time fighting over the semantics of Christianity that they lose sight of the bigger message...

...ahhhhhh Da Vinci Code thingy, more crap for people to buy into. Means more disputes, and more anger.

[ChrisLove]

No, really. Jesus wasn't exactly a rare name back then and neither was Nazareth a one horse town. I'm not saying there was religious significance, or it was the same Jesus or anything, just that there is evidence...

I was rather under the impression that Nazareth didnt exist until the second century AD..... if there was was at the time of Jesus it was small enough not to appear in any records or writing of the time.

[ASsman]

It was crap. I find it incredibly depressing that so many people seem to think it wasn't, because all that says to me is that there are a shitload of people out there who can't tell a good book from a bad one.
Harry Potter comes to mind....

[apparatus]

It was crap. I find it incredibly depressing that so many people seem to think it wasn't, because all that says to me is that there are a shitload of people out there who can't tell a good book from a bad one.

It's even sadder that many people seem to have difficulties telling science from fiction. This "Holy blood, holy grail" crap is a good way to make money but it's far from serious science. There are really interesting things in the apocryphs, why not research that stuff instead? Besides, that's already being done, it just doesn't make people go "OMG conspiracy" and doesn't generate money, either.

[ms.peachy]

Harry Potter comes to mind....
Well, I haven't actually read those, so I can't really comment on their overall quality. However, I think the fact that those books are actually written for children makes them a different matter,and so one need not expect the same level of literary sophistication as one written (supposedly) for adults.

[roosta]

the reason i liked the Da Vinci Code was this...it was a "page turner" in every sense of the word for me. I have a slight ADD problem with books. Even if i like them, i can get lost about 1/2, 3/4 way in. And if i dont read it in a 24 hour period, im gone. But with the "Da Vinci Code" i was hooked, and it was the first book i've finished in about 2 years.

Now "Angels & Demons" was the worst book i have ever read, and i only finished it to see how ridiculous it would get. It did not dissapoint.

[DelaBunny]

I've got the same problem, I either have to read a book in one sitting or the second half will have to wait a month or two.

I have to say the book lived up to the media hype, whereas the newer 'holy grail' themed book => Labryinth, which although all the reviewers harping on about it, apparently is a 600-odd page bore.

I think people like to think there are "conspiracy theories" (i.e. NWO and whatnot) going on, makes life that bit more 'interesting'.

[ChrisLove]

Out of the lot, I liked Deception Point the most and obviously I found them enjoyable enough to read all of them.

I basically thnk that DB comes up with some decent story ideas but that the way he presents information and the way the characters nteract is really patronising and annoying.

Apparently you can win a prize by solving a mystery on the cover on the DaVinci code

[Ace42X]

I was rather under the impression that Nazareth didnt exist until the second century AD..... if there was was at the time of Jesus it was small enough not to appear in any records or writing of the time.

I may well be mistaken then, maybe it was Galiliee. Or maybe it was "a place that was near to," or "later became" Nazareth.

It was on one of those "In search of Jesus" History / Discovery channel documentaries a while back, so I can't remember the details. And as the program wasn't presented in Latin, I was unable to verify the assertions myself, at the time.

Do you have any good links on the topic? My knowledge of Judea is patchy to say the least.

[Ace42X]

A quick Wiki turned up some interesting things...

Four of the tombs were sealed with rolling stones, a type of closure typical of the late Jewish period up to A.D. 70. From the tombs, therefore, it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period. (The Archaeology of the New Testament, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1992: pages 44-46)

; pp. 170-71 discusses Aramaic-inscribed marble fragments paleographically dated around the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century, demonstrating that Nazareth had marble structures near the time the Gospels were written (even if not before).

Jerome in the 5th century says it was a viculus or mere village, and modern estimates of its size in the first century are in the low hundreds. It was a satellite village of Sepphoris, a Hellenistic Roman city 6.5 km (4 miles) away.

Low hundreds, so 200-300 people at any one time, that leaves a fair bit of scope, and as a satellite to a more significant city, means that there could quite easily be some erroneous conflation between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Nazareth_in_history_and_archaeology

[ASsman]

Well, I haven't actually read those, so I can't really comment on their overall quality. However, I think the fact that those books are actually written for children makes them a different matter,and so one need not expect the same level of literary sophistication as one written (supposedly) for adults.
Shhh, don't tell them.

[MagicCowboy]

I read The Da Vinci Code and liked it. It was about as believable as the Bible, but way more entertaining. A page turner (y)

[ChrisLove]

A quick Wiki turned up some interesting things...







Low hundreds, so 200-300 people at any one time, that leaves a fair bit of scope, and as a satellite to a more significant city, means that there could quite easily be some erroneous conflation between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Nazareth_in_history_and_archaeology

This is quite a hard topic to research - most of the info on the net is heavily biased eitherfor or against christainity making any diffinate conclusions dfficult but I think the following way of looking at it is reasonable

1. There currently exists a place called Nazareth.

2. There is archelogical evidence that there have been humans living at this place since biblical times(although some debate this)

3. This does not mean that the place curently known as Nazareth was called Nazareth in Jesus' lifetime - we just know there was settlement there.

4. The bible tells us that Nazareth was built on a mountain and that the locals threatened to throw Jesus ff of a cliff (Luke 4).

5.Present day Nazareth is not on a mountain and there is no cliff.

6. The bible stories also tell us that the home town of Jesus was big enough to have a mosque

7. Writings at the time listing places in Galilee (Josephus and the Talmud) do not mention Nazareth.

8. Based on 4,5,6&7 it would seem to be a reasonable assumption that the present place called Nazareth was not called that in Jesus' time.

Much of what I read suggest that the name Nazareth came about because Jesus was called the Nazarene - which might just have been a name he had rather than where he was from. Like if future humans discoverI was known as Chris the Asshat they will assume I was born in Asshatia but actualy Im just an asshat.

Here are some extremely biased links - it is hard to find anyhing else on this topic

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

[Ace42X]

This is quite a hard topic to research - most of the info on the net is heavily biased eitherfor or against christainity making any diffinate conclusions dfficult but I think the following way of looking at it is reasonable


Same problem I ran into.