Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Da Vinci Code controversy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDa Vinci Code controversy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Bob Greece View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1823 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2006 at 06:33
Here's one good thing that the film has done - united Christians and Muslims with a common enemy:
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4985370.stm
 


Back to Top
Rocktopus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2006 at 15:32
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

All i can tell you is i'm tired to see everybody do the same and read the same book.


Same here
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2006 at 18:08
Originally posted by James Lee James Lee wrote:


Then again, DVC is so popular that it might be a good time for anyone with a related agenda to jump on the bandwagon...


Thanks for that article James,an interesting read.Smile
Back to Top
Minkia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 174 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2006 at 19:01
Maani, you come across as though in a past life you were a Knight Templar, judging by your reaction to my post! Woah! Do I detect some slight biblical vehemence in your quasi-sermon-like reaction to my post??

Has it ever occurred to you that even non-believers have their own opinions, though these may sometime come across as being rather caustic or iconoclastic or uninformed?

You shouldn't take it so personal as it's only my opinion, after all.

Still...to quote Roger Waters '..the sheep are lost and the shepherd will never come back...'. How true.

    
    

Edited by Minkia - May 16 2006 at 19:12
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2006 at 19:36
Minkia:
 
Non-believers are certainly entitled to their opinions - as is everyeone else.  However, when you say, "The fact of the matter is that Jesus shagged Mary Magdalene...," you are prima facie stating it as a fact - not an opinion.  It was your "certainty" about your opinion - with absolutely not one shred of scholarly support - that caused my "quasi-sermon-like reaction" to your post.
 
An "opinion" is still expected to be based on at least minimal evidentiary or other support.  You offer little or none.  My response was a way of providing a "primer" on the history of early Christianity - as accepted by the vast majority of scholars, whether Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, atheist, or other.  Again, this does not mean that everything that any particular scholar, or even a group of scholars, agree on is 100% accurate.  It simply means that these scholars - who have spent far more time studying and researching this stuff than either of us - have independently come to similar conclusions about certain aspects of early Christianity.
 
My "opinion" is based on everything I have read, seen, etc.  And my reading etc. has been extremely broad over a period of more than 20 years - including many of the "alternative theories" of early Christianity.  That does not make my opinion "right"; but it does mean that it is supported by a wealth of varied scholarly information.
 
Peace.


Edited by maani - May 16 2006 at 19:37
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 02:09
(plus, there's almost no hard evidence that Jesus existed- and none at all concerning the Magdalene- so any details of his personal life should be regarded as pure speculation...)
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 04:58
Originally posted by James Lee James Lee wrote:

(plus, there's almost no hard evidence that Jesus existed- and none at all concerning the Magdalene- so any details of his personal life should be regarded as pure speculation...)
 
Good point James!!
 
One of the most puzzling thing about the gospels and testaments >> no women around
 
It has been many times said and proved that women were flocking around the prophet and that they played an active life around him and actually steered him in his convictions.
Yet outside the Virgin mary (aaahh!! the immaculate conception thing) and this Maria Magdalena all feminine traces have been kindly erased from the scriptures >< revisionim if you ask me.
 
 
 
 
 
Maani, I have viewed the previous thread RL pointed to . will not give the link la second time for you are right not to reopen wounds Wink  RL  was an atheist cornered in a "Roman circus game" pitted against a batch of fierceful christian lions and he came out unscathed >> just a like poke or pique, hereLOL
 
Anyway:
 
I do not make yet a difference between gospels and those Four testaments, and I am afraid the subtelties will be lost on me, anyway. But the chruch spent centuries discussing and changing comas to the given text >> these Vatican guys were organizing congresses (Wink) and burning the ones threatening the changes!
 
altering texts that were confidential (copies were handmade and personally ordered along the wishes of the buyers >> full abbeys thrived on this business) was therefore quite easy, since nobody had the text and hardly anyone knew how to read!! Carolus Magnus at the end of the 8th century is the one that made schooling mandatory for kids and we know that this was only for a few priviledged youths anyway, since children were kept to do chores in lower circles.
 
Peace
 
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 05:21
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

Why do we need 4 Gospels anyway?
It seems a remarkably self-concious thing for the New Testament compilers to do.....

Ermm
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:52
Sean:
 
Hmmm....no women?  Well, let's set aside that, historically - and not just vis-a-vis the capital C Church - women were far less often mentioned in historical recountings in any case.  This would have been true even if the capital C Church had not engaged in some "revisionism" re mentions and roles of women in Jesus' time.  However, even so, there is Mary Magdalene, of course, and Jesus' mother, Mary.  And there were Elizabeth, Anna, Martha, Sapphira, Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, Phebe, Drusilla and Bernice, and Eunice and Lois, just to name a few.  Simply because we know only bits of their stories does not mean that they did not play important roles.  (And, of course, the Old Testament includes numerous women in major roles: Eve, Sarah, Lot's wife, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Tamar, Zipporah, Miriam, Rahab, Ruth, Rizpah, Jezebel, and, of course, Esther, just to name a few.)
 
As for "no hard evidence that Jesus existed," that is simply silly: one could then claim that not only did no one in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) exist, but also that dozens of historical figures didn't exist either, from Genghis Khan to Marco Polo.
 
Beginning with Josephus in the late first century, there are dozens of actual, physical texts from the end of the first century forward that mention Jesus and His ministry, and some even mention His crucifixion and alleged resurrection.  And there is absolute agreement in scholarly circles (including Jews, Christians, Gnostics, atheists et al) that, at very least, the Gospel of Mark is an authentic document, written around 60 A.D.
 
Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Jesus existed, even if people of various faiths (as well as scholars of all stripes) continue to debate whether He was a teacher, a rabbi, a prophet, or the literal "son of God," who was crucified and resurrected.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 11:18
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Sean:
 
Hmmm....no women?  Well, let's set aside that, historically - and not just vis-a-vis the capital C Church - women were far less often mentioned in historical recountings in any case.  This would have been true even if the capital C Church had not engaged in some "revisionism" re mentions and roles of women in Jesus' time.  However, even so, there is Mary Magdalene, of course, and Jesus' mother, Mary.  And there were Elizabeth, Anna, Martha, Sapphira, Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, Phebe, Drusilla and Bernice, and Eunice and Lois, just to name a few.  Simply because we know only bits of their stories does not mean that they did not play important roles.  (And, of course, the Old Testament includes numerous women in major roles: Eve, Sarah, Lot's wife, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Tamar, Zipporah, Miriam, Rahab, Ruth, Rizpah, Jezebel, and, of course, Esther, just to name a few.)
 
As for "no hard evidence that Jesus existed," that is simply silly: one could then claim that not only did no one in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) exist, but also that dozens of historical figures didn't exist either, from Genghis Khan to Marco Polo.
 
Beginning with Josephus in the late first century, there are dozens of actual, physical texts from the end of the first century forward that mention Jesus and His ministry, and some even mention His crucifixion and alleged resurrection.  And there is absolute agreement in scholarly circles (including Jews, Christians, Gnostics, atheists et al) that, at very least, the Gospel of Mark is an authentic document, written around 60 A.D.
 
Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Jesus existed, even if people of various faiths (as well as scholars of all stripes) continue to debate whether He was a teacher, a rabbi, a prophet, or the literal "son of God," who was crucified and resurrected.
 
Peace.
I think you meant the second part of your answer (bold characters) to somebody else, because I do not doubt of Jesus's existence or even thathe was a prophet!Confused
 
To come back at women, In primitive nomad times, the god was most of the times female, and once man started settling down and raising farmanimals, this started changing dramatically, why?
 
Heard this two weeks ago on Belgian state radio , but do not remember the name of the University doctor speaking:
Because the female was giving birth and therefore creating life and were considered deities in ways. Once the farmers raising their cattle observed that the cycle of life needed a male to fecond the female >> this was news to them before (according to him, this is the only plausible explanation was that the link of putting the seeds only became clear top mankind as it started cattle raising and the first agricultural fields). Than religion started becoming more of a male bastion/thing, but polytheism often had both types of god. But often the high priest was male and had its female servers >> which were often highlighted for the cult going wrong and the gods being angry at mankind. So gradually Women were phased out until Monotheism came in the fold of Judaism >> God was male, period!!
 
Myself speaking , now:
 
Beit in any of three religions from the book, the woman has been portayed as the one keeping the "hero" from the right path (the faith mostly) etc... and decided that in some case as Christianity did that they finally had a soul somewhere in the low medieval times >> just like they had discussion to see in Amerindians and Africans also had souls. >> let you draw the conclusion on this oneWink
 
 
 
 
I noticed you solidly avoid the other point in my post about the diffusion of the scriptures and changing them, must I think you are allowing me this?Wink
 
 
 
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 12:17
All:
 
So after all the fuss and bother and controversy, it appears that the film is simply not very good!  It was roundly panned at Cannes, as well as by critics stateside.  At Cannes, many people apparently not only did not applaud at the end, but hissed and booed!  And we're not talking about Christians or others who have "problems" with the film: we're simply talking about a general audience.
 
Peace.
 
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 12:23
^^^^^^^^^
 
I was never a fan of Ron Howard and this dates back to his cheesy character of Ritchie Cunningham  in Happy Days.
 
I always found his movies cheesy (especially Cocoon and Splash)
 
But this was to be expected, the worse the movie was, the more noise it needed
 
A good movie gets noted right away by word of mouth.
 
I hope this sore excuse of a movie actually loses a fortune (not likely , thoughCry)
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 12:28
Don't forget Cocoon 2 and Spash 2!

Edited by Geck0 - May 17 2006 at 12:29
Back to Top
wolf0621 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 264 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 18:05
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

^^^^^^^^^
 
I was never a fan of Ron Howard and this dates back to his cheesy character of Ritchie Cunningham  in Happy Days.
 
I always found his movies cheesy (especially Cocoon and Splash)
 
But this was to be expected, the worse the movie was, the more noise it needed
 
A good movie gets noted right away by word of mouth.
 
I hope this sore excuse of a movie actually loses a fortune (not likely , thoughCry)
 
I believe Fonzy to have been a Knights Templar (possibly high-ranking due to his almost magical manipulation of soda machines). Joanie & Ralph Malph are another matter, clearly planted by anti-Zionists to cause unrest on the show...This also explains Ron Howard's later fascination with the Da Vinci theory/conspiracy which led up to this movie. Anyone know who actually financed this masterpiece?
 
Nothing wrong with Splash if taken at face value. Mermaids pop up in New York harbor every day (although not usually alive)...Cocoon was a bit far-fetched though. Come on, who could believe that Wilford Brimley & Hume Cronyn could do convincing cannonballs into that pool? Definitely the work of stunt doubles...
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 18:13
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

 
As for "no hard evidence that Jesus existed," that is simply silly: one could then claim that not only did no one in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) exist, but also that dozens of historical figures didn't exist either, from Genghis Khan to Marco Polo.
 
Beginning with Josephus in the late first century, there are dozens of actual, physical texts from the end of the first century forward that mention Jesus and His ministry, and some even mention His crucifixion and alleged resurrection.  And there is absolute agreement in scholarly circles (including Jews, Christians, Gnostics, atheists et al) that, at very least, the Gospel of Mark is an authentic document, written around 60 A.D.
 
Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Jesus existed, even if people of various faiths (as well as scholars of all stripes) continue to debate whether He was a teacher, a rabbi, a prophet, or the literal "son of God," who was crucified and resurrected.
 
Peace.


maani- You misunderstand my assertion- for one thing, I included the modifier "almost" with Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus explicitly in mind. I am drawing a distinction between "hard evidence" and verbal communication and written reports- which of course are always subject to an element of mistake, translation, and misinterpretation (for example, there's plenty of reason to suspect Jesus was hanged rather than crucified if one takes the early accounts at face value...a devastating blow to the iconogrphy of Christianity if true- plus, how does one identify the Trinity with a noose? Wink).

Undoubtedly, much of our history rests on such written reports, but that recommends a healthy critical eye on history (in contrast to the pratice of marginalizing pieces of conflicting evidence because it does not support the majority of accepted evidence).

Plus, I was defending your position! Smile
I suppose I could have said "with the little we actually know about Jesus, assuming that he had sex with the Magdalene is like declaring it a known fact that Telemachus had an incestual relationship with Penelope".
Back to Top
wolf0621 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 264 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 18:25
Originally posted by James Lee James Lee wrote:

Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

 
As for "no hard evidence that Jesus existed," that is simply silly: one could then claim that not only did no one in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) exist, but also that dozens of historical figures didn't exist either, from Genghis Khan to Marco Polo.
 
Beginning with Josephus in the late first century, there are dozens of actual, physical texts from the end of the first century forward that mention Jesus and His ministry, and some even mention His crucifixion and alleged resurrection.  And there is absolute agreement in scholarly circles (including Jews, Christians, Gnostics, atheists et al) that, at very least, the Gospel of Mark is an authentic document, written around 60 A.D.
 
Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Jesus existed, even if people of various faiths (as well as scholars of all stripes) continue to debate whether He was a teacher, a rabbi, a prophet, or the literal "son of God," who was crucified and resurrected.
 
Peace.


maani- You misunderstand my assertion- for one thing, I included the modifier "almost" with Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus explicitly in mind. I am drawing a distinction between "hard evidence" and verbal communication and written reports- which of course are always subject to an element of mistake, translation, and misinterpretation (for example, there's plenty of reason to suspect Jesus was hanged rather than crucified if one takes the early accounts at face value...a devastating blow to the iconogrphy of Christianity if true- plus, how does one identify the Trinity with a noose? Wink).

Undoubtedly, much of our history rests on such written reports, but that recommends a healthy critical eye on history (in contrast to the pratice of marginalizing pieces of conflicting evidence because it does not support the majority of accepted evidence).

Plus, I was defending your position! Smile
I suppose I could have said "with the little we actually know about Jesus, assuming that he had sex with the Magdalene is like declaring it a known fact that Telemachus had an incestual relationship with Penelope".
 
Can't we all just get along (even the heathens, unbelievers & gnostics among us)?
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 21:38
Well, the reviews so far are pretty bad. Here's the Rotten Tomatoes link:

    Da Vinci Code Reviews

I guess the fundamentalists can relax a little.
Back to Top
The Wizard View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7341 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 22:22
Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

Well, the reviews so far are pretty bad. Here's the Rotten Tomatoes link:

    Da Vinci Code Reviews

I guess the fundamentalists can relax a little.
 
Damn I'm dissapointed. Cry
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 22:27
Originally posted by The Wizard The Wizard wrote:

Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

Well, the reviews so far are pretty bad. Here's the Rotten Tomatoes link:     Da Vinci Code Reviews I guess the fundamentalists can relax a little.

 

Damn I'm dissapointed. [IMG]height=17 alt=Cry src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley19.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

Yeah, poor Ron. He usually hits a home run but I guess Dan Brown doesn't translate well to screen.
    
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 17 2006 at 23:22
James:
 
Forgive me for missing your point.  I stand (actually, sit...) corrected.
 
Wolf:
 
We are getting along!  You should see us when we don't!!  LOL.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.273 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.