NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, well, well, the contraversial movie, the Da Vinci Code, based off the popular book, is about to be released, and what do ya know, theres some controversy. The Catholic Church is calling for members to avoid seeing the movie and not to read the book. Also they are turning out tons of pamphlets and such that refutes the theme of the book. In case you don't know, the book's plot revovles around a deep dark secret held by the catholic church. The book is fictional but the Church holds that it is still wrong to create such a plot that tears down the Church. Well, I want to know what people think. Is the movie bad, should we avoid it, do you think that there is a secret, and well just tell me what you think.

It's nice to know what they spend their money on. It's fiction, why can't they grasp that? They loathed against Harry Potter (also fiction). You have to wonder, if it's fiction, why the hubbub, unless it has some semblance of something they don't want, but then again, probably not, they're just uptight. Could you imagine though if it got out that Jesus really did have a wife and children and that he really said the Church is in everyone? Man would it completely collapse the Catholic Church.

Like the flood story of Moses (there is proof that there was a great flood),

NOAH.

We attack it because we feel it is a silly fairytale that is being used to justify fucking with our lives.

You choose to use Christianity to justify all kinds of un-necessary laws then be prepared to have the basis of your arguments examined in detail.

If Christians cant handle that they can very well stop using that fairytale to justify silly things.
Fairytale this asshole. The Catholic Church is responsible for forming most of our laws, because OMG the law is based on the TEN COMMANDMENTS and BASIC MORAL CONCEPTS JAID DOWN BY JESUS. So just because you hate taking orders doesn't mean that the Church is wrong.

Silly people? If I wrote a ficional book calling you a Nazi, and the idiots of America believed it to be fact, wouldn't you be angry?
Maybe a little … but then I would remember “Oh yah it is FICTION” rather then trying to do something stupid like force them to add another sticker that is telling people EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK CLASIFICATION DOES

I hope I would have more sense then the Catholic Church has shown so far about things it does not like.

It's nice to know what they spend their money on. It's fiction, why can't they grasp that? They loathed against Harry Potter (also fiction). You have to wonder, if it's fiction, why the hubbub, unless it has some semblance of something they don't want, but then again, probably not, they're just uptight. Could you imagine though if it got out that Jesus really did have a wife and children and that he really said the Church is in everyone? Man would it completely collapse the Catholic Church.
Fiction that is marketed as fact. Dan Brown says "I reaserch and beleive everything I write", but later tries to avoid fire by saying its fiction, There better be a disclaimer on this heretical movie, or else Dan Brown and Ron Howard better get sued out of thier undergarmets...

Fairytale this asshole. The Catholic Church is responsible for forming most of our laws, because OMG the law is based on the TEN COMMANDMENTS and BASIC MORAL CONCEPTS JAID DOWN BY JESUS. So just because you hate taking orders doesn't mean that the Church is wrong.
Just because they issue orders does not make them right either.

Just because they managed to get some things right (which had been going on before Christianity came about) does not mean everything they do is right.


Nobody can be wrong all the time

Maybe a little … but then I would remember “Oh yah it is FICTION” rather then trying to do something stupid like force them to add another sticker that is telling people EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK CLASIFICATION DOES

I hope I would have more sense then the Catholic Church has shown so far about things it does not like.
The Church has survived for 2,000 years and will continue to survive, no matter what happens. Dan Brown and Ron Howard will be personally held accountable for every soul lost because if this book, so think of adding more disclaimers as a way of protecting them on the Last Day

Fiction that is marketed as fact. Dan Brown says "I reaserch and beleive everything I write", but later tries to avoid fire by saying its fiction, There better be a disclaimer on this heretical movie, or else Dan Brown and Ron Howard better get sued out of thier undergarmets...
Lots of people believe silly things… so what?

Nobody can be wrong all the time
2 words, Adolf Hitler.

The Church has survived for 2,000 years and will continue to survive, no matter what happens. Dan Brown and Ron Howard will be personally held accountable for every soul lost because if this book, so think of adding more disclaimers as a way of protecting them on the Last Day
Naw there is no way an all loving god would be an ass like that … just because some people cant tell fact from fiction

Lots of people believe silly things… so what?
When these "Silly things" threaten the faith of immortal souls, it ceases to be a secular matter.

Naw there is no way an all loving god would be an ass like that … just because some people cant tell fact from fiction
By marketing it as HISTORICAL fiction, they encourage it, by not allowing disclaimers, they try and make it look like fact, therefore, making them responsible.

What if a group such as NAACP was falsely portrayed in the manner that Dan Brown portrays Opus Dei in his book? Public outrage, Dan Brown would be killed by mob violence. But, of course, the Majority is supposed to take abuses, right...

2 words, Adolf Hitler.
As fucking despicable as he was he did have a hell of an economic plan, Also did rather good as a military leader.

BTW you know you just compared the Christian Faith to Hitler right?

Please read the book "The Political Zoo" by the brilliant Michael Savage. It sums it up very well.
Riggghtttt...so your source for stating that Clinton raped several women comes from a rabidly-anti-liberal book written as satire by a guy who makes Rush, Coulter and O'Reilly appear centrist moderates.

What next? Using Alice in Wonderland as your source for advocating capital punishment ('Off with their head! Off with their head!')?

By marketing it as HISTORICAL fiction, they encourage it, by not allowing disclaimers, they try and make it look like fact, therefore, making them responsible.
Maybe because it is historical fiction?

Just because people are idiots and don’t understand historical fiction means fiction about a historical character is not really their fault.

As fucking despicable as he was he did have a hell of an economic plan, Also did rather good as a military leader.

BTW you know you just compared the Christian Faith to Hitler right?
I did no surch thing! Hitler was a moronic military leader (ever heard of the disaster that was Operation Barbarossa)? I was disproving your statement, doing something right by secular standards, but wrong by moral standards make the action WRONG.

What if a group such as NAACP was falsely portrayed in the manner that Dan Brown portrays Opus Dei in his book? Public outrage, Dan Brown would be killed by mob violence. But, of course, the Majority is supposed to take abuses, right...
Probably not … people make up shit about the NAACP all the time.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#6

"Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

...As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

...It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

...Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

...The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations."

I did no surch thing! Hitler was a moronic military leader (ever heard of the disaster that was Operation Barbarossa)? I was disproving your statement, doing something right by secular standards, but wrong by moral standards make the action WRONG.
Lol well you managed to fail … like I said even Hitler could not fuck everything up all the time.

Maybe because it is historical fiction?

Just because people are idiots and don’t understand historical fiction means fiction about a historical character is not really their fault.
ENCOURAGING SIN IS A SIN ITSELF!!! WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!! Putting a disclaimer saying "None of this book is fact, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei are not evil demonic istituions, and I did not write this to spread my heretical and wrong beliefs" would remove the responsibility from HIM, but by not allowing it, he IS SUBJECT TO PAY FOR HIS SIN! It is still a sin for the person who is dumb enough to believe this, but ALSO FOR DAN BROWN!!!!!!!!!

Lol well you managed to fail … like I said even Hitler could not fuck everything up all the time.
Yes, he did! His economic policies screwed over the Jews, therefore making him wrong!

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#6

"Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

...As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

...It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

...Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

...The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations."
Joy, an overly-long leftisit anti-Chrisitian propaganda sheet...

dang, I gotta go, be back later...

Joy, an overly-long leftisit anti-Chrisitian propaganda sheet...

No, the official position of the Catholic Church on the interpretation of the bible.

ENCOURAGING SIN IS A SIN ITSELF!!! WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!! Putting a disclaimer saying "None of this book is fact, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei are not evil demonic istituions, and I did not write this to spread my heretical and wrong beliefs" would remove the responsibility from HIM, but by not allowing it, he IS SUBJECT TO PAY FOR HIS SIN! It is still a sin for the person who is dumb enough to believe this, but ALSO FOR DAN BROWN!!!!!!!!!
Well with all the hoopla about It I am sure he knows … if he chooses not to do that I guess the “Sin” is on his head

As much as I dislike him as an author I do admire him for not bending to all this sillyness.

Yes, he did! His economic policies screwed over the Jews, therefore making him wrong!
In the big picture yes … and he was absolutely detestable. But just because he was overall on the big things does not make every decision he made “Wrong” automatically.

ENCOURAGING SIN IS A SIN ITSELF!!! WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!! Putting a disclaimer saying "None of this book is fact, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei are not evil demonic istituions, and I did not write this to spread my heretical and wrong beliefs" would remove the responsibility from HIM, but by not allowing it, he IS SUBJECT TO PAY FOR HIS SIN! It is still a sin for the person who is dumb enough to believe this, but ALSO FOR DAN BROWN!!!!!!!!!

Since when is questioning the church a sin? I was under the impression that facts do not matter faith, so this book shouldn't affect anything.

dang, I gotta go, be back later...
I’m sure I will be waiting … I can always use a good laugh

Furthermore, attacking an institution such as the Opus Dei is not a sin. I would consider it a virtue ;)

All religion is a lie to make money people believe because they cannot bare the responsibility of controling their own lives and holy men of all religions lead them on.


Da vinci code is a good film though even if it isnt true.

Agreed!


You're making a false assumption. The fact that there are tombs in the area where Christ is said to have died is no evidence at all because there are tombs all over the place which could have belonged to anyone. Whether Christians base their faith on that is irrelevant to its validity as evidence, which is none. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.


People die for a lot of false causes. Whether it would be better that they have died for something else or not died at all is also irrelevant to determine the truth. You can't just accept or deny something just because it would be nice, at least not if you want to be intellectually honest and unbiased.


On the contrary. Although it's almost impossible to get an original manuscript of any work from that era, there are a number of works that we can be fairly certain are very close to the original. Not only that, but what they say can be closely corroborated by archaelogical and third party evidence, something that can't always be said about the Bible, especially the Gospels.


Noted. Now find an unbiased source.

I am afraid I'm not communicating very well to you. I am not talking about any actual tombs that people may or may not claim to be the tomb where Christ was laid. I agree with your assessment in a previous post that people have basically found some tombs they believe match the description, but we cannot know for sure. The evidence I am talking about is the claim of the empty tomb widely at the time of Christ's crucifixion and the raise of Christianity as a result.

Within weeks of the crucifixion, thousands of Jews became convinced Jesus Christ was the Son of God and began following Him, abandoning key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries. They believed they risked damnation if they were wrong. As C.F. Mould put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution "rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of resurrection."

Mark's gospel and that section from 1 Corinthians 15, which date so closely to the actual event they could not possibly have been the product of legend, provides strong evidence for the empty grave.

The Messianic prophecies written long before his birth that pinpoint Him as the Messiah, the gruesome rigors of Roman crucifixion including the gaping wound that pierced Jesus' lung and heart according to the Biblical record, as well as suffering hypvolemic shock as the result of horrific flogging makes the idea that he wasn't really dead void of any evidential basis. Then the fact that he appeared to so many people afterwards provides eyewitness testimony. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that he appeared to over 500 people at once, "many of whom are alive to this day." It's almost as if he's saying, "check my facts! If you don't believe me, ask one of these many others who have seen it for themselves."

Lastly, Professor J.P. Moreland presented circumstantial evidence that provided strong documentation for the resurrection. First the disciples were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection happened, and they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true. Nobody knowing and willingly dies for a lie. Also, apart from the resurrection there is no good reason why skeptics such as Paul and James would have been converted and died for their faith.

All of this taken together provides some evidence for the faith of many. Is it a shut and sealed case? Well, no - obviously because there are some like you who still do not believe. However, for me, I find the evidence to be compelling.

Concerning the manuscript evidence of the New Testament, I'm not sure what else I need to do to convince you of it's historical reliability. I provided you with a link, but you asked for an unbiased source. I knew the site I provided was a "biased source" as far as believing the testimony, but the facts of the manuscript evidence there is not fraudulent. I have found similar presentations in many different books in the past. I am not aware that any liberal theologians or atheistic historians have ever questioned the presentation of these dates of the New Testament documents in number and date as compared with other works of antiquity. Opinions can be biased, but historical evidence just is, regardless of the source they are found in (unless the evidence is falsified).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Most Holy Dragon
Like the flood story of Moses (there is proof that there was a great flood),
NOAH.

Good to point that out. I believe most people believe that Moses wrote the book of Genesis among others so I can see where both names could be applicable here.

I’m sure I will be waiting … I can always use a good laugh

There's tolerance for you. :)

So much mean.

Furthermore, attacking an institution such as the Opus Dei is not a sin. I would consider it a virtue ;)

This brings up a good point. Attacking anyone unjustly is plain wrong. Opus Dei is a real conservative Catholic organization that, among other things, gets upset about the mass in anything but Latin. The characterization of this group in this book is a character assassination on this organization.

I can disagree with President Bush, for example. I would have every right to do that. But to make up a claim that he eats babies, and to be serious about that, is called slander. To characterize Opus Dei as a group that would ignore the teaching of the Bible to kill people because they were afraid of something being revealed is equally slanderous.

*Disclaimer: I'm not Opus Dei, or even Catholic for that matter. I do disagree with some things President Bush has done and agree with others (which are irrelevant to the current discussion).

There's tolerance for you. :)

So much mean.
Hey if he is going to act like a parody I most deffinatly will enjoy the humor. I refuse to get mad at such silly things.

I am afraid I'm not communicating very well to you. I am not talking about any actual tombs that people may or may not claim to be the tomb where Christ was laid. I agree with your assessment in a previous post that people have basically found some tombs they believe match the description, but we cannot know for sure. The evidence I am talking about is the claim of the empty tomb widely at the time of Christ's crucifixion and the raise of Christianity as a result.

Within weeks of the crucifixion, thousands of Jews became convinced Jesus Christ was the Son of God and began following Him, abandoning key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries. They believed they risked damnation if they were wrong. As C.F. Mould put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution "rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of resurrection."

Mark's gospel and that section from 1 Corinthians 15, which date so closely to the actual event they could not possibly have been the product of legend, provides strong evidence for the empty grave.

The Messianic prophecies written long before his birth that pinpoint Him as the Messiah, the gruesome rigors of Roman crucifixion including the gaping wound that pierced Jesus' lung and heart according to the Biblical record, as well as suffering hypvolemic shock as the result of horrific flogging makes the idea that he wasn't really dead void of any evidential basis. Then the fact that he appeared to so many people afterwards provides eyewitness testimony. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that he appeared to over 500 people at once, "many of whom are alive to this day." It's almost as if he's saying, "check my facts! If you don't believe me, ask one of these many others who have seen it for themselves."

Lastly, Professor J.P. Moreland presented circumstantial evidence that provided strong documentation for the resurrection. First the disciples were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection happened, and they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true. Nobody knowing and willingly dies for a lie. Also, apart from the resurrection there is no good reason why skeptics such as Paul and James would have been converted and died for their faith.

All of this taken together provides some evidence for the faith of many. Is it a shut and sealed case? Well, no - obviously because there are some like you who still do not believe. However, for me, I find the evidence to be compelling.

Concerning the manuscript evidence of the New Testament, I'm not sure what else I need to do to convince you of it's historical reliability. I provided you with a link, but you asked for an unbiased source. I knew the site I provided was a "biased source" as far as believing the testimony, but the facts of the manuscript evidence there is not fraudulent. I have found similar presentations in many different books in the past. I am not aware that any liberal theologians or atheistic historians have ever questioned the presentation of these dates of the New Testament documents in number and date as compared with other works of antiquity. Opinions can be biased, but historical evidence just is, regardless of the source they are found in (unless the evidence is falsified).

But everything you present as "evidence" is purely hearsay and second hand testimony. Outside of this there is no other corroborating evidence. If hearsay is good for you as evidence, that's good, but I can't take it seriously. Claims must be corroborated. The epistles of Paul are also in dispute, both in their authorship and their origin. It is true that Mark is considered the earliest of the Gospels, but even it was written decades after the fact.

The problem is that there is no external source of information or corroborating evidence that will lend support to what these people say. All the "evidence" is contained in the Bible which has been altered many times.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-05-16T141126Z_01_L16732669_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DAVINCI-RELIGION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I came across this link today with today's date. An article that says people, after reading The Da Vinci Code, are now: twice as likely to believe that Jesus was married and fathered children, and four times as likely to think Opus Dei is a murderous sect!

Quoted from the article include:
"The novel, which has sold over 40 million copies, also depicts Opus Dei as a ruthless Machiavellian organization whose members resort to murder to keep the Church's secrets."

"In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with just four percent of non-readers."

and

"Opus Dei spokesman Jack Valero said he was astonished.

"Since we were founded in 1928, Opus Dei has promoted the highest moral standards at work, spreading a message of Christian love and understanding," he said.

"Yet the Da Vinci Code has persuaded hundreds of thousands of people that we have blood on our hands."

I just thought that was interesting information for those who have posted here not being able to understand why Catholics are so upset about all of this. Again, I'm not Catholic, but some Catholics are Opus Dei and I could understand why they would be upset by this book in particular. Dan Brown has wrongly slandered their name in this book and many more people now believe they are an evil group that murders people. If Opus Dei said nothing, many people would say, "See! They don't even deny it!!" Sounds to me like the group cannot win for losing in the public arena because of what this book has done to them.

But everything you present as "evidence" is purely hearsay and second hand testimony. Outside of this there is no other corroborating evidence. If hearsay is good for you as evidence, that's good, but I can't take it seriously. Claims must be corroborated. The epistles of Paul are also in dispute, both in their authorship and their origin. It is true that Mark is considered the earliest of the Gospels, but even it was written decades after the fact.

The problem is that there is no external source of information or corroborating evidence that will lend support to what these people say. All the "evidence" is contained in the Bible which has been altered many times.

My faith out of this part of the discussion, you really cannot make the claim the Bible has been altered many times. It's simply the farthest thing from accurate. By studying the textual evidence, I think I remember reading the New Testament is 99.5% accurate. The parts that were different were differences of a letter or mark affecting no difference in meaning.

The science of it compares the many manuscripts we have written over time and looks for deviance. The New Testament is more accurate in this regard than any work of antiquity. Facts are peculiar things and you cannot ignore the manuscript evidence and claim to the contrary.

Also, people dispute lots of things. The majority of people who study the New Testament documents as their life research do not question the authorship of Paul. The only legitimate controversy I've ever heard concerns the book of Hebrews, but I still believe in it's Pauline authorship. That is far from disputing the authorship and origin of all of Paul's letters!

I am afraid I'm not communicating very well to you. I am not talking about any actual tombs that people may or may not claim to be the tomb where Christ was laid. I agree with your assessment in a previous post that people have basically found some tombs they believe match the description, but we cannot know for sure. The evidence I am talking about is the claim of the empty tomb widely at the time of Christ's crucifixion and the raise of Christianity as a result.


Within weeks of the crucifixion, thousands of Jews became convinced Jesus Christ was the Son of God and began following Him, abandoning key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries. They believed they risked damnation if they were wrong. As C.F. Mould put it, the miraculous emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman persecution "rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of resurrection."

Do you have any evidence for the conversion of thousands beyond the book of Acts?

I'm not sure where your claim that Jewish converts '[abandoned] key social practices that had critical sociological and religious importance for centuries' came from, Early Christians observed Jewish practices. If you read Corinthians or Galatians you'll see Paul's attack on the practice of Kosher, circumcision and other Jewish traditions that the early church under Peter had been observing. I can't remember off the top of my head when the early Christians were expelled from the Synagogues but it was a surprisingly long time after the supposed Resurrection.

Incidentally you may be interested to study the history of Mormonism, which grew at a surprising rate despite persecution. To defend the historicity of the Resurrection using the growth of early Christianity is to admit the truth of Mormonism as well.

Mark's gospel and that section from 1 Corinthians 15, which date so closely to the actual event they could not possibly have been the product of legend, provides strong evidence for the empty grave.

1 Corinthians is typically dated to between 50 and 60AD, Mark to between 65 and 80AD. At a time when the average life expectancy was 35 Mark is a significant time after the supposed events.

I assume you're referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8? Note that it doesn't mention a tomb. There is also some dispute as to the translation of the word 'eghgertai' (transliterated from Greek). It can mean to arouse from sleep or to awake rather than physically raise from the dead. Add to this suspicions that Paul was a docetic and the evidence is very slim already.

We also know that 1 Corinthians has been edited to some extent after its authorship. See below.

The Messianic prophecies written long before his birth that pinpoint Him as the Messiah, the gruesome rigors of Roman crucifixion including the gaping wound that pierced Jesus' lung and heart according to the Biblical record, as well as suffering hypvolemic shock as the result of horrific flogging makes the idea that he wasn't really dead void of any evidential basis. Then the fact that he appeared to so many people afterwards provides eyewitness testimony. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that he appeared to over 500 people at once, "many of whom are alive to this day." It's almost as if he's saying, "check my facts! If you don't believe me, ask one of these many others who have seen it for themselves."

Woulds these be the Messianic Prophecies that explicitly rule out Jesus from being the Messiah due to his ancestry?

You've fallen back on the Bible to provide details here my friend, your argument is circular: "If the Bible is historically accurate then the Bible is historically accurate."

The five hundred claim is almost certainly a later interpolation. We are told that the five hundred were all followers even before the appearance of the risen Christ to them. Why then does every other source tell us that Jesus had only 120 followers when he was crucified?

Lastly, Professor J.P. Moreland presented circumstantial evidence that provided strong documentation for the resurrection. First the disciples were in a unique position to know whether the resurrection happened, and they went to their deaths proclaiming it was true. Nobody knowing and willingly dies for a lie. Also, apart from the resurrection there is no good reason why skeptics such as Paul and James would have been converted and died for their faith.

1. There is little documentation for the martyrdoms of any disciples apart from James and one or two others. We are reliant on the Bible being a valid historical source again, this is known as begging the question.
2. Those who were martyrs were killed for spreading dissidence against the Romans, not for their beliefs. By and large the Romans didn't care what people believed as long as they were obedient; once they were arrested it would have been too late, repenting their beliefs would have done them no good at all.
3. I see no reason to believe that the disciples believed in a physical resurrection.

Also, people dispute lots of things. The majority of people who study the New Testament documents as their life research do not question the authorship of Paul. The only legitimate controversy I've ever heard concerns the book of Hebrews, but I still believe in it's Pauline authorship. That is far from disputing the authorship and origin of all of Paul's letters!

Timothy is also widely disputed if I recall correctly, as are one or two others. I'll try and find a link.

My faith out of this part of the discussion, you really cannot make the claim the Bible has been altered many times. It's simply the farthest thing from accurate. By studying the textual evidence, I think I remember reading the New Testament is 99.5% accurate. The parts that were different were differences of a letter or mark affecting no difference in meaning.
99.5% accurate against what? Against itself? Against reality? Against other contemporary independent texts?

The science of it compares the many manuscripts we have written over time and looks for deviance. The New Testament is more accurate in this regard than any work of antiquity. Facts are peculiar things and you cannot ignore the manuscript evidence and claim to the contrary.
Yes, but that's like saying that because the oldest known version of Aedipus Rex is very similar to the modern version then the story really happened.

So, yes, there are these texts called the Gospels, of which four are recognized as canonical. And yes, after comparing modern versions against earliest known manuscripts, they don't vary all that much (mostly because modern versions have been retranslated from the old versions). That doesn't mean that what is contained in them is accurate or that it really happened.

Also, people dispute lots of things. The majority of people who study the New Testament documents as their life research do not question the authorship of Paul. The only legitimate controversy I've ever heard concerns the book of Hebrews, but I still believe in it's Pauline authorship. That is far from disputing the authorship and origin of all of Paul's letters!

Oh, no, there are questions. We know there are a lot of forgeries and people often tried to pass some work as somebody else's. Not out of malice, it was simply how things were done back in those days. Only seven of the 13 letters are considered undisputable, and that's just through stylistic analysis which point to a single author, traditionally considered Paul. The others have a varying degree of uncertainty.

What needs to be pointed out in this discussion for anyone that might not know, the time period in which the gospels were written was a very oral culture. They didn't watch television. Most of them didn't even read books. Supposedly only about 3 out of every 100 people were literate. Instead these people sat around fires and told stories and shared wise sayings. They would even recite genealogies. It was the way they got a sense of tribal identity.

We still have some remnant of that. It you've been around kids, you know how they often have a favorite book. I have 4 children and my oldest is 6 years old. I cannot tell you how many times I've read "Go, Dog, Go!" So some nights when I'm in a hurry and try to skip a page or two or even a paragraphy, my older children who have heard the story enough times say, "No! You've got to read every word, every page!" They know the story. Imagine a culture where that's all that people knew. They knew stories. So Jesus' life and teachings were very well known by a culture that was well equipped to preserve them.

Most scholars would agree that that all of these New Testament books were written within maybe 30 to 60 years after Jesus died. In other words, they were written while there were still eyewitnesses around who could challenge every word that was in them. They had to meet the task of being read by people who were alive when Jesus was around, and who would be able to say, "No. I was there," if something was inaccurate.

It is quite unreasonable to believe the Bible we have today is so different from what was originally written. And it's not manuscripts today we're comparing to which were obviously based off copying older documents. But the 5,000 + NT manuscripts I was referring to were all ancient manuscripts dating to between about 120 AD and 300 AD. That is why the textual criticism is so important in validating that what we have today is almost identitical to what was originally given. Modern translations aside, the figure I was referring to was comparing the ancient manuscripts with each other - not with any modern day copies which are quite plentiful and much larger than 5,000 or so.

And I'm sure if we asked around long enough we would find someone who didn't believe a single letter in our Bibles today were actually written by Paul. Most scholars hold to Pauline authorship for all the letters attributed to Paul with some question over the book of Hebrews. There is, however, excellent evidence that Hebrews was also written by Paul.

I'm glad I was able to participate in this for as little as I have been able to, because before today, I really was not aware that the large amount of manuscript evidence was even questioned by people in a debate like this. I suppose there are some who would suggest that the Jews were not really persecuted by the Nazis, so unless I could take you back there and show you - some people would not believe it. I admit I was not there in either case. But the evidence appears to be strong in both cases to their historical reliability. So I have been surprised so much of our time has been devoted to that over the last day here.

ENCOURAGING SIN IS A SIN ITSELF!!! WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!! Putting a disclaimer saying "None of this book is fact, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei are not evil demonic istituions, and I did not write this to spread my heretical and wrong beliefs" would remove the responsibility from HIM, but by not allowing it, he IS SUBJECT TO PAY FOR HIS SIN! It is still a sin for the person who is dumb enough to believe this, but ALSO FOR DAN BROWN!!!!!!!!!

I guess this would depend on how you define sin. I think censorship is a sin and the Catholic Church has encouraged quite a bit of it, so the Church is one huge-ass sinner in that regard.

I would also guess that you are something of an authoritarian and don't think people should be responsible for themselves, but need a agent to blame for their sinful acts (like thinking for themselves and holdling opinions that disagree with yours) - for instance, "the Devil".

Wow awkward situation an hour ago

Went to visit my GF's uncle, his roomate had what I thought was a friend over

The uncle started talking about how he wanted to see the da vinci code even though he is a catholic.

That roomates friend turned out to be a priest, damn we got a fucking hour lecture from the selfritious jackass

Weel, more reason not to go see it:

Review: Da Vinci Code
Ron Howard's adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, which debuts at Cannes Film Festival, fails to live up to the hype.
...
While the plot worked its magic on the pages, it does not transfer well to the screen - here, it is long and it is dull.
Scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman has produced a script that is clunky in parts and downright cringeworthy in others.
While all the cast deliver competent performances, Hanks is dry and uninspiring as Langdon - and the mullet hairstyle he sports throughout deserves a credit of its own.
Tautou brings a certain Gallic charm to her role as Neveu, but her stilted performance falls short of the 2001 hit Amelie.
It is left to British thespian Sir Ian McKellen to light up the screen as theological historian Leigh Teabing, and his ability to deliver a line with conviction and inject some hearty humour is welcome.
Paul Bettany is menacing as Silas the albino assassin monk whose self-flagellating and murder scenes are more than a little unnerving.
Together McKellen and Bettany prevent the film from being a £125m critical disaster.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4989710.stm