Though “The Da Vinci Code” was contentious enough to produce 10 books attempting to discredit it, its author said he left out what likely would have been the most controversial part.
Dan Brown said that when he wrote the best seller that dissects the origins of Jesus Christ and disputes long-held beliefs about Catholicism, he considered including material alleging that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion.
Full Story.
All kinds of people think he survived….
There is a whole group of people that think Jesus survived the crucifiction, they are called christians. Something about, “one the third day he rose again…”
Re:All kinds of people think he survived….
No, “surviving the crucifixion” and “dying, but rising again on the third day”, are not the same thing. What Dan Brown is talking about is the suggestion that Jesus didn’t die, making his post crucifixion activities quite un-miraculous.
This is, needless to say, not what Christians believe.
Re:All kinds of people think he survived….
Surviving a crucificion is still a pretty neat trick, they are designed to kill you. So whether he died and rose again or just survived a crucificion he had something going for him.
I love how people feel so compelled to discredit christianity. I don’t believe in Buddhism but I don’t go out of my way to discredit the religion. Oh well, some people have baggage they need to deal with.
Re:All kinds of people think he survived….
A friend of mine describes Dan Brown’s genre as “Catholic porn.”
The thing is, Brown’s research is in fact really sloppy and credulous; he gets things wrong that he could correct just by cracking open a dictionary. The dialog is clumsy; the characterization can kindly be described as weak. BUT, you can read through one of his books, making mental notes all the way on what’s wrong with it, assuring yourself constantly, “Just one more chapter…one more…just _one_ more…” all the way to the end of the book.
This is what “page-turner” was coined to describe. It doesn’t matter how “bad” it is by any reasonable standard; it’s lots of fun to read.
So, that was supposed to be a brief comment before actually replying to you…We get “Catholic porn” and other Christian varieties of the same thing, and even some Jewish because that’s what’s here for people to have issues with. Not many North Americans grow up with Issues relating to their Buddhist upbringing.
Buddhism: not much to discredit
Here’s a quickie primer on Buddhism. This is as much as I’ve ever read about Buddhism, and I’m kinda digging it. I’ve always had a big problem with the concept of belief.
No argument from me that Jesus was a remarakable figure, though. But, really, there is a lot about Christianity that invites scrutiny, if you aren’t a believer. If you truly believe, I wouldn’t think that naysayers would bother you. Doubters, though, I think, might be made pretty squirmy by any sort of rational analysis (empirical, historical, whatever) of events portrayed in the Bible.
Re:All kinds of people think he survived….
It’s interesting about historical research and anything biblically related. When it’s something that disproves something that the bible claims to have happened, it’s tearing down christianity. But if it proves something that the bible claims to have happened, then that’s just peachy and good.
But then again, christianity (in it’s various sects) has always been a “pick and chose” religion.
s/
Re:Buddhism: not much to discredit
In a thread arising from an nbruce journal entry I noted two web-accessible articles I thought did a pretty good job of answering The Da Vinci Code hypothesis.
Rochelle raises two big issues connected with Christian faith (and probably with theistic faith in general): belief and rationality (however we construe ‘reason’). To go into any detail in this thread would be off-topic, but if I get time, I will try to post a few thoughts on these topics in my journal.