So I'm one of the few that have not read this book. I was about to buy it the other day when the group I was with declared Dan Brown as one of the worst writers they had ever come across.

I was surprised, especially after all of the hype about the book. There's apparently a lot to learn from the book also, though sometimes exhausting, from what I've heard.

So what do you think, is it worth my money? What's so awful about Brown's writing, anyway?

So what do you think, is it worth my money? What's so awful about Brown's writing, anyway?

the fact that he mocks religion and Christianity values.

Brown is not on par with the writers who we consider to be prolific: Emerson, Theoreau, Kafka, Golding, Rand, Dumas, etc.

Dan Brown incited controversy, which helped it along, but the book is decent, not as a novel, but as art history (and conspiracy at that).

So what do you think, is it worth my money?

There is such a thing as a library, you know. But the paperback is probably less than $10...

What's so awful about Brown's writing, anyway?

Nothing. The people who was against it probably objected because of the subject, not because of the writing style...

It actually has lots of history in it, just most people don't realize/recognize it.

Just watched the movie a few days ago (I have read the book first) and it was pretty well done and entertaining...

I don't like the book, he's profiteering from a very cultural doctrine, he could have written something else. The book was probably one of those governmental experiments. But I don't blame Dan Brown, OJ simpson came out with the book "if I did it here's how it happened", thats like the Germans coming out with a book at the jew awareness convention titled "if we did it here's how it happened".

I enjoyed it, but its full of glaring mistakes about history that could have been resolved with a hours reading of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hes no good with the classic literary flourishes, using very simple spare sentences, but the chapters are very carefully crafted...as if he were designing a puzzle box.

Hes come a long way from his earlier novel Digital Fortress, which was almost painful to read.

I enjoyed it, but its full of glaring mistakes about history

Since it is full of them, you won't have any problem quoting at least 3 of them???

To the OP: You can also read his other book Angels and Demons, quite a bit similar storyline....

I don't like the book, he's profiteering from a very cultural doctrine, he could have written something else.

This is a very ignorant approach. Let's suppose I write a pro-Christian novel and it becomes a huge success, would you hold it against me because I profited from a very cultural doctrine.

Actually, this whole very cultural doctrine doesn't make sense, which doctrine did you mean by it?

damn good , it humanized their god and gave women a position of leadership or value. Christians are angry, it goes against their intrepid stone age values.

yea, i actually liked the book....but Angels and Demons is better!

its the sort of story that prob wud have been even better with a better author as sum of his writing is great....but the story is gud enuf to make up for its writing faults...in my opinion anyway!

mel xxx

Thank you for the help.

What are these glaring historical mistakes of the book? I thought Brown had done his research.

i dont get why people make such a big thing out of any 'mistakes' he made...because surely its a work of fiction? therefore its allowed to be FICTIONAL!! and anyways...that sorta story kinda takes so much stuff into account and is quite complicated so it must have been kinda hard to make everything add up or be completely accurate.

mel xxx

This is a very ignorant approach. Let's suppose I write a pro-Christian novel and it becomes a huge success, would you hold it against me because I profited from a very cultural doctrine.

Actually, this whole very cultural doctrine doesn't make sense, which doctrine did you mean by it?
It doesn't make any fucking sense for him to come out with such a book. Okay, what purpose has the book served? Any fuckin body can write about things like that. I can come out with a book on mohammed and Islam, its going to be a best seller automaticaly, there is no way to prove or disprove me, but its not original and serves no real spiritual-cultural purpose.

Read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln.
It's basically the same, just not dressed up as a murder/mystery.
And both are based on the same hoax from the 1950s concerning the supposed existence of the Priory of Sion - which "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" used as its foundation, and thus so did "The DaVinci Code".

DaVinci code also incorporates a lot of existing ideas concerning symbology, especially that used by DaVinci himself (hence the title of the book), but none of which can ever be proven true, only guessed at (until such time as a notebook by DaVinci is found that details his thinking behind his paintings).

It's an intresting book, but not exactly great writing. And it's a useful book in terms of learning how to turn existing non-fiction ideas into a work of fiction.

....another annoying thing is that there seems to be loads of books which seem soooooooo similar to the DaVinci Code from the blurb on the back....i dunno whether sum were written before or after the success of the DaVinci code, but surely pretty much everyone is fed up of hearing the story by now....why cant authors think of summin a little more original?

imagination people!!!!

mel xxx

i think it is a reasonable read if you want just a nice thriller to sit down and read on a weekend, it didnt do too much for me, i thought that angels and demons was much better written than TDC.

....another annoying thing is that there seems to be loads of books which seem soooooooo similar to the DaVinci Code

and you are blaming the author of the original??? oh boy....:bugeye:

So we have an angry Christian here, well bad for you.. :rolleyes:


It doesn't make any fucking sense for him to come out with such a book.

Why not? If nothing else, for money...

Okay, what purpose has the book served?

1. Made its author rich and famous.
2. Entertained millions of people.
3. Educated millions of ignoramuses like you.
4. Unveiled and questioned stupid dogmas...


I can come out with a book on mohammed and Islam, its going to be a best seller automaticaly,

If that is so, I am willing to be your agent. Of course the Muslims will issue a dead sentence on you, but I am willing to take the risk with your life...

Let's suppose I write a pro-Christian novel and it becomes a huge success, would you hold it against me because I profited from a very cultural doctrine.

The Catholic Church beat you to it !
http://www.perkydesigns.com/Holy%20Bible.jpg

Where do you think all that money in the Vatican Bank came form ?

So we have an angry Christian here, well bad for you.. :rolleyes:

Why not? If nothing else, for money...

1. Made its author rich and famous.
2. Entertained millions of people.
3. Educated millions of ignoramuses like you.
4. Unveiled and questioned stupid dogmas...
If that is so, I am willing to be your agent. Of course the Muslims will issue a

dead sentence on you, but I am willing to take the risk with your life...

Spirituality is not a way to get educated, if you want to get educated, go to school. Money is a very stupid motive to base a book on something so crucial, people make money and loose money everyday, however certain things stay the same. The book was entertaining but at the very least it was ungentlemanly of him. Of cause muslims will issue a death warrant on you, they don't joke around with certain things, unlike the western counterparts, thats why I like them. Many people died spreading religion, many men killed in the name of one religion or the other, many discoveries came in the face of religion; all of it sponsored by the government, only for them to permit some semen wipe to come out and tell us his own part of the wonderful story-all in vein. I know Mr Brown didn't exactly attack religion, but he embelished a story that has been told for years, thats not story telling, thats piracy.

It might be crucial for you, the majority of humans are NOT Christians.

It is pretty said that the only true religion can't stand a little criticism or education on its on history. A weak god of yours is, me thinks...

The saddest part is that the Jesus-gollowers can't practice a little forgiveness.

And last time I checked, the copyright of the Bible has ran out about 1800 years ago... :)

It's rubbish. About the twentieth time 'Langdon smiled' or 'Sophie's jaw dropped', which was I think about page four, I closed the book and put it in its proper place.

If you must read a Brown novel, I recommend Angels and Demons, though it's about 50 per cent longer than it should be.

Browns another Stephen King, writes for TV.

In general, anything written after 1920 is crap unless proven otherwise.

In general, anything written after 1920 is crap unless proven otherwise.

I have to agree, anything written at anytime is crap, unless proven otherwise... :)

Here is another fine example of: If you can't attack the message, attack the style:

It's rubbish. About the twentieth time 'Langdon smiled'
If you must read a Brown novel, I recommend Angels and Demons, though it's about 50 per cent longer than it should be.

Hehe, so obvious. Since you didn't like the "message" what the book had, you are attacking it on literally ground. Then to show that you are not against the writer, you praise his other work.

I am willing to bet, there is no big difference literally speaking between the two book's styles.

Wait a minute! I actually read both, so I can rightfully say that! :D

P.S.: Most people must prefer rubbish, because they bought the book by the millions...

Its ironic, the book was subtitled the con of man, yet the writer is conning everybody into selling millions of units. Thats what I call...EDUCATION!

It was a fun read. I don't think a book has to be anything more than that. The mystery was well crafted, the history was well exploited, the pacing was good. "Literature" buffs hate genre novels because they can't stand the idea of the story being more important than the characters or the drama. That's why they hate most science fiction.

I know a number of Christians who read the book and were not offended by the alleged insult to their faith.

My wife has a master's degree in English literature and she eats up Shakespeare, Faulkner and García Márquez, and she liked it.

Surely somebody you know has a copy they will lend you. If you're ever in D.C. you can borrow mine. I've kept up with the Harry Potter books that way.

It was a stupid book. Now, J.K Rowlings, thats a great original author. I don't think it was also "daring", writing about mohamed's business...thats fucking daring. In fact I will personally buy that book because I know the author won't live too long to enjoy it.

yet the writer is conning everybody into selling millions of units. Thats what I call...EDUCATION!

Chatha sourgrapes my dear, give it up! Even the movie was a HUGE success, making 760 million dollars worldwide. Both the book and the film are entertaining, the proof is obvious. I don't think people are reading/watching the story just out of spite for the Catholic church.... :)

Speaking of conbooks, your Bible would be the #1 on that list... :eek:

P.S.: We are still waiting for Carcano's list of historical inaccuracies in the book....

I read the book, it was entertaining, I keep forgeting its fictional at times

Chatha sourgrapes my dear, give it up! Even the movie was a HUGE success, making 760 million dollars worldwide. Both the book and the film are entertaining, the proof is obvious. I don't think people are reading/watching the story just out of spite for the Catholic church.... :)

Speaking of conbooks, your Bible would be the #1 on that list... :eek:

P.S.: We are still waiting for Carcano's list of historical inaccuracies in the book....
The bible is the biggest fraud? If I ask you now how you know that for sure, you will give me another Marsupio and Kangaroo story. If the bible was a fraud men will not massacre other men, actions speak louder than words. I hate Dan Brown. period.

P.S.: We are still waiting for Carcano's list of historical inaccuracies in the book....
Theres an entire book written about it:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16783_1.html

The bible is the biggest fraud? If I ask you now how you know that for sure, you will give me another Marsupio and Kangaroo story. If the bible was a fraud men will not massacre other men, actions speak louder than words. I hate Dan Brown. period.

Yes, humans will massacre over a lie. Humans are that stupid. At least with animals they know what they are going after and what their sacrifice is for, a simple meal. With humans, we kill for what we 'think' it might be. Ever heard of the salem witch trials? The strategy is Steal first and examine the contents later. LOL

The bible is the biggest fraud?

Yup. Grand Canyon.

If I ask you now how you know that for sure,

Grand Canyon.

If the bible was a fraud men will not massacre other men,

Grand Canyon... I am sorry Bryce Canyon, with the Mormons. How come? Well, I assume you don't believe in the Book of Mormon (thus fraud for you), nevertheless plenty of people were massacred because of it...

I hate Dan Brown. period.

We got the drift. A true Christian, you are.... :bugeye:

Theres an entire book written about it:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16783_1.html

Well, why don't you just shot us the 3 biggest lies? Now, I want lies that are presented in the book as history and not lies that are theories and part of the fiction...

So?

P.S.: If character X says this and this, and that happen to be incorrect, that is not a lie by the author, but that particular character is simply wrong. :)

I don't like the book, he's profiteering from a very cultural doctrine, he could have written something else. The book was probably one of those governmental experiments. But I don't blame Dan Brown, OJ simpson came out with the book "if I did it here's how it happened", thats like the Germans coming out with a book at the jew awareness convention titled "if we did it here's how it happened".

OJ Simpson is scum. It's obvious that he did it. He is evil, and thats that.

I don't think it's compareable to Germans and Jews because those are groups, neither group is completely evil, but OJ as an individual is a monster, a wild animal, and he did it. Hopefully, he will be locked in jail someday, and I hope the judge, jury and police who arrest him are all black.

so, in a nutshell:

Brown's use of rhetoric and 'literary flourishes' is lacking. However, his plot line, organization, and research seem to keep the story well-paced and interesting enough to hold attention. The information on symbology, religion, etc., sometimes crammed into the book, should be taken with a grain of salt; he exploits documents and exaggerates history. There are possibilities to his underlying theories, though, so the knowledge of art history/symbology and the challenge to Christianity/the Catholic Church makes it a worthwile read.

sound right?

Yup. Grand Canyon.
Grand Canyon.
Grand Canyon... I am sorry Bryce Canyon, with the Mormons. How come? Well, I assume you don't believe in the Book of Mormon (thus fraud for you), nevertheless plenty of people were massacred because of it...
We got the drift. A true Christian, you are.... :bugeye:

Its not exactly about me, its about the entire Christian movement from the Roman empire to present day, all the struggles and hopes of other people. But Dan Brown wrote a fiction, cleverly disguising it under a media driven barrage for entertainment purposes. None of his books ever sold that much, and I never even heard of him until Da Vinci Code came out. In a way he is a genuise. If a black man or a jew wrote that book, I guarantee you he will not be alive today. I don't know who's fooling whom anymore.

Its not exactly about me, its about the entire Christian movement from the Roman empire to present day, all the struggles and hopes of other people. But Dan Brown wrote a fiction, cleverly disguising it under a media driven barrage for entertainment purposes. None of his books ever sold that much, and I never even heard of him until Da Vinci Code came out. In a way he is a genuise. If a black man or a jew wrote that book, I guarantee you he will not be alive today. I don't know who's fooling whom anymore.

What does race have to do with Religion? Jesus Christ was a Jew.

I think Chatha has a racial agenda.

What does race have to do with Religion? Jesus Christ was a Jew.

I think Chatha has a racial agenda.Never even crossed my mind, but certain people will find it harder to read if it were written by a black man, thats for sure. The same way Islam won't entertain any such deformation by anybody.

To make this thread more scientific and educative let's get down to the nitty-gritty, the historical mistakes of Brown. Out of curiosity I took a look at the quoted website, so I go by the mistakes listed there. For references I am mostly using Wikipedia.
As a first quick read of the list of the mistakes, there seems to be a few. The question is just how big they are. Also, Brown might didn't get it right, but he sure did have a point.So let's go, I will post each mistakes individually, so we can treat them separatelly:

"Erhrman:Some of the big ones: It's not true that before Constantine, Christians understood Jesus to be human but not divine. That's absolutely false."

My common sense take on this, that it is simply impossible to tell, what individual Christians thought in the first 3 centuries. So Brown could be just as right as Ehrman. There obviously was the problem of Jesus divinity or humanhood, thus the Council of Nicaea:

"The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father. "

As we look at evidences, we have to keep in mind, that the Catholic church had a 1600 years of state religionhood to supress any sources that was contrary to accepted church doctrine.So again, I don't think this one is a mistake on Brown's behalf and even if it is sure it is not a big mistake.

Verdict: impossible to tell....

Here is the 2nd mistake of Brown quoted from Ehrman:

"Second, it's not true that Constantine decided which books to include in the New Testament; he had nothing to do with it. And the Council of Nicea didn't have anything to do with which books to include in the New Testament."

Ehrman is correct. But let's see what is the real history so how far Brown got from the truth?:

"The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt,"

Since the first Council of Nicaea was in 325, we have an incredibly huge mistake of 42 years!! Damn Brown, the liar!! But what was Brown's point really?:

"Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council of Trent of 1546..."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:"and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent].

So Brown's point is in the book, what should sink in:

1. The canonization process of the New testament was made by men and those books weren't written by God.
2. It wasn't done right after the events but at least 300 years later or as late as 1500 years later.

So yes, Brown's character is wrong by saying that the canonization occured at the council of Nicaea, but he is right that it was MUCH later then the events and it was done by a body of men and not god....

Verdict: Brown historically incorrect, but has a huge point...

Ehrman:"There are several gigantic points that have to do with Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. Maybe the first thing to say is that it's absolutely false that as [the character] Robert Langdon says, it would have been highly unusual for Jesus not to be married because Jewish men were always married. That's false."

This is simply a missrepresentation on Ehrman's behalf. I bet a really big amount (you can look it up) that the character doesn't say jewish men of Jesus' age were ALWAYS married. I bet he says, they were MOST OF THE TIME married. And that happens to be true...

Otherwise it is simply impossible to tell today if Jesus as a man was married or not...

Verdict: missrepresentation of the book...

Ehrman 4th:"He mentions Nag Hammadi as well, but he indicates the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some of the earliest records of Jesus, and that's false. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't say anything about Jesus."

Ehrman is correct. Brown simply mixed up the 2 documents. The difference in years of discovery is 2 years.(huge, as we could say) My guess is that if it was intentional on Brown's behalf, he went with the better known document.

Brown's point here was, that there were documents that actually survived 1600 years, but they were discovered from hidden places. Sure the church would have burnt these documents, my guess....
What is the Nag Hammadi library?:

"The Nag Hammadi library (popularly known as The Gnostic Gospels) is a collection of early Christian Gnostic texts discovered near the town of Nag Hammadi in 1945. ....Arguably the most well-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. "

Verdict: Brown was incorrect but probably went with a better known document, thus the reference to it would ring a bell...

I bet he says, they were MOST OF THE TIME married. And that happens to be true...

Until you get to certain groups such as the Essenes who seem to have similar doomsday leanings as the Jesus cult would appear to have. The impending coming of the Kingdom of God and all that.

Jesus being unmarried would fit right in with this group.

Verdict: Brown was incorrect but probably went with a better known document, thus the reference to it would ring a bell...

Still historically inaccurate though.


I dislike the Da Vinci code for the simple fact that so many uneducated people read it and go around thinking they've been educated, when they haven't.
It's a work of fiction, nothing more.

I don't address the Mary Magdalene problem, since it is the fictional part of the book and shouldn't be taken as history.

Ehrman:"One howler occurs when Teabing is trying to convince Sophie Neveu that Jesus' spouse was Mary Magdalene, and proof for this is one place in the Gospel of Philip where Mary is described as his companion. And Teabing points out that the Aramaic word for "companion" actually means spouse. Now, the problem with this is that the Gospel of Philip wasn't written in Aramaic."

Ehrman is probably correct. I think this was just made up by Brown.

Verdict: Brown made it up, literary device...

Athena,

Read it and judge for yourself. The book didn't make my top 100, but I did manage to finish it :). Also, you might want to look at "Satan's song" by K.Hammer-Kaatee, which covers similar grounds (unfortunately it has only been released in Dutch so far).

Now here is refutal that shouldn't be listed:

Ehrman:"like many manuscripts from antiquity that have been discovered, it has holes in places where it got worn out. So we're missing some of the words. There's a passage Brown quotes which says, "Jesus loved Mary and he frequently kissed her on the-
Lips.
No, there's a hole in the manuscript! People often assume the word is "mouth" but we don't know what the word was."

So?? If we don't know what the word was Brown's guess is just as good as yours or mine... :)
Again, literary device...

Verdict: impossible to tell.....

The last one from Ehrman:
"There are several fallacies-but in a nutshell, the fallacy is thinking that these gospels (gnostics) give a more historically accurate view of Jesus than the New Testament gospels. I'm saying this not out of any religious conviction, but strictly on historical grounds-that statement is not true."

It is VERY simple: impossible to tell. The gnostic gospels can be just as much history as the new testament gospels are poetry, analogy,morals,teachings, but not necesserily history.

So those huge big mistakes that were said to be found in Brown's books are nonexistent. Sure, there are a few inaccuracies, none of them incredibly big and hey you have the Bible as the granddaddy of inaccuracies.

I hope you all enjoyed the show and learnt that it is not a problem to acknowledge when your guy is wrong. It is called objectivity... :)

The Oxford University Press posted Ehrman's list of ten historical errors - briefly summarized from his book 'Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code':

1. Jesus’ life was decidedly not “recorded by thousands of followers across the land.” He didn’t even have thousands of followers, let alone literate ones.

2. It’s not true that eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament." This makes it sound like there was a contest, entered by mail. . .

3. It’s absolutely not true that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as “a mortal prophet.” The vast majority of Christians by the early fourth century acknowledged him as divine. (Some thought he was so divine he wasn’t even human!)

4. Constantine did not commission a “new Bible” that omitted references to Jesus’ human traits. For one thing, he didn’t commission a new Bible at all. For another thing, the books that did get included are chock-full of references to his human traits (he gets hungry, tired, angry; he gets upset; he bleeds, he dies...).

5. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not “found in the 1950s.” It was 1947. And the Nag Hammadi documents do not tell the Grail story at all, nor do they emphasize Jesus’ human traits. Quite the contrary.

6. “Jewish decorum” in no way forbade “a Jewish man to be unmarried.” In fact, most of the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls were male unmarried celibates.

7. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not among “the earliest Christian records.” They are Jewish, with nothing Christian in them.

8. We have no idea about the lineage of Mary Magdalene; nothing connects her with the “house of Benjamin.” And even if she were, this wouldn’t make her a descendent of David.

9. Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion? That’s a good one.

10. The Q document is not a surviving source being hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It’s a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke, principally a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Roman Catholic scholars think the same of it as non-Catholics; there’s nothing secretive about it.

Never even crossed my mind, but certain people will find it harder to read if it were written by a black man, thats for sure. The same way Islam won't entertain any such deformation by anybody.

Is it a scientific fact that Jesus was Aryan?

It seems likely, Jesus was a Jew, which means it has nothing to do with black or white, neither of those categories existed during the time of Jesus.

The last one from Ehrman:
"There are several fallacies-but in a nutshell, the fallacy is thinking that these gospels (gnostics) give a more historically accurate view of Jesus than the New Testament gospels. I'm saying this not out of any religious conviction, but strictly on historical grounds-that statement is not true."

It is VERY simple: impossible to tell. The gnostic gospels can be just as much history as the new testament gospels are poetry, analogy,morals,teachings, but not necesserily history.

So those huge big mistakes that were said to be found in Brown's books are nonexistent. Sure, there are a few inaccuracies, none of them incredibly big and hey you have the Bible as the granddaddy of inaccuracies.

I hope you all enjoyed the show and learnt that it is not a problem to acknowledge when your guy is wrong. It is called objectivity... :)

Either all the bibles are equally true or all the bibles are equally false. I think the gnostic bibles are as true or as false as the King James bible.

Until you get to certain groups such as the Essenes who seem to have similar doomsday leanings as the Jesus cult would appear to have. The impending coming of the Kingdom of God and all that.

Jesus being unmarried would fit right in with this group.



Still historically inaccurate though.


I dislike the Da Vinci code for the simple fact that so many uneducated people read it and go around thinking they've been educated, when they haven't.
It's a work of fiction, nothing more.

How can you prove that the King James bible is not also a work of fiction?

Moreover, Jews aren't white. No white person thinks Jesus was white, if they know what the word "Jew" means.

Either all the bibles are equally true or all the bibles are equally false.Thats like saying ALL reporting of an alleged event is either ALL true or ALL false.

Its more like a toss salad of both fact and fiction in this case.

Thats like saying ALL reporting of an alleged event is either ALL true or ALL false.

Its more like a toss salad of both fact and fiction in this case.

yeah just like the Davinci Code

How can you prove that the King James bible is not also a work of fiction?

Why would I try to do that?
It is a work of fiction.

The Oxford University Press posted Ehrman's list of ten historical errors

Sorry, pal, too late. YOU gave me a link, I dealt with it. Now you are trying to come up with another list? Well, just for fun, I can kick it into the litter bin. Half of them is impossible to tell, like the pregnancy of MM.

What does that show? That Ehrman can't construct a logical argument even if his life would depend on it... :eek:

P.S.: By the way those 10 points are pretty much the same that I used and refuted. This idiot Ehrman even trying to refute the fictional part of the Da Vinci Code... :)

Well, from what I'm gathering here, the story behind Jesus is probably more fascinating than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know who's the culprit; the church, the publisher, or the writer. In a way that sounds like a good title for a book "the church, the publisher, and the writer", would probably do better than Dan Browm's calamity, who's going to one day feel posiedon's trident.:D

YOU gave me a link, I dealt with it.
For you, 'dealing' with it means chopping it up with an axe, and then reading it later.:rolleyes:

I chopped it up so if someone wants to debate the particular points, it would be easier. Of course I forgot the christians are bad at debates, and there was nothing left to debate anyway... I happen to be objective...

Of course I forgot the christians are bad at debates...

I have to agree. Christians are the worst people for debating Christianity, or the history of Christianity, because they decide what to believe based on their personal needs or desires.

But so is someone who agrees with Ehrman on a third of his points, disagrees on another third, ignores the rest...and then declares that hes dead wrong.:rolleyes: