 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.178.211.68
In Reply to: Okay, I have to comment... posted by EdM on May 25, 2006 at 11:28:39:
I was going to post a long response, but suffice it to say that posts like yours show why the "its only fiction" remark is hollow. Giving credence to pure bunk camoflaged with cleverly stacked psuedo-facts at the expense of two millenia of fairly well-documented NT study is one of the reasons why people are concerned about DVC being taken as a plausible (vs verifiable) contradiction to the NT. Not to mention that it reduces the whole Christian faith to a prop for entertainment.
Follow Ups:
have ANY basis in reality!The New Testament and especially the Old Testiment are more fiction than any book Dan Brown ever wrote.
Don't forget Brown was sued by legiment researchers who claimed he stole their ideas.
Sure most of the book was fiction but it is based on what very could be fact- that Mary M had more of a relationship with Jesus then were were led to believe for 2000 years. That's all I'm saying.
Music is Emotion
The debate over DVC relates to historical evidence not the faith issues. The NT has been virtually under a microscope for two millenia. Its provenance is thoroughly established. The record of its study alone is documented to the 2nd Century. The Gnostic gospels; Brown's basis; are de-coupled from the NT gospels by 200 years and there is no independently verifiable line of authorship. They were excluded from the NT because they promote concepts that directly conflict with the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The Gnostic concepts are closer to the Koran than to the NT. Even if one were to accept the Gnostic texts, they're directly self-contradictory relative to the supposed Jesus-MM "thing".
gd
For OT reality, the existence of the Jewish people is evidence enough, nevermind that archeological findings support support the OT. Additionally, the Jewish calendar goes back over 5700 years.NT, even Hebrew historians, namely Josephus, support much of the NT writings.
What archeological findings support any of the OT stories?
nt
And let's not forget that Jehrico, the real Jehrico, predates Genesis.
preserved by the Jewish historians for millenia.Plus you'll like this story. The Egyptians wanting to sue the Jews for the gols taken wheb the Exodus occurred.
The ruins don't support the biblical story in any way whatsoever. There is no evidence of any sudden destruction. Heck there weren't even any walls to come down. Even worse is that Jehrico predates the biblical story by a seveal thousand years. And I don't find a group of wacky Egyptians filing a wacky lawsuit as evidence of anything. The Egyptian records of that era are quite detailed. There is no mention of any of the events in Exodus.
We already have reason and impirical evidence to contradict NT and OT. I like the idea of using christianity as a prop for a good story though. It worked for me. Maybe that is why I liked the film at all.
Dan Brown's whole premise is either based in pure speculation or downright lies (see Plantard's Priory hoax for a prime example). There is very little in the way of "fact" to be found, and to defend it as such is only adding fuel to the already overdone controversy.
s
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
