De vinci code ????

what is the de vinci code?
do you believe in it.

yea i do.......

Oooh no let's not start this debate again ...

It's a lot of nicely fitting coincidences wrapped around a plausible theory.

I know that it has legs, but there are so many ifs, buts, whens and a couple of outright lies too.

what most kids (and adults) fail to realise is that Dan Brown's book is a piece of fiction that has been written well. It's like watching Oliver Stone's JFK and believing everything it says.

The best stories, fables and myths are the ones that sound most convincing.

I didn't believe what it had to say, but I did enjoy the storyline.

I believe in the De vinvi code, and the nights templar and all those. I know some of it is probally not true but I think they are fascinating.....

This is the first and possibly last time I will agree with Kim :o)

...Have you guys even read the book?

If you have do you know anything about what it was talking about. The De Vinci Code is the biggest bunch of bull poo i ever read....I read the book and seen the movie. Are youth pastor encouraged us to. Anyways do some research and tell me if you agree with it.

glass, you're never going to agree with anything on this topic because they conflict directly with your system of beliefs.

In n attempt to get you to agrre with the plausible I'll ask you a series of questions:

1: Was Jesus jewish?

1 yes duh i got in a fight with a priest when i was four and got banned from the church (real chritian -like) and even i know that

the book/movie: i really don't care

That's a question for glass, but your sarcasm is noted.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish. What does that have to do with anything?

Yeah I know my names' not glass.. I just read that part lol

It's all about plausibility, not deniability.

Jesus was a rabbi, it is plausible that he would have a wife, because that's what rabbis do.

Denying things because of what abook says is, well, for want of a better word, nuts. Especially when we know that not all of the books were added to the bible.

I'm not saying Mary and Jesus hooked up or were married, I'm saying it's plausible that they did.

No one can argue with that.

honestly i cant say if they did or not because i wasnt there...so it could be true and it could be false...we never may know

Exactly. No one can.

superficial research, superficial plot, from a really cool, important? debate/concept.

Ian McKellen pwns in that movie though.

marissa you weren't there but i was... i'm the one that introduced them at the wild party at peters house

Brian, you're rediculous. Haha.

Yes Jesus was Jewish. I agree with you whole heartdly. Not only does the book conflict wiht me beliefs, but also it makes absurd accusation and most of it's historical facts are wrong aswell. LIke is said, if you do some research you will find many things wrong with the book.

For instance Constantine had nothing to do with the forming of the bible. Now the books that never made it into the bible...i believe your talking about the gnostic gospels. In the book Dan Brown said there were like 70-80 something like that. Well it's more so around 40-50. I don't know where he got that number. THe reason those gospels never made it in the bible is cause they weren't reliable. They were written 2 to 4 hundred years after the death of Christ. Where as the gospels we know of today were written no latter thatn 50 years after his death. By his disciples and people related to his disciples and people who were there who had some interaction with Jesus and his disciples. THe bible had been formed way before Constantines time.

Thats just a few of many mistakes in his book. I think it's real funny when people read something new and the automatically belive every word of it. You have no studies to back up what you believe only the knowledge of what you read. The claims Dan Brown makes in his book are outrages and absurd. Ask any scholar christian or not, and he will tell you the book is rubbish. The author himself says that he just wrote the book to get peope to ask questions and spark controvercies. He didn't intend for the book to be truthful.

So in short know what your discussing before you do.

Oh I'm aware and know fully of what I talk about, glass.

What about the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Judas? They had interaction with Jesus but was not added to the Bible.

The oldest known copies of the gospels are from over 400 years after Jesus had died so who is to say exactly when and where a gospel was truly written anyway? (There are pieces of the Gospel of John from 200AD approx, admittedly)

There are definitely some additions, twists and bending of history to make the story work, but that's what it is, a piece of fiction based on history.

But then you won't be open minded enough to accept even plausibility, will you?

And yes, I believe in God, I don't however believe in man (especially ones in power) quite so much.

the gospel of Judas was written atleast 130 yeasr aftr Jesus died. Judas couldn't have wrote it because he killed himself remember? Whoever wrote the book of Juds obviously had no relation to the discples or Jesus. He probably heard the story from someone else who witnessed it. Info gets lost or made up or wrong information is required....like i said unreliable. The Gospel of mary was about 120 years...

What should i ahve an open mind about Fantasies and fairytales....Lies and absurd conclusion. I am a man of facts. I will here what you have to say, but if have evidence to prove it's nonsence....then im going to flat out tell you. If i didn't have an open mind i wouldn't have botherd with reading the book or seeing the movie. Also i would not be studing other religions. I am very open minded.

Gospel of John are you kidding me...im not even going to explain it...because its flat out common sence.

Like i said if i have evidence to disprove what you call "plausibiblty" then your absolutely write i will not accept it. Who in there right mind would.

for the record we have some copies dated back to 120. And we know that the original copies were written between 40-100 years after Christ deaths...

A lot can happen in 40 years. Look at the USA today and the revisionist history that is taking place with the school system.

The copies that date back to 120AD are the from the book of John. If there are more please enlighten me with a reliable sourse and link.

If you are a man of fact you would admit that a text written 40-100 years after the fact would not be written directly by the people who experienced them and therefore they cannot be 100% accurate.

You cannot say the New Testament is 100% reliable. They are only accounts based upon points of view and there are contradictions, especially in Matthew, in fact Matthew's poor understanding of hebrew could possibly make him unreliable.

You have read a novel that is tenous to say the least, read Holy Blood Holy Grail (Richard Leigh and two others I cannot remember) that is non fiction and attempts to explain the plausibility better than Dan Brown ever could.

As for Judas:

In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.

In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.

According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So Matthew says Judas hangs himself then makes a miraculous appearance at the resurrection, Acts says he explodes (interesting), and Paul says he was there all along. Explain please.

In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
^
ewww i must have missed that part

Judas did hang himself as is said in Matthew 27:5. Now in Acts it says he burst open his insides fall out.

If someone hangs themselves or gets hanged...they die. What happens to a dead body...that's right it decomposes. That's what Acts 1:18 is refering to. His head probably was decapated by the rope and his body fell to the ground. When it hit i guess the result was he simply fell and became a pile of goo. When a hanging body decomposes...this will be the grizzly result.

In Mark 14:20 Jesus had not been betrayed yet. The books in the bible are not in order. This is simply another account of the story...someone elses veiwpoint if you will.

Chapter14 verses 9-10 talks about Judas telling the cheif preist that he will betray Jesus. How can Judas betray the guy he supposedly already betrayed. You see the betrayal hasn't happen yet...

9Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

10And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.

11And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

Now verses 17-20 are refering to the "last supper". Where Jesus announces that one of his twelve disciples will betray him. Jesus knew he was to be betrayed.

17And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

So you see Jesus hadn't been betrayed yet. So how could he be ressurected if he wasn'y dead. You have misread, which is ok cause i thought you had somthing on me lol, but thank God almighty for giving me the words. His word is perfect, absolutly perfect.

Crazy bible experts.

^^but thank God almighty for giving me the words. His word is perfect, absolutly perfect.

I thought it was the Gospel ACCORDING to Matthew (and all of the other disciples), not God.

And Matthew contradicts himself so much it makes you wonder how his gospel made it in.

And you conveniently ignored Paul, read Matthew 19:28. (Mark 14:20 just backs up that Judas is one of the twelve, and is not assering it after the last supper, Matthew says Judas hangs himself then later says he'll be judging on the throne of the twelve, when there would be only eleven if Judas did hang himself)

So I am saying it is plausible that Judas could have written his own gospel but it was removed because Matthew (the dramatist), Acts and Paul have differeing OPINION on what happened.

You can explain the spilling out in the way you do, but hanging your self and falling headlong are two different things when you remove your spin.

Thanks for the compliment Jordan. Im only 16 and i certainly don't consider myself an expert.

God spoke through the disciples. For it was God's word wich they wrote. They wrote it, but through God. I have failed to see where Mathew has any contradictions in it.

Judas didn't hang himself till Jesus was in the custody of pilate and the cheif preists. Mathew 19 Judas had not planned to betray Jesus yet. He was adressing his disciples as such, but even so it said Judas repented (matt 27:3). Jesus died for everyone's sins and iniquities why should Judas be any different. I would have to say that even Judas is in heaven. He reconized him as Lord before Jesus' betrayal. God is rich in mercy and forgivness, and salvation can't be lost.

Matthew says in 19:28 that he will be judging on the throne of the 12. Judas doesn't hang himself til chapter 27.

Judas did not write his own Gospel someone else wrote the Gospel of Judas...not to metion it was written prolly 200 years after christs death.

The gospel according to Judas is simply a heretical forgery like the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Philip.

plus bret how could judas write a gospel if he hanged himself before jesus died?

stop complaining that matthew contradicts himself and look to your own inperfections

hmm...brian i thought you were on his side :)

Pfft, I know I'm imperfect, I'm human.

Judas could never be in heaven because he commited suicide.

The New Testament's contradictions are legendary:

Conflicting Accounts

(1) According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.

(2) Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.

(3) In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament!

(4) It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it is very clear that Jesus has deliberately lied.

(5) In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it.

(6) Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear!

(7) John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Tanach.

(8) Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).

(9) Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

(10) Was John the Baptist Elijah, as Jesus claimed (Matthew 11:14)? If so, why did John himself deny it (John 1:21)? Would "Elijah" have been so unsure of Jesus' messianic identity (Luke 7:19-20)? And where in our Scriptures is it written that Elijah would be mistreated, as Jesus claimed (Mark 9:13)? Don't our Scriptures indicate, to the contrary, that Elijah will be successful in his mission of restoring harmony among the people (Malachai 4:5-6)? Moreover, Mark 9:11-13 and Mark 6:16 declares that: "Elijah has come" and "It is John who I beheaded." There is no indication from the Tanach that Elijah would be beheaded. I refer you, once again, to Malachai 4:5-6.

(11) Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

(12) Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14). Glaringly, this is the only way Jesus is ever pictured.

(13) "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.

(14) John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G-d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal damnation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.)

(15) According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by G-d: "And G-d spoke all these words."

(16) Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.

(17) Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

(18) Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

(19) Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 22 says: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." But, the Bible, in Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 23 through 25 teaches just the opposite; "You (Israelites) have not honored me (G-d) with your (blood) sacrifices. (Nevertheless) I will forgive your sins." And Hosea, chapter 14, verse 2 says G-d accepts "words" of thanks (prayer in place of sacrifices).

(20) Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom." Thus, we learn that Jesus is not G-d or an emissary of G-d.

(21) It is claimed in Ecclesians 1:4 that the earth does abideth forever. In II Peter 3:10, the opposite is stated.

(22) Further, why does John 8:14 say that: "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true if John 5:31 says "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is not true?"

(23) According to Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:2, Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six days. Or was it eight days in accordance to Luke 9:28?

(24) The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d."

But the big one is this: If Jesus was free of sin, why did he need to be baptized?

I assume you have 25 perfectly reasonable answers for me. Maybe God contradicts himself on purpose to test us all?

The reason for this post is to illustrate that that the Testaments are man made and not perfect. If all the gospels were by the word of God then they would all say the same thing. This is why the Gospels are according to who-ever wrote them, the disciples had their own perspectives and views on what happened and their own views on them, just like everyone here.

The ONLY time time we should the Bible as Gods word is when he is quoted (so to speak), an obvious example being the ten commandments.

...looks like i have some studing to do. Thank you for typing all this out for me. I have disproved your other so called "contradictions," so i will began to examie these you have alot posted so naturally it will take a little time. I ask that you have patience, and check back within the next few days...

thank you

EDIT:

Also i want to say this.

The bible has many seeming contardictiosn within its pages. For example, the four Gospels give 4 different accounts as to waht was written on the sign that hung on the cross. Mathew said, "This is Jesus King of the Jews" (27:37). However Mark contridicts that with "The King of the Jews" (15:26). Luke says something different: "This is the King of the Jews" (23:38), and John maintains that the sign said "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (19:19). Those whoa re looking for contradictions may therefore say, "See, the bible is full of mistakes!" and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy.

However, those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradictions if the sign simply said, "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." The godly base their confidence ont hw truths:

1)All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16)
2)An elementry rule of the scripture is that God has deliberatly included seeming contridictions in His Word to "snare" the proud. He has "hidden" things form the "wise and prudent" and "revealed them to babes" (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)

If an ungodly man refuses to humble and obey the gospel, and instead desires to build a case against the Bible, God gives him enugh material to build in his own gallows.

This incredible principle is clearly illustrated in the account of the captre of Zedekiah, king of Judah. Jeremiah the prophet told Zedekiah that God would judge him. He was informed that he would be "delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon" (Jeramiah 32:4). This is confirmed in Jeremiah 39:5-7 where we are told that he was captured and brought to King Nebuchadnezzer, then they "bound him with chains, to carry him to Babylon...yet he shall not see it, though he shall die there" (emphasis added). Here is material to build a case against the Bible! It is an obvious mistake. Three bible verses say that the king would go to Babylon , and yet the Bible in another place says that he would not see Babylon. How can someone be taken somewhere and not see it? It makes no sence at all. Unless Zedekiah was blinded. And that is precisely what happened. Zedekiah saw Nebuchadnezzer face to face, saw his sons killed before his eyes, then "the king of Babylon...puton Zedekiah's eyes" before taking him to Babylon (Jeremiah 39:6,7). This is the underlying principle behind the many so called "contradictions" of the Holy Scripture (such as how many horses David had, who was the first to arrive at the tomb after the resurrection of Jesus, etc.).
God has turned the tables on the proud, arrogant, self-righteous man. When he proudly stands outside the Kingdom of God, and seeks to justify his sinfulness through evidence he thinks discredits the Bible, he doesn't realize that God has simply lowered the door of life, so that only those who are prepared to exersice faith, and bow in humility may enter.

It is intresting to note that the seeming contradictions in the four Gospels attest to the fact that there was no corroboration between the writers.

With all that said your seeming "contradictions" of the New Testament all have answers. All have ways they can be conected and proven as i have shown before. You just have to take time to study, analyse, and reason out what your reading.

~glass~

wow time consuming....The answers to your contradictions have answers an logic. I will find them. Rest assurd.

This has nothing really to do with the post, but has no-one noticed that it's 'Da Vinci Code', not 'De'... just thought I'd point that out...
Imi

lol...yea i saw that...i thought it looked funny, but i wasn't sure so i didnt say anything.

HAve you read the book?

The name on Jesus' cross is comparable to many instances in today's society. Everyone has a different interpretation of what they see and (by way of example) the police have a hard time because of it. This just helps to prove that the Bible's Gospels were written by men. Inspired by God as you state (2 Timothy 3:16), but that does not make it infallible.

Luke 10 is a story pertaining to those who would see Jesus as the Son of God. The Wise and holy men could not see Jesus as the Son of God, the humble disciples could. This has nothing to do with human contradiction in the bible.

This is also shown in Luke 8:10
He answered, "Knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been granted to you; but to the rest, they are made known through parables so that 'they may look but not see, and hear but not understand.'

This is reference to enlightenment, realisation of Jesus for who he is, not his words, which I may add are Jesus' words, not Matthew's, Johns, Lukes or anyone elses.

" If an ungodly man refuses to humble and obey the gospel, and instead desires to build a case against the Bible, God gives him enugh material to build in his own gallows. "

You seem to miss the point of my argument. I do not doubt or make case againt the Bible, I merely point out that every word is not that of Gods because he did not write it, but rather, as you so helpfully pointed out in 2 Timothy 3:16, inspired it.

If it were the case that Gods word was unrefuted and was writted through Him it would never have been revised or re-interpreted by later factions of any denomination of Christianity or Catholicism.

Today the King James Bible is on the black list by the Catholic church (banned by Pope Pious VII) and therefore no Catholic may read it, but the KJB is the word of God just as the Pope is His voice on earth. This is another contradiction for you to ponder.

I do however, look forward to you explaining away three or four of my "contradictions"*.

*Parentheses added as quoted by your good self.

EDIT: I really am enjoying this discussion. I hope you are getting as much out of it as I am, glass.

Wow, this is a subject often debated in this forum. Hmm...seems everyone is big on religion and politics.

glass
i don't have sides i think you're both pathetic arguing about the bible. i'm neutral, i only hope to learn something from your arguement

bret
"judas could never be in heaven he commited suicide"

now i thought your god was all forgiving? shouldn't he have been absolved of his sins by your god?

and congrats to kim up at the top! great prediction

and do you 2 have this stuff memerised? or something, where do you pull all this scripture from?

Suicide is a mortal sin, unforgivable by God.

I'm not that religious to be honest. I believe in God and I like the morals that the bible gives us. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it is a good code to live by in the main.

I've never memorised the Bible, I just know a bit here and there through debate, discussion and going on a daily walk with an extremely wise old fella who knows just about everything in there.