Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/9/2005 4:44:20 PM EDT
Anyone else ever read this? I didnt think it would interest me, but I read my grandpa's copy and loved it.

Anyone else read it?
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:45:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 4:45:46 PM EDT by Zaphod]
INCOMING!

Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:45:48 PM EDT
I bought it to read, and my GF finished it and I have yet to begin. She said it was a good book.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:46:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
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.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:48:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:49:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
And to think all this time I thought it was about a fucking cup.


For the first time all the Holy Grail stuff makes plausable sense.

exactly, it brought all of it to light a lot better to me.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 4:51:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
And to think all this time I thought it was about a fucking cup.


For the first time all the Holy Grail stuff makes plausable sense.



..Too funny!! Can't wait till the religious fanatics read this....
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:01:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:04:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Not even worth the time and effort of a reply.

But I thought I would at least post this note to let y'all know that it wasn't worth the time and effort!

So, the Early Christian Church was skeered to place a 'mere woman' in a position of some sort of prominence in the Church?

Because the Early Church was soooo mysogynistic, right?

Yeah. R-i-g-h-t !

Eric The(EverHearOfThe'VirginMary')Hun

Have you honestly read the book? Just asking, it doesnt seem like you have. No offense, just want to know.

The book discusses how the Christian church demonized other religion to ensure their own survival. Also dicusses how real knowledgable Christians know the Jesus was not a "god" or immortal being, but a mortal profet who became a martyr. Most religious people just cant seem to handle the idea, however, as its not what they have been incorrectly taught their entire life.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:08:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
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.



I'm a devout Christian, but I'm not going to flame away for three reasons:

1) I haven't read the book myself. Just haven't been interested.

2) I'm not a Church scholar, so I'm afraid my offerings would be on the weak side.

3) (and most important) It's a fucking NOVEL. I find it hysterical that those who claim that the Bible is entirely FICTIONAL and therefore cannot be trusted somehow find a NOVEL to be historically accurate!

That is all. I may read it someday because I hear it's a good read, not because I think there is one bit of historical truth to be found in it. If I want history, I'll go read a history book.

Atlantis is in Antarctica! The Library of Alexandria is buried in Texas! There is a Viking fleet buried in a cave in the NJ Palisades! Clive Cussler said so in his books!
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:11:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:1) I haven't read the book myself. Just haven't been interested.

3) (and most important) It's a fucking NOVEL. I find it hysterical that those who claim that the Bible is entirely FICTIONAL and therefore cannot be trusted somehow find a NOVEL to be historically accurate!

That is all. I may read it someday because I hear it's a good read, not because I think there is one bit of historical truth to be found in it. If I want history, I'll go read a history book.

Atlantis is in Antarctica! The Library of Alexandria is buried in Texas! There is a Viking fleet buried in a cave in the NJ Palisades! Clive Cussler said so in his books!

If you havent read the book then you wouldnt have seen the FIRST PAGE.

"All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Right in there. and yes, i went and researched all claims in the book after I read it, many scholarly books do back up his claims in the book.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:12:12 PM EDT
AGNTSA
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:13:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:18:38 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:14:49 PM EDT
I am about to start it...tonight as a matter of fact. I know nothing about it other than the writing style as I have read Angels and Demons.

I have noticed the book tends to make zealots squirm.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:14:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

"All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Right in there. and yes, i went and researched all claims in the book after I read it, many scholarly books do back up his claims in the book.



Uh-huh. Right.

So why isn't he writing a history book instead of a novel?

The examples I cited above by Cussler also have histoprically accurate details in them. Just because the author says it and a bunch of "scholars" agree with him doesn't make it true, ESPECIALLY when it is as devisive a topic as this.

Read the book, and by all means enjoy it. If it tickles your fancy to do research, then go right ahead, but don't expect me to line up and salute a novel as a historical work. Will not happen.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:15:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:18:03 PM EDT by raven]

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
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.



J_J, dont talk about this book like it's some kind of serious historical study. It is a fictional novel.

I'm not a Christian, but it really bugs me when people use a pop novel to discredit something as serious real and deep like the Christian faith or the Catholic Church.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

"All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Right in there. and yes, i went and researched all claims in the book after I read it, many scholarly books do back up his claims in the book.



Uh-huh. Right.

So why isn't he writing a history book instead of a novel?

The examples I cited above by Cussler also have histoprically accurate details in them. Just because the author says it and a bunch of "scholars" agree with him doesn't make it true, ESPECIALLY when it is as devisive a topic as this.

Read the book, and by all means enjoy it. If it tickles your fancy to do research, then go right ahead, but don't expect me to line up and salute a novel as a historical work. Will not happen.

I never said it was a historical work, but I said that I did research the claims in the book and they were discussed and decided true by many respected scholars.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:18:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
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.



J_J, dont talk about this book like it's some kind of serious historical study. It is a fictional novel.

does no one get the fact that Ive said many times now that the book itself alone is nothing, but one you research the facts in the book they have been upheld by many many scholars, religous and scientific.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:19:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
I never said it was a historical work, but I said that I did research the claims in the book and they were discussed and decided true by many respected scholars.



And shown to be false by many other respected scholars.

As such, it's just a novel, and the author probably threw that little bone on the front page because he knew it would sell books. After all, what causes more controversy (and generates more press) in this country than attacking Christianity and then making fun of them as they react?
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:21:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

"All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Right in there. and yes, i went and researched all claims in the book after I read it, many scholarly books do back up his claims in the book.



Uh-huh. Right.

So why isn't he writing a history book instead of a novel?

The examples I cited above by Cussler also have histoprically accurate details in them. Just because the author says it and a bunch of "scholars" agree with him doesn't make it true, ESPECIALLY when it is as devisive a topic as this.

Read the book, and by all means enjoy it. If it tickles your fancy to do research, then go right ahead, but don't expect me to line up and salute a novel as a historical work. Will not happen.

I never said it was a historical work, but I said that I did research the claims in the book and they were discussed and decided true by many respected scholars.



I heard Bill O'Riley and one of his guests blow holes all throught the book.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:21:38 PM EDT
Let's believe a fictitious book written by a 21st century author instead of the most read book in history that dates back thousands of years. Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:22:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dramine:
Let's believe a fictitious book written by a 21st century author instead of the most read book in history that dates back thousands of years.



And which has quite a bit of scientific evidence backing much of it up.....
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:22:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
I never said it was a historical work, but I said that I did research the claims in the book and they were discussed and decided true by many respected scholars.



And shown to be false by many other respected scholars.

As such, it's just a novel, and the author probably threw that little bone on the front page because he knew it would sell books. After all, what causes more controversy (and generates more press) in this country than attacking Christianity and then making fun of them as they react?

exactly, he wanted to sell books, but when there is more than one person who believes the claims, in this case many educated people... not saying those who think the other way are stupid, everyone has their beliefs...
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:26:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
exactly, he wanted to sell books, but when there is more than one person who believes the claims, in this case many educated people... not saying those who think the other way are stupid, everyone has their beliefs...



Ah! So you ARE open-minded! Good!

Sadly, there are too many who have clung to this book as if it were, er, Scripture, in a desperate attempt to discredit......... Scripture.

I love a good yarn as much as the next person, and if someone wants to spin a bizarre story of Christ being married and secret societies and all that, then good for him. Where I blow a cork is when people shove the book in my face (and they have) saying, "SEE! The Bibsle is WRONG!", but when I mention Scripture, their response is, "Well, that's just a fairy tale anyway..."
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:27:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:27:55 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:30:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:30:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
exactly, he wanted to sell books, but when there is more than one person who believes the claims, in this case many educated people... not saying those who think the other way are stupid, everyone has their beliefs...



Ah! So you ARE open-minded! Good!

Sadly, there are too many who have clung to this book as if it were, er, Scripture, in a desperate attempt to discredit......... Scripture.

I love a good yarn as much as the next person, and if someone wants to spin a bizarre story of Christ being married and secret societies and all that, then good for him. Where I blow a cork is when people shove the book in my face (and they have) saying, "SEE! The Bibsle is WRONG!", but when I mention Scripture, their response is, "Well, that's just a fairy tale anyway..."

I see what you mean...

I had never delved into the whole Holy Grail history before, but after this book, I read a few documentaries about it, a few from both sides, and to me it just seemed that the ideas put forth in this novel that seemed to pan out according to other non-fiction books, some more than likely that were used for this author's reasearch, seemed more true to me.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:31:37 PM EDT
The Holy Grail is.... wait for it, Eric....


A METAPHOR


The only time this becomes a major problem in theology is when the theology is taken as literal, historical occurances.

It is a matter of fact that myths, legends, and fairy tales grow up around people who were once real. Some well-known examples of this are that of King Arthur and the Grail Quest as well as American folklore. Paul Bunyan was probably a real guy, but a myth grew up around him. The same can be said for George Washington and the cherry tree. Just think of all the ubarn legends which transmogrified from actual events. It happens all the time and in every culture.

Myths of all types, including Judeo-Christian myths, are metaphors. It is as simple as that.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:32:13 PM EDT
I found it entertaining. The premise was a stretch, to say the least. I got the illustrated (photos) edition which has photographs of the Louvre, the paintings mentioned, and the churches. The ones in London and Scotland are impressive. I find that architecture fascinating, especially given the tools available at the time.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:33:03 PM EDT
Please disregard ETH on this thread, he still has his blinders on.

Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:33:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:
The Holy Grail is.... wait for it, Eric....


A METAPHOR


The only time this becomes a major problem in theology is when the theology is taken as literal, historical occurances.

It is a matter of fact that myths, legends, and fairy tales grow up around people who were once real. Some well-known examples of this are that of King Arthur and the Grail Quest as well as American folklore. Paul Bunyan was probably a real guy, but a myth grew up around him. The same can be said for George Washington and the cherry tree. Just think of all the ubarn legends which transmogrified from actual events. It happens all the time and in every culture.

Myths of all types, including Judeo-Christian myths, are metaphors. It is as simple as that.

Very well said.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:37:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:39:34 PM EDT by Zaphod]
Hell, I'm tempted to read it simply because I've heard so many people say it's a good read (regardless of the topic).

The thing is that this novel, as well-writen and entertaining as it may be, is still a novel. One can take several historical facts, legends, theories, and the like, and spin them together into one hell of a story. Clive Cussler excels at that.

The REALLY sad thing is that there are so many out there who will jump at anything, ANYTHING, that even remotely seems to counter Christian dogma. The media are at the top of this list. So, the author mentions that the facts in his novel are true. Well, WHICH ONES? Not all can be true, else it wouldn't be a novel. But that doesn't stop those hell-bent on knocking Christianity down....

Read it. Enjoy it!

But remember what it is....



ETA: Concerning the Holy Grail: How many people, when watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, would have picked INCORRECTLY at the end? I know I would have. Makes sense it would have been a simple cup or bowl rather than a beautiful gold chalice, but that's not what we learned over the years, was it?

Gotta be careful with history because it's so easy to distort....
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:39:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Hell, I'm tempted to read it simply because I've heard so many people say it's a good read (regardless of the topic).

The thing is that this novel, as well-writen and entertaining as it may be, is still a novel. One can take several historical facts, legends, theories, and the like, and spin them together into one hell of a story. Clive Cussler excels at that.

The REALLY sad thing is that there are so many out there who will jump at anything, ANYTHING, that even remotely seems to counter Christian dogma. The media are at the top of this list. So, the author mentions that the facts in his novel are true. Well, WHICH ONES? Not all can be true, else it wouldn't be a novel. But that doesn't stop those hell-bent on knocking Christianity down....

Read it. Enjoy it!

But remember what it is....

Yes, very true. It seems that the people hell bent on show religous people that theyre wrong try to shove things like this in peoples faces. Im atheist, but I could care less of what others believe, thats their choice.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:41:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
Yes, very true. It seems that the people hell bent on show religous people that theyre wrong try to shove things like this in peoples faces. Im atheist, but I could care less of what others believe, thats their choice.



Amen. BTW, I am Christian, but it would never occur to me to throw a Bible in your face. Not because I don't want you to be saved, but rather because I recognize that the journey must be done by oneself.

I'll help if you ask, though!

Don't get me started on Bible-thumping, street-corner-screeching evangelicals....
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:43:35 PM EDT
Jeez, guys...this work has been thoroughly discredited by scholars. Of course, it's fiction, so...

Remember, just because we want something sensationalistic to be true doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:46:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:47:34 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:47:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By hydgirl:
The Holy Grail is.... wait for it, Eric....


A METAPHOR


The only time this becomes a major problem in theology is when the theology is taken as literal, historical occurances.

It is a matter of fact that myths, legends, and fairy tales grow up around people who were once real. Some well-known examples of this are that of King Arthur and the Grail Quest as well as American folklore. Paul Bunyan was probably a real guy, but a myth grew up around him. The same can be said for George Washington and the cherry tree. Just think of all the ubarn legends which transmogrified from actual events. It happens all the time and in every culture.

Myths of all types, including Judeo-Christian myths, are metaphors. It is as simple as that.

Very well said.


Thank you. But.. uh.... Judging by your previous posts, I don't think you got what I said. But that's okay. I'm not quite finished fitting my new flame-proof suit yet. I could use the extra time.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:53:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:

Originally Posted By hydgirl:
The Holy Grail is.... wait for it, Eric....


A METAPHOR


The only time this becomes a major problem in theology is when the theology is taken as literal, historical occurances.

It is a matter of fact that myths, legends, and fairy tales grow up around people who were once real. Some well-known examples of this are that of King Arthur and the Grail Quest as well as American folklore. Paul Bunyan was probably a real guy, but a myth grew up around him. The same can be said for George Washington and the cherry tree. Just think of all the ubarn legends which transmogrified from actual events. It happens all the time and in every culture.

Myths of all types, including Judeo-Christian myths, are metaphors. It is as simple as that.

Very well said.


Thank you. But.. uh.... Judging by your previous posts, I don't think you got what I said. But that's okay. I'm not quite finished fitting my new flame-proof suit yet. I could use the extra time.

I actually do see what you say, when you refer to how people take realistic figures, and the stories get exaggerated, not unlike the "I caught a fish THIS BIG!!" analogy that is similar, to a point.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:57:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
I actually do see what you say, when you refer to how people take realistic figures, and the stories get exaggerated, not unlike the "I caught a fish THIS BIG!!" analogy that is similar, to a point.


It's still a little too early in this thread for me to jump off this particular cliff. I'm sure I will eventually, however.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:59:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 6:04:47 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:05:26 PM EDT
Will someone who has read this book please give us a synopsis?

I mean, what's it basically about?
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:06:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Post from SteyrAUG -

Eric that is not the premise of the book. It says something else entirely.

Sorry, Steyr, but I'm way ahead of you on this!

The so-called 'secret marriage' of JC with Mary Magdalene was the lie that was propagated in the 1983 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, and this theory is the one taken up in The DaVinci Code.

Furthermore your example of the virgin is also not a good one to contradict church mysogyny.

Yes, it is, let's just look at your following 'example', which you tried using to refute it!

The very mysogynistic religion of Japan has a FEMALE Sun God, Amateresu.

You do understand, I hope, that the Virgin Mary is an historical figure, whereas Amateresu is not??!!!

Right?

And that the many, many women followers and disciples of Christ were actual living, breathing human beings, I suppose?

So, now, why would you try and use a made-up female diety to try and refute the noble position that real women had in the Early Christian Church?

Both are needed for a divine birth of a principle diety, in Christianity Jesus and in Shinto the first Emporer.

Huh?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
[Mary wquote]A revered female is required to birth these special men.

as NOT revered until after the Birth of Jesus, not before!See the difference?

Eric The(EverHopeful)Hun

Luke 1:28 contradicts this. SOMEONE revered her.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:10:16 PM EDT
It is about codes that learned people in the Renaissance left disputing the Catholic & fundamentalist views of Christ.

If anyone has read up on the early Church and the great debates they had deciding which of the Gospels to use many Christians would be surprised.

I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was mortal, Mark even calls him the "Son of Man".

Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:18:57 PM EDT
just read it, it is very entertaining. One of his other books Angels and Demons blows it away though, much better.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:19:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By hydgirl:
The Holy Grail is.... wait for it, Eric....


A METAPHOR


The only time this becomes a major problem in theology is when the theology is taken as literal, historical occurances.

It is a matter of fact that myths, legends, and fairy tales grow up around people who were once real. Some well-known examples of this are that of King Arthur and the Grail Quest as well as American folklore. Paul Bunyan was probably a real guy, but a myth grew up around him. The same can be said for George Washington and the cherry tree. Just think of all the ubarn legends which transmogrified from actual events. It happens all the time and in every culture.

Myths of all types, including Judeo-Christian myths, are metaphors. It is as simple as that.


Jungian Metaphorical Theory is so passé!



What Century are you living in, anyway?

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun


Like I said the only thing which gets your dander up more than the Mormons is me. I'm just that special.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:20:01 PM EDT
I liked the book
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:26:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
Will someone who has read this book please give us a synopsis?

I mean, what's it basically about?



Hope this helps:

I read it, but was too lazy to type my own synopsis

A murder in the silent after-hour halls of the Louvre museum reveals a sinister plot to uncover a secret that has been protected by a clandestine society since the days of Christ. The victim is a high-ranking agent of this ancient society who, in the moments before his death, manages to leave gruesome clues at the scene that only his granddaughter, noted cryptographer Sophie Neveu, and Robert Langdon, a famed symbologist, can untangle. The duo become both suspects and detectives searching for not only Neveu's grandfather's murderer but also the stunning secret of the ages he was charged to protect. Mere steps ahead of the authorities and the deadly competition, the mystery leads Neveu and Langdon on a breathless flight through France, England, and history itself. Brown (Angels and Demons) has created a page-turning thriller that also provides an amazing interpretation of Western history. Brown's hero and heroine embark on a lofty and intriguing exploration of some of Western culture's greatest mysteries--from the nature of the Mona Lisa's smile to the secret of the Holy Grail. Though some will quibble with the veracity of Brown's conjectures, therein lies the fun. The Da Vinci Code is an enthralling read that provides rich food for thought. --Jeremy Pugh
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:27:38 PM EDT
I got halfway through the book. I was swallowing all the pro-feminism and pro-French bullshit when the author decided it would be plausible to have the main character use a FUCKING PAINTING as a shield from a man with a gun to evade capture.

Haven't picked it up since.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:28:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 6:30:13 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:31:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
I got halfway through the book. I was swallowing all the pro-feminism and pro-French bullshit when the author decided it would be plausible to have the main character use a FUCKING PAINTING as a shield from a man with a gun to evade capture.

Haven't picked it up since.

you obviously werent paying much attention when you read.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:34:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeremiah_Johnson:
you obviously werent paying much attention when you read.



Well then how about you explain what I missed instead of being a dick about it?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top