Nikki Sinclair for leader - orientation discussions

Intbel · 03-06-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White knight

This book needs to be fully discredited for it's fictional and blasphemous content that insults all christians, had the author Dan Brown had wrote such a book about the muslim religion he be in hiding with a death warrant on hs head.

Hey, it's just a book, y'know?
Many folks derived pleasure from reading it - what is wrong with that?
Each to their own and all that.

'The Life of Brian' was also considered, by some, to be in the same light as that in which you place the 'Da Vinci Code', when it was just a hilarious romp purely for entertainment.

Don't take these things so seriously ... lighten up a little and relax.

P.S. Did you know that one of the Eurostar trains (yep, its whole length) has been painted black and is carrying advertising for the 'Da Vinci Code' film?

SponPlague · 04-06-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White knight

Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.

Try reading Enoch Powell, published before Da Vinci, sometime:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...412052-5549569

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazon review

Synopsis
Many biblical scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written after those of Mark and Luke. In this controversial book, an eminent politician who is also a distinguished classical scholar refutes this idea, using textual and literary criticism to assert that the Gospel of Matthew preceded the other gospels. Translating and analysing the original Greek source, Powell proceeds to concentrate upon the text of Matthew, as being the earliest form of the gospel that we possess, and to demonstrate how its peculiar characteristics can best be accounted for as being the result of insertions and manipulations, often theologically motivated. Powell argues that the Gospel of Matthew represents an attempted compromise between a pro-gentile book and a critical revision of that book produced for the judaising wing of the early Church, and that material intended to appeal to the followers of John the Baptist was also introduced. The Gospel of Matthew, though given the form of consecutive narrative, is, says Powell, essentially a theological debate carried on by means of allegory: was Jesus the Son of God or a Davidic King? This provocative and highly stimulating book offers a searching scrutiny of textual and literary questions and their historical implications, and is an original and valuable contribution to the study of the sources and chronology of the synoptic gospels.

Mikeuk · 04-06-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White knight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Amid this hostility, may I offer a friendly word to White Knight and advise against posting huge screeds of this type.
They are indigestible, remain unread, and totally disrupt the discussion.

Friendly word taken on board.
I shall not post such lengthy post in future.
This book needs to be fully discredited for it's fictional and blasphemous content that insults all christians, had the author Dan Brown had wrote such a book about the muslim religion he be in hiding with a death warrant on hs head.

Why not write to Dan telling him how much you enjoyed his book and recommending 'The Mohammed Code' as his next blockbuster?

He's proved you can make zilliions out of telling lies about one religion Now it's time to move to the next goldmine.

You never know; he might just take you up on it. :twisted:

White knight · 05-06-2006, 12:46 AM

[quote="SponPlague"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by White knight

Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.

Try reading Enoch Powell, published before Da Vinci, sometime:

This Quote of is one of the ideas it promotes
If you read on it states:
A work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a "fact" page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers-both Catholic and non-Catholic-are taking the book's ideas seriously.

Mikeuk · 05-06-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.

The truth is that Constantine called the Council to settle a dispute that had taken place when Arius, an Alexandrian priest, began to deny the divinity of Christ.

The bishops of the Council of Nicea reaffirmed the historic Christian position against the Arian heresy.

Christ's divinity is claimed repeatedly in countless passages in the New Testament which precedes the time of Constantine the Great by more than 200 years.

Intbel · 05-06-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The truth is that ...

Not quite.
It is what you believe to be the truth.
Many folks believe similarly, many folks believe otherwise.

Mikeuk · 05-06-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

The truth is that ...

Not quite.
It is what you believe to be the truth.
Many folks believe similarly, many folks believe otherwise.

Er...Excuse me.

Would you care to point out which of the statements I have made are not matters of historical record?

Intbel · 05-06-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Er...Excuse me.

Certainly, you are excused. Er .. what have you done?
>Intbel sniffs suspiciously<

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Would you care to point out which of the statements I have made are not matters of historical record?

Not really, it would be pointless.
We'd only end up debating which version of history is true and which is false and that could go on forever with much time and effort spent on going back over old research notes and mebbe doing new research.

I have been there ... and there will always be another person who wants to do it all over again.

Two people can do the same research and write papers containing different conclusions as to what is true.

Also, I no longer enter into debates at any length about such matters for I find that generally folks do not debate - they just argue to prove they are right.

Waste of time, ennit?

Mikeuk · 05-06-2006, 01:58 PM

It's not a waste of time at all. If you have evidence to support Brown's statement, I'll be pleased to read it.

Were you never taught the Nicean Creed?

I've read the Da Vinci Code and I think it's rubbish. However, you may be surprised to learn that when I read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail years ago, as an agnostic, I was initially impresssed with the book.

In due course I learned that most of it was nonsense. The Da Vinci Code is a blatant rip-off of the earlier book.

If the authors had admitted their work was fiction perhaps they would have won their recent legal action.

White knight · 05-06-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Not really, it would be pointless.
We'd only end up debating which version of history is true and which is false and that could go on forever with much time and effort spent on going back over old research notes and mebbe doing new research.

I have been there ... and there will always be another person who wants to do it all over again.

Two people can do the same research and write papers containing different conclusions as to what is true.

Also, I no longer enter into debates at any length about such matters for I find that generally folks do not debate - they just argue to prove they are right.

Waste of time, ennit?

Never is it a wast of time to defend the truth, especially when the truth that is in danger is compromising historical truth by evil lies and deception. For example if people like Stormfront pump out propaganda that the Jewish Holocaust didn't really happen, only 60 years after the historical massacre, it would be a crime and outrage not to defend this historical fact with legal action, that it did happen and should never be forgotten!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=128121[/quote]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-06-2006, 01:58 PM	#219 (permalink)
Mikeuk Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,761 Party: Conservatives	It's not a waste of time at all. If you have evidence to support Brown's statement, I'll be pleased to read it. Were you never taught the Nicean Creed? I've read the Da Vinci Code and I think it's rubbish. However, you may be surprised to learn that when I read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail years ago, as an agnostic, I was initially impresssed with the book. In due course I learned that most of it was nonsense. The Da Vinci Code is a blatant rip-off of the earlier book. If the authors had admitted their work was fiction perhaps they would have won their recent legal action.