Da Vinci's Code

[radu_dragonul]

Hot subject at the moment. I've read a part of this book and it seems to me like very commercial. The arguments used by the auhor are unstable and the demonstration is compromised. But what is important for Brown: he managed to become a hot subject in every christian country. So I think his pockets are full. :) What do you think?

[Defender]

The book is very good in the fact that it's entertaining fiction. It should be a good movie too. It seems to have been written as a book with movie potential from the beginning.

[Gritgrat]

While Its great in comercial contents, i think its more viable than the things pushed on us by the catholic church. It certainly gets you thinking outside the box about religion

[bbalegere]

Now Dan Brown has gotten entangled with the law.
But the book was superb.

[Santro]

There are many who oppose Brown and his book.

It is gonna face much more in future.
Some Catholics donot even go to read it after they come to know about its contents

[malaysia]

da show is coming out soon right?
its coming out soon in may or jun if i am not mistaken
davinccicode.biz

[FucangLong]

Just remember, as Labrocca said, the book is a Fictional book.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Dan Brown's work is contrived, simplistic, formulatic pulp.

DaVinci was the third book of his I read, hard to believe huh?Â*Â*I read Deception Point, junk science coupled with Saturday morning serials plausibility.Â*Â*No spoilers but a question, you fall off a continental ice shelf into the Arctic Ocean, what are the odds anyone finds you, let alone before you freeze to death?

Digital Fortress?Â*Â*I was screaming the answer in my mind 50 pages from the end of the book.Â*Â*Duh!Â*Â*Another lazy lazy writing.

DaVinci seemed like it wouldn't even make a decent season of 24.Â*Â*You'd think the potential collapse of the major western religous organization could be made compelling enough for 24 episodes.Â*Â*Nope.

The whole book is junky pseudo religous facts like Deception Point wasÂ*Â*junky pseudo scientific fact.

I just wish I had the ability to create a novel that was a junky pseudo fact as he does.Â*Â*I wouldn't be chatting on a start up political forum if I could.Â*Â*I'd have purchased a small country.

[T.J. Wolfe]

Just remember, as Labrocca said, the book is a Fictional book.


It's as fictional as the bible.

[Deacon]

The people that oppose it make the book more famous, Example, Mark Twain's : Adv. of Tom Sawyer, the constant mention of the N word made parents want to burn the books, but as this topic became bigger more people became intrested and read it making the book bigger than ever. That is what I think is happening to Dan Brown's Book

I am currently reading the pre-quel to the Da' Vinci Code, the book is called Angels & Demons. Basically it is about Robert a year before the Da' Vinci Code is broken. The basic plot w/o spoilers is Robert is called to a science facility to investigate a murder that has opened the Illuminati cult back to the world, which stole antimatter to blow up the vatican, but also four cardinals are kidnapped, and will be murdered at four specific locations found in one of Galileo's works. Robert has to catch the assasin and find the antimatter before midnight.

I am about halfway through the book, I recommend reading it!

[forest_ranger254]

I reccomend reading the professional Christian's response to it:

Erwin W Lutzer's The Da Vinci Deception.

however, the series episode I saw I agreed with, because it was refuting the supposed gravecloth. one thing the cloth messed up is the fact that Jesus's beard was torn off. that cloth had a beard.

[forest_ranger254]

I have been watching television lately and the History Channel and Discovery Channel actually agree with the Sci-Fi channel on something. The public eye is captified. Christians and Buddhists are picking up copies of The Da Vinci Code, and simply because of the audacious claim of complete truth in the front cover of the book, people are coming to question everything history has taught us about the things He speaks of. Doctors from Yale, Harvard, and other Ivy League universities are coming together with people they previously discriminated against, such as Dr Erwin Lutzer, and tag-teamed to disprove the claims of Dan Brown. The only difficulty is, how do those claims get out? we can easily enough get them out to the US and the rest of the more modern societies. I want to know, if this is JUST a fiction book, and JUST a fiction movie, a page turner meant to keep the person glued to the pages of the novel until the killer is uncovered, WHY is everyone from the lowly Baptist preacher in a small corner church to the History Channel's historians and archaeologists and other assorted workers trying their hardest to disprove their claims? The reason is because Dan Brown has not only insulted Christianity, but historians and art researchers in general. There is no proof that Da Vinci was part of the Priory of Sion. so why is it so important?

[Alonzo]

It's not that he insulted historians. It becomes a big issue so of course historians and such are going to weigh in. There are actual traditions relating to jesus he could have written about. They may not be true, but at least they're not forgeries.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You know the thought that Jesus might have been married and/or had children isn't shocking to me and wouldn't melt my faith in Him as the living God.

He was born a man, grew up as a normal boy, became an adult, drank wine and hung out with what were tantamount to hippies of his day and social outcasts.Â*Â*

Somehow I doubt He never tossed one off because He got sexually frustrated and even I would question His chastity.Â*Â*Marriage was too big a part of Jewish life then and even if the entire premise of the book is correct wouldn't change my beliefs.

God incarnate as man taking part in every aspect of human existence doesn't make him any less divine.

Far from being blashpemy I think the whole thing was an interesting what if.Â*Â*I don't think that Western Civilization would collapse and the church cease to exist if Jesus was in fact married.Â*Â*

[forest_ranger254]

It's not that he insulted historians. It becomes a big issue so of course historians and such are going to weigh in. There are actual traditions relating to jesus he could have written about. They may not be true, but at least they're not forgeries.




Dealing with these so called traditions, what actual evidence is there that the Priory of Sion actually existed? They found these secret documents mentioned several times in the Da Vinci Code, but with a rather cheap forensic method they uncovered the actual living author of these secret documents, supposedly written, according to the book, during Constantine's reign. all these tie into the Priory of Sion, which was supposed to have been tied into the Council of Niceae. I don't have a lot of time. so let's just cover that part first.

[Labrocca]

The book is a work of fiction as many books are. It's captivating and entertaining. I find it sad that religions have to object to a work of fiction. Anyone believing in the book thinking it's true isn't a person of faith anyways.

[Alonzo]

It's not that he insulted historians. It becomes a big issue so of course historians and such are going to weigh in. There are actual traditions relating to jesus he could have written about. They may not be true, but at least they're not forgeries.


Dealing with these so called traditions, what actual evidence is there that the Priory of Sion actually existed? They found these secret documents mentioned several times in the Da Vinci Code, but with a rather cheap forensic method they uncovered the actual living author of these secret documents, supposedly written, according to the book, during Constantine's reign. all these tie into the Priory of Sion, which was supposed to have been tied into the Council of Niceae. I don't have a lot of time. so let's just cover that part first.


Umm...... the priory of sion is the forgery I mentioned.

[forest_ranger254]

The book is a work of fiction as many books are. It's captivating and entertaining.Â*Â*I find it sad that religions have to object to a work of fiction.Â*Â*Anyone believing in the book thinking it's true isn't a person of faith anyways.

I am goingto treat this like they are going to treat this around the world and are treating it around the world. people outside the US are picking up the Da Vinci Code and asking, "Is it true?" Buddhists are now claiming that Christianity and Buddhism are compatible with eachother because of the claim the book makes that Mary was supposed to be a goddess according to original Christian beliefs (again, no historical, scriptural, or secular support)


In the first few pages of the book is a list of purported facts. first he claims some gibberish about a group called the Priory of Sion, a group historians have been unable to uncover until he supposedly dropped them into history. Next he goes on to claim that Opus Dei, a perfectly harmless Catholic group numbering near to 80000 across Europe, is a secret group of Catholic monks that opposed the Priory of Sion. Again, there is no proof for it. The final stupid thing he does is claim that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdala, citing Da Vinci's Last Supper and the gnostic gospels.

to disprove that last claim, I can prove he was wrong on the first part because we have Da Vinci's earlier sketches and he labeled the disciples. As for the second part, the gnostic gospels, Dan Brown cites a passage in the gospel of Phillip, that says this about Jesus and Mary:
"he kissed her much on the..."
then in the book Brown inserts the word "mouth" from our culture. in their culture, however, in a traditional greeting, sometimes a friend would kiss one on the forehead or cheeks. that part of the text is conspicuously missing Dan Brown also made a surprising claim that in another part of the same gospel where it says she was a "favored companion." Brown said that any scholar in Aramaic will tell you that the word there can be translated as lover, wife or concubine. I am sorry, for one, we did not receive the texts in Aramaic, for one, but in Coptic; for another, the word in both languages translates strictly as "close friend." so he made another mistake.
another thing about it, the gnostic gospels are very unreliable. Here is a comparison of the gnostics by time tables:

Life of Christ, From: 1 AD; To: 33 AD
Canon
Matthew: 50-70 AD
Mark: 55-70 AD
Luke: before 62 AD
John: 80-100 AD
Gnostic
Peter (the earliest agreed upon by scholars): 190 AD
Thomas: maybe 140

I see several problems here, first, history has both of the gnostic's authors dead a long time before the gospels were written.
second, the gospel of Thomas contradicts several key points of scripture, Old and New Testaments, not to mention itself, saying first that a woman is not worthy and then that woman is more worthy than man.
Third, if two biographies are written about George Washington, one written 30 years after he died, another written 110 years after he died, especially when they made different claims about his life and political views, which one would you trust? obviously, you would trust the former, because it is easier to believe the former was written by a contemporary.

you say the book is a work of fiction. That is true, but it has a little claim in the preface, and you can go to your local book store and look for yourself. it claims that "all statements about art, religion and history are true..." what I have spoken deals with art, religion and/or history, and he made statements that Da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton were both part of this Priory of Sion in his book. The story is a work of fiction, but the work of fiction is a mechanism to sell his lies as truth. Is that not true?

[forest_ranger254]

Umm...... the priory of sion is the forgery I mentioned.

the "documen secrets" (or whatever the French spelling is, I am a Sign Language Major, not a French) is the forgery I was speaking of. the Priory of Sion is supposed to be a secret sect that is opposing Opus Dei.

[Alonzo]

Umm...... the priory of sion is the forgery I mentioned.

the "documen secrets" (or whatever the French spelling is, I am a Sign Language Major, not a French) is the forgery I was speaking of. the Priory of Sion is supposed to be a secret sect that is opposing Opus Dei.


The priory of sion was supported by documents that were forged. That's all the evidence there is for it, forged documents.

[forest_ranger254]

Umm...... the priory of sion is the forgery I mentioned.

the "documen secrets" (or whatever the French spelling is, I am a Sign Language Major, not a French) is the forgery I was speaking of. the Priory of Sion is supposed to be a secret sect that is opposing Opus Dei.


The priory of sion was supported by documents that were forged. That's all the evidence there is for it, forged documents.


ok then, moving on, a hotter topic. My stance: There is no trustworthy evidence, scriptural, historical, or otherwise that Mary Magdala and Jesus were married. your stance?

[Alonzo]

There's no solid evidence for it. There is at least one actual tradition that allows for it, and if jesus survived the crucifixion (and there are known cases of people doing that), which is part of some religious traditions, then it's possible. But there's no evidence for marriage. It just can't be disproved.

If you want to make such a claim you should acknowledge that it's purely hypothetical speculation.

It's unlikely but, like most biblical issues, can't be conclusively proven.

[forest_ranger254]

There's no solid evidence for it. There is at least one actual tradition that allows for it, and if jesus survived the crucifixion (and there are known cases of people doing that), which is part of some religious traditions, then it's possible. But there's no evidence for marriage. It just can't be disproved.

If you want to make such a claim you should acknowledge that it's purely hypothetical speculation.

It's unlikely but, like most biblical issues, can't be conclusively proven.


many non-biblical issues can't be conclusively proven, in fact, there are new findings that contradict the original beliefs coming up regularly. There are no known cases of people surviving a Roman crucifixion during the entire period of time that Jesus was on the earth, and not after for that matter. If that were possible, why didn't the Jewish leaders (who, by all rights, hated Jesus and anything to do with him) make that argument? doctors know that when a person dies, water collects in the pericardium surrounding the heart. This is supported in the gospel of Luke when it says that both blood and water came forth when he was stabbed by the spear. another thing is, if someone survived a crucifixion, the Roman centurion in charge would be punished in the same way they were. This wrought a precision in their working. Nobody survived the crucifixion. that is the reason they would stab the victims with a spear.

[Alonzo]

many non-biblical issues can't be conclusively proven, in fact, there are new findings that contradict the original beliefs coming up regularly.

That's obviously true with any issue, though I don't know what you are referring to.

There are no known cases of people surviving a Roman crucifixion during the entire period of time that Jesus was on the earth, and not after for that matter. If that were possible, why didn't the Jewish leaders (who, by all rights, hated Jesus and anything to do with him) make that argument? doctors know that when a person dies, water collects in the pericardium surrounding the heart. This is supported in the gospel of Luke when it says that both blood and water came forth when he was stabbed by the spear. another thing is, if someone survived a crucifixion, the Roman centurion in charge would be punished in the same way they were. This wrought a precision in their working. Nobody survived the crucifixion. that is the reason they would stab the victims with a spear.


I don't know why you seem to think jesus was this mammoth figure when he died. He was simply the leader of one of many messianic movements at the time.

Crucifixion, like impalement, can take days, many died of dehydration or asphyxiation. It is by no means a quick death, and was designed to be prolonged. The biblical record of 3 hours is very quick and hard to believe. Personally, I think the time given is just wrong (or the whole account of how his crucifixion went), but, if the 3 hours is to be considered correct or possible, it leads to another possible explanation mentioned below.

Here's what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote:

“I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.�

There is also a court case of a women needing to prove her husband died, but it was refused because she could not prove he died, only that he was crucified. I can't find it online though.

The biblical account has jesus drinking right before death, and pilate being suprised at the speed of Jesus's death.

From Mark 15:36-37:

And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

From Mark 15:43-44:

Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

Most Muslims believed jesus survived crucifixion. The most popular theory is that jesus was poisoned, or given some substance to knock him out. The speed of his death and the spunge of vinegar fits perfectly with that. So does the account of blood coming out when the pierced him and him not reacting. The biblical account that he died right after drinking is curious, since it suggests it may have been something other than vinegar. Jesus, appearing dead, could have resulted in the romans believing he actually was dead. When taken down he eventually recovered on his own, or was nursed back to health. Another theory is that someone else was crucified in his place.

I'm not saying that these events happened, simply that historical evidence allows for it, biblical accounts can be interpreted to support it, and the theory cannot be disproven with the available evidence. The biblical account is not proof it happened in any particular way, neither is any interpretation of such accounts proof that it did not. Unless solid historical evidence is found that he died on the cross, or that he did not died on the cross, there's no realy way to prove it.

If you want to ignore everything I said, or if you want to attempt to dictate what can or can't be discussed, like the last debate I had with you, then I won't bother responding to this one either.

[forest_ranger254]

That's obviously true with any issue, though I don't know what you are referring to.

Just stating a fact that makes your argument irrelevant. Considering the fact that thus far, every historical statement in the Bible has been proven, it is reasonable to assume that the stuff that can't be conclusively proven is true as well. Not an unreasonable extrapolation with something that has been as accurate historically as the Bible.

I don't know why you seem to think jesus was this mammoth figure when he died. He was simply the leader of one of many messianic movements at the time.

Can you name one right off the top of your head other than the Christian movement that swept through Europe like a wildfire despite persecution that you couldn't even imagine?

Crucifixion, like impalement, can take days, many died of dehydration or asphyxiation. It is by no means a quick death, and was designed to be prolonged. The biblical record of 3 hours is very quick and hard to believe. Personally, I think the time given is just wrong (or the whole account of how his crucifixion went), but, if the 3 hours is to be considered correct or possible, it leads to another possible explanation mentioned below.

Not completely accurate. That assumes that the person put on the cross is in perfect health. Here is a description of what Jesus went through prior to the walk down the Via Dolorosa:

According to Jewish law (discipline of the synagogue) the number of stripes was forty less one (Deut. 25:3) and the rabbis reckoned 168 actions to be punished by scourging before the judges. Nevertheless, scourging among the Romans was a more severe form of punishment and there was no legal limit to the number of blows, as with the Jews. Deep lacerations, torn flesh, exposed muscles and excessive bleeding would leave the criminal "half-dead." Death was often the result of this cruel form of punishment though it was necessary to keep the criminal alive to be brought to public subjugation on the cross. The Centurion in charge would order the "lictors" to halt the flogging when the criminal was near death.

Jesus was already so near death that he almost went comatose on the Via Dolorosa while carrying the cross. That was a result of his scourging. I am no doctor, but most people would be dead within only a few hours from the wounds of the scourging if they hadn't had medical treatment that a doctor with modern technology would have trouble executing. You think the Roman's sent Jesus to the hospital after he was whipped?

Here's what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote:

“I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.�

notice that there was political pull there. Josephus was a major figure back then. Jesus wasn't taken down until long after he was dead. Physically, no man could have survived the crucifixion Jesus went through, ESPECIALLY not in a grave with no food or water for three whole days.


There is also a court case of a women needing to prove her husband died, but it was refused because she could not prove he died, only that he was crucified. I can't find it online though.

Then don't bring it up. It doesn't matter if it can't be proven. If it is in a book, give me the name of the book. I do happen to have a library within 15 minutes of walking from my house.

The biblical account has jesus drinking right before death, and pilate being suprised at the speed of Jesus's death.

From Mark 15:36-37:

And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.



From Mark 15:43-44:

Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.



Most Muslims believed jesus survived crucifixion. The most popular theory is that jesus was poisoned, or given some substance to knock him out. The speed of his death and the spunge of vinegar fits perfectly with that. So does the account of blood coming out when the pierced him and him not reacting. The biblical account that he died right after drinking is curious, since it suggests it may have been something other than vinegar. Jesus, appearing dead, could have resulted in the romans believing he actually was dead. When taken down he eventually recovered on his own, or was nursed back to health. Another theory is that someone else was crucified in his place.

Historically, there is no hard evidence of that, and why didn't the Jewish leaders try that? they had an entire Roman regiment at their command from the Palace Guard. Jesus suffered from something known as Hematidrosis in the garden, which made his skin extremely fragile, thus intensifying the damage done at his flogging. The whip would have pieces of bone, glass and metal sewn into the ends, which would cut the sking severely through both epidermis and dermis into the muscles. The person's back would be so shredded that sometimes the spine would be exposed as a result, muscles would be hanging from one tendon. As the beating ontinued, it would tear into the skeletal muscles and rip out, producing quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Eusebius described a flogging by saying, "The sufferers veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure." Many died, most went into a state of Hypovolemic Shock. After that, you might as well put the victim into hospice and tell them they only have two-three hours to live.

You also bring up what I have come to call the "Isa, Isa. Wherefore art thou oh Isa?" theory. Isa being the name of the person they believe died on the cross and they believe that he survived it as well, citing planted footprints in front of a small grave in a region of the Middle East where sandstorms are prevalent.


I'm not saying that these events happened, simply that historical evidence allows for it, biblical accounts can be interpreted to support it, and the theory cannot be disproven with the available evidence. The biblical account is not proof it happened in any particular way, neither is any interpretation of such accounts proof that it did not. Unless solid historical evidence is found that he died on the cross, or that he did not died on the cross, there's no realy way to prove it.

The Bible is the most well copied book known to history. It is also the most historically accurate book ever written, beating the accuracy of the books from its time that were written primarily as historical records. It isn't even written to be a history book. It is the best piece of evidence you will ever have, the rest is all coincidental evidence.

If you want to ignore everything I said, or if you want to attempt to dictate what can or can't be discussed, like the last debate I had with you, then I won't bother responding to this one either.


What can be discussed here is already outlined. As it is, I am the Christian expert here, knowing the topics of debate, and we are already a bit off-topic in this debate, considering that the crucifixion was never even mentioned in the Da Vinci Code. I want to debate the main points, and not the minutiaea. I will agree to not tell you what to debate about so long as you agree to stick to the point. The point is the question of medical evidence. I have put up a medically supported case. You have cited the Bible, so don't tell me not to cite the Bible. Fair enough?

PS: Warning, you are treading into ground that is very familiar to me. Watch out for an ambush.

[Alonzo]

Just stating a fact that makes your argument irrelevant.

Things can be wrong so therefore the bible is right?

As it is, I am the Christian expert here, knowing the topics of debate,

How can a "Christian expert" claim troy to be a biblical story?

You have cited the Bible, so don't tell me not to cite the Bible. Fair enough?

Again, I cited the bible to show it's argument, never as a historical source that was evidence of itself.

Considering the fact that thus far, every historical statement in the Bible has been proven, it is reasonable to assume that the stuff that can't be conclusively proven is true as well. Not an unreasonable extrapolation with something that has been as accurate historically as the Bible.....

PS: Warning, you are treading into ground that is very familiar to me. Watch out for an ambush.


You've made this claim multiple times, yet you've never presented non-biblical evidence to support it. Since this, again, is a central point to the debate, I'm not going to debate anything biblical with you until you at least present a reasonable argument for it. You already claimed to have large amounts of archeological data to back up the accuracy argument, but backed down when challenged.

[forest_ranger254]

Things can be wrong so therefore the bible is right?

No, history can't be conclusively proven to a certain point. at the end of every history lesson's roots, you have the educated assumptions of a historian or group of historians interpreting what evidence is left over. Thus, since the state of things with common historical facts can not be conclusively proven, that excuse is not a reason to disclaim the Bible.

How can a "Christian expert" claim troy to be a biblical story?

In the 1920s the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer claimed that placenames found in Hittite texts — Wilusa and Taruisa — should be identified with Ilium and Troia respectively. He further noted that the name of Alaksandus, king of Wilusa, mentioned in one of the Hittite texts is quite similar to the name of Prince Alexandros or Paris of Troy.

The Hittite king Mursili II in ca. 1320 BC wrote a letter to the king of the Ahhiyawa, treating him as an equal and implying that Miletus (Millawanda) was controlled by the Ahhiyawa, and also referring to an earlier "Wilusa episode" involving hostility on the part of the Ahhiyawa. This people has been identified with the Homeric Greeks (Achaeans).

These identifications were rejected by many scholars as being improbable or at least unprovable. Trevor Bryce in 1998 championed them in his book The Kingdom of the Hittites, citing a recovered piece of the so-called Manapa-Tarhunda letter, which refers to the kingdom of Wilusa as beyond the land of the Seha (known in classical times as the Caicus) river, and near the land of Lazpa (the Isle of Lesbos).

Recent evidence adds weight to the theory that Wilusa is identical to archaeological Troy. Hittite texts mention a water tunnel at Wilusa, and a water tunnel excavated by Korfmann, previously thought to be Roman, has been dated to around 2600 BC.

The identifications of Wilusa with archaeological Troy and of the Achaeans with the Ahhiyawa remain controversial, but gained enough popularity during the 1990s to be considered a majority opinion.

Thus, Troy provides evidence of the Hittites and disproving the assumption that the Bible was wrong about the existence of the Hittite civilisation.

Again, I cited the bible to show it's argument, never as a historical source that was evidence of itself.

Correction, in our first encounter you took a biblical passage and used it to further your own argument, not to show its argument. You took a small passage out of context and I put it back in.

You've made this claim multiple times, yet you've never presented non-biblical evidence to support it. Since this, again, is a central point to the debate, I'm not going to debate anything biblical with you until you at least present a reasonable argument for it. You already claimed to have large amounts of archeological data to back up the accuracy argument, but backed down when challenged.



Well, since we want to start here, we will start at the eywitness evidence, particularly the potent question that Lee Strobell presented in his book, The Case For Christ:

Is it really possible to be an intelligent, critically thinking person and still believe that the four gospels were written by the people whose names have been attached to them?

The answer is yes. It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John-Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul's "beloved physician," wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.


Basically, you ask the questions, and I post the answers. Now, in response to my post, what is your question/comment?

[Alonzo]

No, history can't be conclusively proven to a certain point. at the end of every history lesson's roots, you have the educated assumptions of a historian or group of historians interpreting what evidence is left over. Thus, since the state of things with common historical facts can not be conclusively proven, that excuse is not a reason to disclaim the Bible.

When you have something that can't be proven, or can't be disproven, then you have no absolute answer. That does not mean they are equal. One could be highly probably and the other extremely unlikely, but that's it.


In the 1920s the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer claimed that placenames found in Hittite texts — Wilusa and Taruisa — should be identified with Ilium and Troia respectively. He further noted that the name of Alaksandus, king of Wilusa, mentioned in one of the Hittite texts is quite similar to the name of Prince Alexandros or Paris of Troy.

The Hittite king Mursili II in ca. 1320 BC wrote a letter to the king of the Ahhiyawa, treating him as an equal and implying that Miletus (Millawanda) was controlled by the Ahhiyawa, and also referring to an earlier "Wilusa episode" involving hostility on the part of the Ahhiyawa. This people has been identified with the Homeric Greeks (Achaeans).

These identifications were rejected by many scholars as being improbable or at least unprovable. Trevor Bryce in 1998 championed them in his book The Kingdom of the Hittites, citing a recovered piece of the so-called Manapa-Tarhunda letter, which refers to the kingdom of Wilusa as beyond the land of the Seha (known in classical times as the Caicus) river, and near the land of Lazpa (the Isle of Lesbos).

Recent evidence adds weight to the theory that Wilusa is identical to archaeological Troy. Hittite texts mention a water tunnel at Wilusa, and a water tunnel excavated by Korfmann, previously thought to be Roman, has been dated to around 2600 BC.

The identifications of Wilusa with archaeological Troy and of the Achaeans with the Ahhiyawa remain controversial, but gained enough popularity during the 1990s to be considered a majority opinion.

Thus, Troy provides evidence of the Hittites and disproving the assumption that the Bible was wrong about the existence of the Hittite civilisation.


Please, when you are quoting a source give it credit.

Either way, even if the theory is true, troy is not a biblical story unless you can show the events in the bible were actually trojan. All you have is a biblical city where we may have found its historical equivalent.

And the existence of the hittites is not in debate.

Correction, in our first encounter you took a biblical passage and used it to further your own argument, not to show its argument. You took a small passage out of context and I put it back in.

Show me where I used it as a historical source.

Well, since we want to start here, we will start at the eywitness evidence, particularly the potent question that Lee Strobell presented in his book, The Case For Christ:

Is it really possible to be an intelligent, critically thinking person and still believe that the four gospels were written by the people whose names have been attached to them?

The answer is yes. It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John-Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul's "beloved physician," wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.


Basically, you ask the questions, and I post the answers. Now, in response to my post, what is your question/comment?


I'm still waiting for an argument on how the bible is histories most accurate book.

[forest_ranger254]

When you have something that can't be proven, or can't be disproven, then you have no absolute answer. That does not mean they are equal. One could be highly probably and the other extremely unlikely, but that's it.

And with the accuracy the Bible had on historical facts that the writers were isolated from, it isn't too hard to extrapolate that the small bit that is uncertain historically is true.

Please, when you are quoting a source give it credit.

Either way, even if the theory is true, troy is not a biblical story unless you can show the events in the bible were actually trojan. All you have is a biblical city where we may have found its historical equivalent.

And the existence of the hittites is not in debate.

However, it was in debate, and until recently, most historians thought the Hittites didn't exist in the place the Bible said they did. The finding of the city of Troy in that region proved the historical world wrong.

Also, that was Wikipedia.

Show me where I used it as a historical source.

Our first debate, not as a historical source, but as a part of your own debate.

I'm still waiting for an argument on how the bible is histories most accurate book.


That is the beginning part, most relevant to the topic. To show that the gnostic gospels, one of the beliefs behind the Da Vinci Code, are wrong, we must prove that the four canonical gospels are true. I just answered the question of authorship for the first three sources, and there are no known competitors for the gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke.