Is it page five yet?

Quoted: Why do people insist on discrediting fiction? Most people here love the book Unintended Consequences, not because it is fiction, but because it is true on several levels. Fiction does not necessarily denote falsehood.

I agree with you on some levels.  At the same time, what got CBS into so much trouble is that they tried to defend a false document with the claim that [paraphrasing] while it may not be authentic, they believed its contents to be true.[/paraphrasing]

Could this book be what is considered "Historical Fiction"?  Did some historical events mentioned in the book actually happen?

Quoted: Quoted: Why do people insist on discrediting fiction? Most people here love the book Unintended Consequences, not because it is fiction, but because it is true on several levels. Fiction does not necessarily denote falsehood. I agree with you on some levels.  At the same time, what got CBS into so much trouble is that they tried to defend a false document with the claim that [paraphrasing] while it may not be authentic, they believed its contents to be true.[/paraphrasing] Could this book be what is considered "Historical Fiction"?  Did some historical events mentioned in the book actually happen?

It debateable, (just as all religion is everyone, remember this), but many believe the accounts to be true in the book concerning the holy grail, knights of templar, etc.

it could most definitly be considered historical fiction since its rooted in history. And some events most likely did happen though its a debatable topic

Quoted: Quoted: I read it in 3 nights, I thought it was a good book. The History Channel has a special on it where Dan Brown was put up to defend his theory. They had a good interview with one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.... "I neither believe nor disbelieve... It is merely a hypothesis." That wasn't the History Channel, it was the National Geographic channel. And, as I said, throughout that portion of the book, the word THEORY was used profusely. It's a theory and they're not portraying it to be anything different.

National Geographic, that's what I meant

Quoted: Could this book be what is considered "Historical Fiction"?  Did some historical events mentioned in the book actually happen?

Mary Magdalen did apparently flee to Egypt (IIRC) with a child (Sarah) but some say the girl was not her child but a slave girl (dark skin).

Quoted: But this present American Generation is not embued with sound Christian Doctrine and there is the distinct possibility that weaker minded folks, who know no better, might be convinced that such lies are, in reality, the truth. Eric The(AtWit'sEnd)Hun

Hmm, this sounds familiar. (ahem, Christianity, ahem)

Quoted: Quoted: But this present American Generation is not embued with sound Christian Doctrine and there is the distinct possibility that weaker minded folks, who know no better, might be convinced that such lies are, in reality, the truth. Eric The(AtWit'sEnd)Hun Hmm, this sounds familiar. (ahem, Christianity, ahem)

I believe that there is opposition in all things.  Yeah, there are some  who have totally abandoned Christian doctrine and Christianity taken as a whole.  Many of them.  Therefore, there must be some really solid and well founded Christians too.  Many of them.

Quoted: Quoted: But this present American Generation is not embued with sound Christian Doctrine and there is the distinct possibility that weaker minded folks, who know no better, might be convinced that such lies are, in reality, the truth. Eric The(AtWit'sEnd)Hun Hmm, this sounds familiar. (ahem, Christianity, ahem)

Sunday School *cough cough*

dan brown's interview

Author's interview on the davinci code....

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE? The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist

FICTION.... if you choose to read it.

Finally... page 5!

I've been waiting nearly two days for danged page 5. Seems a couple of people were waiting with me.

Dan Brown's portrayal of Gnostics is... for lack of a better word... Wrong. He implies that the stories contained in the "Gnostic Gospels" are to be taken as literal history. The fact of the matter is, they are not literal history but mythology. That is the first difference between orthodox Christianity and the Gnostics. Orthodox Christianity sets all goals outside of the individual. Heaven is a place outside of one's self, as is hell. Orthodox Christianity holds that humanity is corrupt and cannot be saved unless certain requirements are met. What those requirements are changes from denomination to denomination.

Gnostics generally hold a completely different worldview. It is not humanity that is corrupt, but matter. It is creation itself, not the human soul, that has fallen. This universe, this existance, is dualistic in nature. We exist in relativity. Our very souls are pieces of God, which is full, complete, whole.. unified. We are, indeed, luminous beings and not this crude matter.

The importance of the idea that Jesus and the Magdelene were married is not in it's historical context, but in that of divine balance, in unifying two opposites and creating a whole. In essence, creating a unified entity. Making two into one. That is what is important. Not whether or not Jesus got some.

What Dan Brown's book has done is to cast a light on the subject. It doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong. He's bringing people around who want to find out for themselves much in the same way Mel Gibson did for William Wallace. I think it's great.

I invite everyone to make up their own minds. Read.. learn.. and experience for yourselves. That's really the only way to do it.

Quoted: This universe, this existance, is dualistic in nature.

Note the sig

Quoted: Quoted: This universe, this existance, is dualistic in nature. Note the sig

Where do you think Jung got that from?

hydgirl,

No offense, but after reading your explanation, I can with certainty say that I'm not a gnostic.

Quoted: hydgirl, No offense, but after reading your explanation, I can with certainty say that I'm not a gnostic.

It's okay. You needn't be.

Quoted: Finally... page 5! I've been waiting nearly two days for danged page 5. Seems a couple of people were waiting with me. The importance of the idea that Jesus and the Magdelene were married is not in it's historical context, but in that of divine balance, in unifying two opposites and creating a whole. In essence, creating a unified entity. Making two into one. That is what is important. Not whether or not Jesus got some.

Unbelievable!  This stuff is just like the Moonies, except they claim that Jesus failed by dying on the cross and the Reverend Moon succeeded by staying alive and creating this "unified entity" with his own marriage.  

Quoted: Quoted: INCOMING! Thats what I figured, any devout Christian is going to flame to next tuesday, but all the points were historically accurate so I really dont consider any of the people that will say, "That book was all bullshit." with high regard.

"all the points were historically accurate"????  Are you kidding me?  Why are they accurate? Because the author said so?  It is bullshit pure and simple.  Read it for entertainment value and nothing more.....

It's terrific!  So are his other books.