The Da Vinci Hoax

By -
Caution, there are mild spoilers in this blog post. If you plan on watching/reading the Da Vinci Code and don't know what the "code" is about, you should skip this. (It's not that interesting anyway.)

.
.
.
.
.


OK. So the big secret is that Jesus had a child before leaving the earth. Now forget the machinations of the misogynist Church and so forth. Does Jesus of Nazareth strike you as a guy who would get someone pregnant and then split? Even if you don't think He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, certainly you can concede that He was fairly clever and would have known His ministry could lead to His death. I.e. don't get a girl pregnant if you think your mission is to challenge the Pharisees.

Now you might say, "Didn't Jesus abandon the disciples, even according to your sacred book?" Yes that's true, but I think it's a far cry from training grown men for three years and then sending them out to spread the gospel, versus getting a woman pregnant and then taking off.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:12 PM

    So you're saying, that a work
    of fiction, contains a hoax? Huh? You're saying
    that a fictional book, a novel, contains
    a character that does something you think
    that character would never do? What? Ok, fine,
    a character in a novel in not consistent. Why mention this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:13 PM

    Jesus was in his 30s and might have been married for over 10-15 years. It isn't necessary to the story that he leave a pregnant wife behind, just a descendant of any age.

    I'm an observant Christian, and I don't think that Christ's having a wife and child would lessen Him in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rachael Anne3:56 PM

    Rob:

    So there's no point in discussing books? Why are you even reading?

    Bob:

    If Christ's death truly offered salvation to the world, then if His own literal flesh and blood was now part of that world, wouldn't it be even more important that he make the sacrifice that would give his child eternal life, rather than hang around to play catch?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:59 PM

    Rachael:

    I was taking exception with the idea that
    a work of fiction can be a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rachael Anne6:17 PM

    Well, a hoax is a work of fiction. And as I already pointed out, he's discussing a book, which you don't seem to think is a pointless activity. So at this point, I don't get what your issue is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:55 AM

    His post reads as if he's talking about the
    real Jesus. He's saying that the book
    is a hoax because the real Jesus would
    never act in such a way. As least that
    is how I read his post. My point exactly
    is that he's seems to be mixing up the
    fiction from the book and the "real"
    story of Jesus, as so many people
    have done. That's my point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah9:53 AM

    Well, when a work of fiction appears to say something about historically real figures, its immunity to the criticism that it is untruthful is certainly reduced. For example, if an author writes a novel in which a character named "Bill Clinton," who is from Arkansas and is elected president of America, is described as repeatedly murdering female underlings with whom he has had dalliances, I think that the real Clinton and his supporters would be justified in condemning the work as libelous. If an author merely wishes to construct a character from his imagination, but then associates his creation with a historical figure, he owes his readers an explanation of that conflation. And this applies especially to Brown, who claims that his works are based on extensive historical research.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:27 AM

    Sure, but ultimately, the book
    is found in the fiction section
    of the book store, not the history
    section, or the religion section. So, go ahead and criticize the book, that's fair and constructive, but let's not confuse it
    with reality, or books about reality,
    like... the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob Murphy11:07 AM

    Rachael,

    Of course, I'm not saying He should've given up His ministry to play catch and teach the kid how to build a table. What I was saying is that He could've avoided impregnating someone, knowing full well His future.

    But you've made me think about it more, and I suppose it's not so unusual. After all, I don't think Gandhi or JFK did the wrong thing by having kids even though their professions led them to death. (Let's not have JFK infidelity jokes unless they are quite clever, people...) As Dr. Evil would say, "I can't back that up."

    Rob,

    Dan Brown has said repeatedly that he's not making up the Da Vinci stuff. Yes, there's not really a Tom Langdon, but he does claim that the Church really did cover up the fact the grail is Mary Magdalene. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's his position.)

    And then you really confused me with your last post, where you said, "So, go ahead and criticize the book, that's fair and constructive." OK that's what I'm doing. What else was I criticizing besides the book / movie?

    Vache:

    I could be wrong, but in the movie I think it said that MM was pregnant during the crucifixion. So Jesus never saw His unborn child. And yes, if that's really what happened, He's still my personal savior and the Lord, I'm just saying it isn't something I would've guessed from His other behavior and teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob Murphy11:09 AM

    Whoops I think it's Robert Langdon, not Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rachael Anne9:35 AM

    Bob:

    I'm not sure why it would have been so terrible to impregnate MM before dying; it could have been part of his mission on Earth, to start a royal bloodline, or she could have just begged him for a child, because she knew he would die. And MM certainly wouldn't have been left as a single, unemployed mom--then as now, there are devoted followers of Christ, and I'm sure they would have cared for his widow and child.

    I'm not trying to say that it's true, but just that it's too simplistic to say that if it is true, Jesus is as bad as any guy who freaks out when his girl gets pregnant and skips town.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:31 AM

    Great article! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3:16 PM

    Thanks for interesting article.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous5:26 AM

    Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:35 PM

    excelent place potbs Doubloon
    potbs money

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more