Re: DaVinci Crap! - further OT

David Eather <eather@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

First I would point out that "the DaVinci Code" is a fictional story
written to sell books. Controversy helps sell books. It's
controversial "ideas" are Dan Brown's ideas. Dan Brown is not a noted
historian, theologian or researcher - his work in those fields is on par
with his work on cryptography. The vast majority of scholars who study
this period, regardless of their pro or anti Christian views, dismiss
the Gnostic Gospels (like the Gospel Of Thomas) out of hand. It is
incompatible with the other new testament writings. It is incompatible
with old testament writings. It is poorly preserved (suggesting that
the writings were not valued by the mainstream) and it existence cannot
be verified until hundreds of years later than the other gospels. None
of it's additional claims can be backed up by any physical evidence at
all. It is a fake.

Neither can any of the other gospels; four out of twenty were preserved
as a deliberate act of one early church father to limit the theology
of the other gospels; *none* of those gospels are now preserved, except
for the recently recovered "Gospel of Judas". So to claim that they
are dismissed out of hand is ludicrous; not enough of the texts is
preserved. Considering the fact that the four NT gospels give such
a different account of events, I can only conclude that since the implication
of your statement, that the NT writings are without contradiction,
is untrue, no such scholarly perception can exist. Except, perhaps, in
the mind of the "literal Christians".

To take any of the Gospels as historical fact is like interpreting
Homer as Heinrich Schlieman did; he was rightly ridiculed for it,
despite his numerous finds.

Looking at bliblical texts in any other way is wrong; without
historical and archeological data to back it up, it's a standalone
work of fiction.

And while Schlieman was successful in locating many ancient sites using
Homer's texts, none of his finds proof that the events described in Homer
actually took place.

Your remark about Dan Brown's standing as historian or theologian is well
noted; the cryptographic science in his NSA/crypto novel tilted my bogometer
well before the first ten pages were turned.

At this point an apologist would start to run you through the tri-lemma
scenario. This would answer you objection to based on the fictional story

I'm not a Brown apologist; his story is clearly fiction; it's only
some Christians and perhaps some anti-Catholics who believe it to
have any basis in fact.

I'm merely trying to point out that the bible itself is no more than
a work of fiction inspired by an ancient oral history tradition, much
like Homer, in fact; and written down generations after the stories
supposedly happened. We can be sure that the stories contain truths,
embelishments and plain fiction.

We can't be sure which is which so we can't take even the smallest grain
of the stories as accurate without corroberation.

The same holds even for classical historians; they cannot be trusted to
give an accurate account, specially were history is written from the point
of view of the victor.