The Da Vinci Code

[NewAgeJesus]

>>Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/)<<

It looks pretty good, I think.

[PATMAN]

Bettany looks perfect as Silas

[Xcalibur]

I can't wait for this movie.
The trailer looks pretty good.

[Lexgirl33]

Saw the trailer..it definaly looks good! Tom Hanks im sure will do a wonderful job

[NewAgeJesus]

I was surprised to see Paul Bettany as Silas, but he does look the part.

Also happy with the way Hanks looks.

[PATMAN]

i kinda thought Bill Paxton would be better

[Xcalibur]

The da vinci code was such a great book.
I mean I know it offended lots of people but it was still a fab book....I probably loved it so much coz I adore iconalogy
I can't wait for the movie.

[k18]

I was going to read it, but I'm just too lazy. I think I'll wait for the movie to come out and then say "Yeah, I read the book"! lol

[TMLS]

Never read it, want to see the film first and actually see a film based on a book without being able to nit pick it. Enhanced my viewing of Narnia that trick so happy to do it again.

[kal-odell]

Ron Howard is a great director, I feel very confident that between him and Tom Hanks that this movie will be awesome. Now whether it stays true and follows the book step for step, I'm not so confident in. Can anyone say "Misery".

It will probably rock the summer ticket sales. Only to be out sold bye supes and x3. And of course there will be great contraversy in the holy christian churches when it is released which will only make tickets sales thrive even more.

It's an interesting story, and a great thriller mystery. Don't go in thinking it will change the way you veiw religion, because that will just take away from the story itself.

[Jellie]

Originally posted by TMLS
Never read it, want to see the film first and actually see a film based on a book without being able to nit pick it. Enhanced my viewing of Narnia that trick so happy to do it again.

Same here

[Xcalibur]

SO i Guess if the movie was never to be made you all would never read one of the greatest bestsellers of all time..
hmm.
So much for the value of reading books.

[kal-odell]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
SO i Guess if the movie was never to be made you all would never read one of the greatest bestsellers of all time..
hmm.
So much for the value of reading books. I wouldn't say that at all. I have read many books including two other really good books from Dan Brown, "Digital Fortress" and "Angels and Demons", and they aren't movies... yet

:rolleyes:

[Elite]

ive not read it myself, but is there good evidence to support whatever this book says?

[CarnageV]

I have heard so many people read this book and I dont even know what it is about. Can someone tell me?

[kal-odell]

Originally posted by CarnageV
I have heard so many people read this book and I dont even know what it is about. Can someone tell me? Well it's kinda hard to tell with out ruining most of the mystery. And I sure as heck, don't want to be the one who spoiled it for anybody...

But what I can tell you is that it is very detailed, very researched, and tends to make you re-think alot of the stories and truths of the bible. Oh and either way you'll never think of the Knights of the Round Table in the same way again... :)

[Elite]

im never gonna read it, can someone summarise the main stuff? if its a spoiler, maybe pm instead.

[Zungas]

Originally posted by Elite
ive not read it myself, but is there good evidence to support whatever this book says?

It's fiction.

[ProudPenny]

I thought the book read like bad fanfic, but it is certainly disingenuous to claim that it's meant as pure straightforward fiction - Dan Brown himself has intimated that it's "speculative" fiction, i.e., fiction speculating on how real life events could've occurred.

Not seeing the movie, thought the book sucked too much to finish.

[yeshuamyking7]

This book's claims of being somehow linked to anything other than Dan Brown's imagination, and the ramblings of people like Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, are wholly without merit. There is no secret conspiracy to cover up Jesus's "marriage" to Mary Magdalene or any children He fathered because neither suppositions are historically accurate. There is no need to cover up something that never happened.

All the speculation about Mary as a possible wife of Jesus comes from many, many centuries after his death, and from very dubious sources. Had there been a wife, there would have been ample opportunity for the disciples to make this known in their writings.

This book is only "very researched" if by "very researched" you mean "completely fabricated." Dan Brown's outrageous claims notwithstanding, there is no legitimate reason to assume that anything like these events ever occurred.

I would recommend the following book for those who want the real truth behind Brown's Claims:

Breaking the Da Vinci Code - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785260463/002-2452962-0821660?v=glance&n=283155

[superman79]

I agree with yeshuamyking7

[ProudPenny]

This book is only "very researched" if by "very researched" you mean "completely fabricated." ROFL I totally agree with that.

And second the book recommendation for anyone who is interested further researching in any claims made in the book.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by Zungas
It's fiction.

True but it's based on plausable theories. It wouldn't have cause such commotion if it didn't stir a nerve that wasn't supposed to be stired

[ProudPenny]

The theories are not in the slightest bit plausible.

Outrageous lies cause commotions too =)

[UDStyle]

I disagree.

Oooh but I have an even more fun question.. who here is tied to religion? *evil smile*

[yeshuamyking7]

Proud Penny - good point about outrageous lies. Something doesn't have to be true in order to cause controversy.

There is nothing plausible about the theories presented in Brown's book, and you have presented nothing here to prove otherwise, UDStyle. All you have stated are your own opinions. I have stated the fact that no early account of Yeshua (Jesus) ever mentions a wife.

As the author I mentioned, Darrel Bock, makes clear in his book on this subject, these questions post-date Yeshua by many centuries and only recently gained popularity in certain circles.

Furthermore, Brown's claim that due to Jewish culture, Yeshua would have been ostracized had He not taken a wife is completely baseless. Many pious Jews did not take wives but rather chose to serve Yahweh exclusively. This is not in any way out of place for the time.

I could go on, but all this and much more can be found in Bock's book.

As for your other comment, UDStyle, I really don't see how it's necessary to impugn the character of those of us here who believe in the Bible. Your statement makes it sound like because we're "tied to religion" (a very demeaning and confrontational way of describing a religious person) that we can't be trusted.

Everyone is "tied" to a particular set of beliefs that colors his or her perceptions and opinions. That being said, facts are facts. You can choose to believe what you will, but there are no facts to support Brown's claims, and plenty of facts in opposition to them.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

There is nothing plausible about the theories presented in Brown's book, and you have presented nothing here to prove otherwise, UDStyle. All you have stated are your own opinions. I have stated the fact that no early account of Yeshua (Jesus) ever mentions a wife.Besides the fact that each organizations mentioned (I.E. Priory of Sion) do exist. That certain historical figures were members of these organizations. The fact that Da Vinci was heavily into religion and coding. Did Brown prove anything about a grail cover up beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. I'm not even saying it is true. All I'm saying is it is not impossible for it to be true and for it to be covered up. It is plausible that Da Vinci knew something most people wouldn’t have; given his connections. The one thing that has been said about him throughout the centuries is that his work had deeper and/or hidden meanings. The Church has been milled in controversy over religious fact and inconsistencies since it's inception. None of this proves that what was said is true, but that isn't the point. Point is it is not a far fetched idea and there are certain things that point to it being true (For a list of everything that does, see the Da Vinci code program that ran on Nation Geographic channel not too long ago. Should be on DVD by now). I actually don't have to prove anything, I don't have to prove that any of the cover-ups took place, nor do I have to prove that Da Vinci had a knack for leaving hidden messages period. No one here however can prove that is not plausible and that the events surrounding the book about Da Vinci, Church Cover-ups, etc. are an impossibility.

In other words I don't need to prove it for to be plausable. The statments above give enough leeway for what Brown said to possibly be true. However to firmly state that it is not plausable, you would have to prove that. So far that hasn't happend neither here nor anywhere else. One thing that you said accurately is that we are only left to opinions. In my opinion what was said is not impossible.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
As for your other comment, UDStyle, I really don't see how it's necessary to impugn the character of those of us here who believe in the Bible. Your statement makes it sound like because we're "tied to religion" (a very demeaning and confrontational way of describing a religious person) that we can't be trusted.
But I do. Besides the fact that I think it's fun, for a lot of people where this book is concerned, it goes to the heart of the matter. Don't get me wrong I'm not attacking anybody's religion nor am I saying religion will sway everybody’s argument. However, for a good portion of those that commented against the possibility that Browns novel could be correct in terms of Da Vinci's cleverness in hidden messages and Church cover-ups, I do think religion played a big part. Thought it might be interesting to see how others here might take to that notion. Can't say I haven't already gotten good some feedback :D .

Oh this topic just might be fun! :) :) ;)

[UDStyle]

^^yes! Finally someone who gets the fun!

[k18]

I thought it was funny. IMO, people are just too serious with this book. I haven't read it (on my list to read) but there are so many people who get defensive about this book, that it is funny! And, I agree with UDStyle that it is based on possible theories (not saying it is true, though!)

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by k18
I thought it was funny. IMO, people are just too serious with this book. That's what I'm saying! Damn, are you sure we didn't come out of the same mother? Cousin? Something?

[k18]

Originally posted by UDStyle
That's what I'm saying! Damn, are you sure we didn't come out of the same mother? Cousin? Something?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Chances are slim.

[yellowqueen22]

Any idea is plausible and since the book is still fiction, even if based on some facts, there is no reason to require detailed proof behind the claims made in the book.

For me the book just gave some really interesting perspectives to puzzling issues in religious doctrine and some interesting views of putting together the pieces of history. More than anything the book seems to challenge us to open up our minds and consider the possibilities.

Beyond that, the book is actually poorly written and not that exciting. It comes up with some really interesting ideas and mysteries. But the poor writing, one dimensional characters, and odd pacing prevent the book from ever getting good. To be honest, the book reads more like a screenplay then a book. In that sense, I imagine that the movie will be far superior to the book.

[ProudPenny]

The book seriously reads like bad FanFiction.net Biblefic. The adverb abuse, the Inexplicable! Overlyemphasized! Punctiuation! and the thin characterization just make for... not a very good book. I'm sure the movie will be better - it's starring Tom Hanks so I'm sure at least the characters will have more than 1 dimension ;)

The possibilities have been considered and disproven. I really do recommend the book that YMK7 mentioned. It has a rather extensive bibliography and actually does NOT read like bad fanfic =)


Everyone is "tied" to a particular set of beliefs that colors his or her perceptions and opinions. That being said, facts are facts. You can choose to believe what you will, but there are no facts to support Brown's claims, and plenty of facts in opposition to them. Exactly. Y'all, please consider leaving hurtful and negative generalizations about entire groups of people out of this (and all other Ksite) threads. Thanks.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by yellowqueen22
Any idea is plausible and since the book is still fiction, even if based on some facts, there is no reason to require detailed proof behind the claims made in the book.

For me the book just gave some really interesting perspectives to puzzling issues in religious doctrine and some interesting views of putting together the pieces of history. More than anything the book seems to challenge us to open up our minds and consider the possibilities.
That's exactly how I feel. If nothing else it did open minds to certain possibilities concerning Da Vinci and how far the Church would go. It sparked controversy almost everywhere. I can't even count how many different channels had specials about the book and the questions it raised. If nothing else the subject was exciting. A cover-up about the most recognizable figure in history that dates back centuries? It's one of the most juicy subjects that I have come accross in a couple years. The book itself was not a masterpiece, true but the subject surrounding it shadowed the plot and story (I did though enjoy the book a lot).

[Daphne]

Best thing to remember about this book is that it's fiction. My mom read it said it was well written, a great read, but definitely fiction. I have not read it, though I am going to when I can get her copy.

And from the post above we know exactly why it was written, "juicy" sells books.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by UDStyle
Besides the fact that each organizations mentioned (I.E. Priory of Sion) do exist. That certain historical figures were members of these organizations.

I'm sorry, but this statement is grossly misleading. The only hard historical facts show that the Priory of Sion originated in 1956 and has since been largely inactive. The organization started in France with its founder Pierre Plantard's pseudohistorical claim to being part of the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. In order to give the group legitimacy, Plantard and his cronies planted forged documents in the National Library in Paris to "prove" that the group had a long and illustrious past. If you want to base your opinions on such shaky ground, be my guest. But don't expect that anyone who actually knows the facts will lend any legitimacy or credibility to such hogwash.


Originally posted by UDStyle
The fact that Da Vinci was heavily into religion and coding .... It is plausible that Da Vinci knew something most people wouldn’t have; given his connections. The one thing that has been said about him throughout the centuries is that his work had deeper and/or hidden meanings.

Specifics, friend. Specifics. You can't make a general claim about a person and then use that to justify a specific claim about one of his works. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Did Brown prove anything about a grail cover up beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. I'm not even saying it is true. All I'm saying is it is not impossible for it to be true and for it to be covered up.

There is a huge difference between saying that a theory is not impossible and stating that it is plausible. Saying that something is plausible means that it is likely true, or at least that it appears to be a likely truth. It's not impossible that I might someday live on Mars, but that possible future is not very plausible.


Originally posted by UDStyle
The Church has been milled in controversy over religious fact and inconsistencies since it's inception.

This statement does not go to prove or even in the slightest bit substantiate your claims. Controversy, criticism and the claim of inconsistency do not make a movement false. All it shows is that there are people opposed to said movement. Once again, you're throwing out generalities in an attempt to lend credibility to specific claims.


Originally posted by UDStyle
None of this proves that what was said is true, but that isn't the point. Point is it is not a far fetched idea and there are certain things that point to it being true.

I find it very far-fetched that Yeshua might have been married given that no historical data even hints at this. The gospels make no mention of it. Josephus makes no mention of it. The Rabbis make no mention of it in the Talmud. If it were such a controversy, why would His enemies among the Sanhedrin not include it in their writings on the subject? Surely they would have had the motive and opportunity to do so.

Yet none of this happened. No mention of a wife even appears milennia later, when anti-Christian "scholars" cited Gnostic works such as the Gospel of Phillip to attempt to "prove" that Messiah took Mary as His wife. Yet, even in this "gospel," so often quoted as proof of their marriage, Mary is not depicted as His wife, but rather as a disciple with a greater understanding of Yeshua than the Twelve.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I actually don't have to prove anything, I don't have to prove that any of the cover-ups took place, nor do I have to prove that Da Vinci had a knack for leaving hidden messages period.

Well, that's good, because if you're trying to prove any of this, then so far you've failed miserably.


Originally posted by UDStyle
No one here however can prove that is not plausible and that the events surrounding the book about Da Vinci, Church Cover-ups, etc. are an impossibility.

I think I've shown that this particular canard is implausible, but once again you seem to be confused about the difference between the words "plausible" and "possible."


Originally posted by UDStyle
In other words I don't need to prove it for to be plausable. The statments above give enough leeway for what Brown said to possibly be true. However to firmly state that it is not plausable, you would have to prove that. So far that hasn't happend neither here nor anywhere else. One thing that you said accurately is that we are only left to opinions. In my opinion what was said is not impossible.

And again, you're having a problem with plausible and possible.

First, one cannot actually prove something to be true. It can only be proven false. Second, in order to show that something is plausible, one has to show that said thing is likely true. You have not done this. Third, one does not have to prove something false to show that it is implausible. All one has to do is show that it is likely untrue. I have done this, though perhaps not to your satisfaction. Again, I would recommend Darrel Bock's book for further evidence.


Originally posted by UDStyle
But I do. Besides the fact that I think it's fun, for a lot of people where this book is concerned, it goes to the heart of the matter. Don't get me wrong I'm not attacking anybody's religion nor am I saying religion will sway everybody’s argument. However, for a good portion of those that commented against the possibility that Browns novel could be correct in terms of Da Vinci's cleverness in hidden messages and Church cover-ups, I do think religion played a big part. Thought it might be interesting to see how others here might take to that notion.

To start with, I'm not sure what your first sentence, "But I do" means. You quote two sentences from my post. The first states that I don't think that it's necessary that you impugn the character of religious people. The second states that your comments leave the impression that you believe that religious people can't be trusted. So, does your statement mean, "I do think it's necessary to impugn the character of religious people," "I do think that religious people are untrustworthy," or does it mean something else?

As for the rest, I don't see how this goes to show anything meaningful in this argument. I base my belief in Messiah not just on faith, but on faith tempered by vast quantities of evidence for the legitimacy of the Bible from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation. Given that, I see no reason to disregard my faith as a factor when deciding whether something is true or false.

[Zungas]

This is a good battle.

[kal-odell]

Well it sure didn't take long for the righteous brigade to show up. And I'm sure that no one is shocked by their opinion of this book. Guess I can't blame you though, if I based my life on only one peice of information I would probably get pissed too, everytime someone said there was a different possibilty.
Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

Controversy, criticism and the claim of inconsistency do not make a movement false. All it shows is that there are people opposed to said movement. No, that is not all it shows. It also shows that there are people who are willing to challenge past theory and thought. And the fact that there has been controversy throughout the years, lays legitimacy to those critics and their claims of inconsistency.


I find it very far-fetched that Yeshua might have been married given that no historical data even hints at this. The gospels make no mention of it. Josephus makes no mention of it. The Rabbis make no mention of it in the Talmud. If it were such a controversy, why would His enemies among the Sanhedrin not include it in their writings on the subject? Surely they would have had the motive and opportunity to do so. Of course you find this far-fetched, it goes against all that you hold as ultimate truth. This is why the Christian church has made such a big deal of this book. It's fictional ideas, go against the manuscript of the forsaken son. This is why the church has gone to lengths almost as big as censorship in order to stop the book from reaching mass media. Ironic though, it was there own actions which made the book a global best seller. Their own fear made people curious.


Mary is not depicted as His wife, but rather as a disciple with a greater understanding of Yeshua than the Twelve.
Some could argue that the quote above actually does more to identify her as the wife of Jesus then not. Of course that depends on how you take the text and in what context. It would be simple to argue that a man could have 12 students, and yet not one of them would know him or understand him more then his wife.



First, one cannot actually prove something to be true. It can only be proven false.Really... So 1 + 1 hasn't been proven to = 2.
So a north magnetic pole hasn't been proven to be directly opposite of a south magnetic pole.

So what your telling me is that there is no way for a parent to prove to their child, that fire is hot and ice is cold. All they can do is prove that fire isn't cold and ice isn't hot. Right?

Wow that's a reality I wanna live in.... not



Again, I would recommend Darrel Bock's book for further evidence. I'll bet 500 to 1 that this guy is a Christian. And I will place a second bet of 1000000 to 1 that you take every single word in this book as factual truth. But you probably don't gamble so.....


Anyways, back on topic. If you like conspiracy theories you will enjoy this book, in my opinion. No matter what religious beliefs you might hold.
(***Butterfly in the sky, I can go twice as high. Just take a look, it's in a book.****)

[k18]

Damn, this battle is only getting started!

[Jellie]

I love watching a good battle

[Xcalibur]

Pretty good stuff.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
I'm sorry, but this statement is grossly misleading. The only hard historical facts show that the Priory of Sion originated in 1956 and has since been largely inactive. The organization started in France with its founder Pierre Plantard's pseudohistorical claim to being part of the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. In order to give the group legitimacy, Plantard and his cronies planted forged documents in the National Library in Paris to "prove" that the group had a long and illustrious past. If you want to base your opinions on such shaky ground, be my guest. But don't expect that anyone who actually knows the facts will lend any legitimacy or credibility to such hogwash.
The Program about the Da Vinci code on the history channel says different. That includes activity with Sir Issac Newton and Leo Da Vinci himself.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

Specifics, friend. Specifics. You can't make a general claim about a person and then use that to justify a specific claim about one of his works. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order. Poppycock! I can do anything I put my mind to. Besides nothing specific was needed. :)



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

There is a huge difference between saying that a theory is not impossible and stating that it is plausible. Saying that something is plausible means that it is likely true, or at least that it appears to be a likely truth. It's not impossible that I might someday live on Mars, but that possible future is not very plausible. Now that's just not plausable lol. Plausable means there has to be possiblity of truth to something, not that something has to be leaning towards truth as if it were on a scale. Was a fun word for 11th grade english.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

This statement does not go to prove or even in the slightest bit substantiate your claims. Controversy, criticism and the claim of inconsistency do not make a movement false. All it shows is that there are people opposed to said movement. Once again, you're throwing out generalities in an attempt to lend credibility to specific claims.or maybe some of these controversies have been proven true in the past (I.E. preachers and under age boys)



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

I find it very far-fetched that Yeshua might have been married given that no historical data even hints at this. The gospels make no mention of it. Josephus makes no mention of it. The Rabbis make no mention of it in the Talmud. If it were such a controversy, why would His enemies among the Sanhedrin not include it in their writings on the subject? Surely they would have had the motive and opportunity to do so.LOL Yes the gospels make no mention of it.. but who had control of what could have been kept out and left in the gospel and many times did cut certain passages from the now widely known bible? That was one of the points of the book. And how can I comment on actions I did not witness. Again nothing has proved it impossible or even improbable.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Yet none of this happened. No mention of a wife even appears milennia later, when anti-Christian "scholars" cited Gnostic works such as the Gospel of Phillip to attempt to "prove" that Messiah took Mary as His wife. Yet, even in this "gospel," so often quoted as proof of their marriage, Mary is not depicted as His wife, but rather as a disciple with a greater understanding of Yeshua than the Twelve. You mean nothing was documented so it didn't happen? That's the first thing you learn not to take as truth with a capital T in history since "History is written by the winners". And the whole point is that it was a cover-up to the highest offices in the church, they are the ones who could and a lot of the times did keep certain things out of the bible, including not accepting certain books.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

Well, that's good, because if you're trying to prove any of this, then so far you've failed miserably. Thank you for that belligerent assessment since you failed misreably in understanding I don't have to prove nada.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

I think I've shown that this particular canard is implausible, but once again you seem to be confused about the difference between the words "plausible" and "possible." Nope but you do seem to be. Though I am enjoying the pompus attitude, it makes it much more fun :lol:



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

And again, you're having a problem with plausible and possible.

First, one cannot actually prove something to be true. It can only be proven false. Second, in order to show that something is plausible, one has to show that said thing is likely true. You have not done this. Third, one does not have to prove something false to show that it is implausible. All one has to do is show that it is likely untrue. I have done this, though perhaps not to your satisfaction. Again, I would recommend Darrel Bock's book for further evidence.
nope untrue on most accounts (you can actually prove something to be truer then not true, just not with a capital T). And no you actually haven't done anything (according to your definition of implausable). You have just taken word of scriptures which were in question in the first place lol. True you also mentioned other sources, some direct enimies of christ, but because they didn't record something doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Again consult the overused quote of history/winners.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7

To start with, I'm not sure what your first sentence, "But I do" means. You quote two sentences from my post. The first states that I don't think that it's necessary that you impugn the character of religious people. The second states that your comments leave the impression that you believe that religious people can't be trusted. So, does your statement mean, "I do think it's necessary to impugn the character of religious people," "I do think that religious people are untrustworthy," or does it mean something else?

As for the rest, I don't see how this goes to show anything meaningful in this argument. I base my belief in Messiah not just on faith, but on faith tempered by vast quantities of evidence for the legitimacy of the Bible from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation. Given that, I see no reason to disregard my faith as a factor when deciding whether something is true or false. If you didn't read the post quoted you wouldn't. Religious people can't be trusted? Nope just a mild rise out of people. Ask K18, he got the point.. people take it too seriously.


I just got to know.. Were you actually mad when you wrote all that or were the belligerent and condescending remarks you made natural when it comes to how you reply to people? It's the internet, not that serious. It's entertainment. Enjoy yourself, be merry, all that..

[k18]

You tell him, UDStyle! You "stick it" to the man! lol.

Good battle. Good battle.

[Daphne]

The Da Vinci Code is a fiction book out there to make money. It's like someone said already in this thread, "it's juicy" which is exactly why Dan Brown wrote it.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I disagree.

Oooh but I have an even more fun question.. who here is tied to religion? *evil smile*

Roman Catholic, *evil smile* right back at ya.

[Jellie]

Protestant

[Zungas]

Keep the battle on the book...don't bring in personal religious backgrounds.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by k18

Good battle. Good battle. I would have already won but his Charazard fryed my Pikachu, so we are at a stalemate at the moment.

Originally posted by Daphne

Roman Catholic, *evil smile* right back at ya.

Aha, Finally!

*Cocks shotgun*

To War!

[k18]

Originally posted by UDStyle
I would have already won but his Charazard fryed my Pikachu, so we are at a stalemate at the moment.

Damn Charazard! You should use a Squirtle. Fight fire with water!

[Daphne]

Originally posted by Zungas
Keep the battle on the book...don't bring in personal religious backgrounds.

Just answering his question. He seemed to think it was evil to ask or something.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I would have already won but his Charazard fryed my Pikachu, so we are at a stalemate at the moment.


Aha, Finally!

*Cocks shotgun*

To War!

Neah, not interested in war.
Pregnant, controlled by hormones, no control at the moment. :)

i should really stick to the Clark threads about what makes him so darn cute and stuff.

[Zungas]

I don't want this thread to close because the battle just keeps getting better.

[k18]

I hear ya!

[Jellie]

Originally posted by Zungas
Keep the battle on the book...don't bring in personal religious backgrounds.

I was just answering a question. I know better than to start debating religious beliefs etc

[Zungas]

I know...its all good.

[ProudPenny]

Umm, assessments of one another's intelligence also need to be left out of this conversation. People aren't idiots because they disagree with you.

UDStyle wrote, in response to yeshuamyking7's claim that he can't just make historical claims without proof:

Poppycock! I can do anything I put my mind to.It's true that you can make fact-claims with no evidence to back them up. But then, we are neither obligated to care, nor are we obligated to believe you. If you (general you) want to be taken seriously in a debate about theology, historicism and literary merit, you're going to want to provide facts to back your claims up, or your position will automatically be rendered 100% dismissible. Just some friendly advice.

(ETA: Congratulations on the pregnancy, Daphne!!!:) )

[Zungas]

Nobody mess with ProudPenny.

[Daphne]

Thanks Proud Penny. It's 12 weeks on Wednesday and hopefully the morning sickness will subside. :)

I 100% agree with what you said too!

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by ProudPenny
Umm, assessments of one another's intelligence also need to be left out of this conversation. People aren't idiots because they disagree with you. That's what I'm saying! The dude was talking to me like I was retarded. I may be a lil crazy but retarded, no.


Originally posted by ProudPenny
UDStyle wrote, in response to yeshuamyking7's claim that he can't just make historical claims without proof:
It's true that you can make fact-claims with no evidence to back them up. But then, we are neither obligated to care, nor are we obligated to believe you. If you (general you) want to be taken seriously in a debate about theology, historicism and literary merit, you're going to want to provide facts to back your claims up, or your position will automatically be rendered 100% dismissible. Just some friendly advice.
Yes But you gotta see it from my point of view... I was lazy.

PS: I am still mad at you for closing the random thread Penny! That was a classic thread to cut loose in and you took that away from me. You hurt me deep, very deep.. well not that deep, but it hurt! Well actually more of a mild annoyance, but I had a definate reaction there!

[yeshuamyking7]

First, to UDS Style, I want to apologize for the tone of my comments. Sometimes in my zeal to win an argument I let myself get out of control and make comments that I really shouldn't. I stand by what I've said insofar as facts are concerned, but it was entirely unnecessary to say it in the arrogant way that I did. I hope that you and those on your side of this argument can accept my sincere apology. Even though I think that much of what you have said is untrue and not well supported by the evidence, it is not my intention to make you feel like an idiot. Clearly, I have done this, and after re-reading my post, I can certainly see that the fault is mine.

Beyond this, the chief problem of forums like this is that nobody can see the other person's face. I am not angry and do not mean to come off as such. I am merely stating my beliefs, and attempting to back up those beliefs with solid evidence. In that vein, I'll try my best to refrain from argumentum ad hominem. Just know that I don't bare you any ill will, even if I "sound" like I do. I just want a lively discussion, and I hope that's what we'll have.


Originally posted by UDStyle
The Program about the Da Vinci code on the history channel says different. That includes activity with Sir Issac Newton and Leo Da Vinci himself.

I must admit at the outset that I have not seen the History Channel program. I will say, however, that none of the evidence I've seen on the side of the Da Vinci code holds much merit in my estimation. Under close scrutiny, the entire case falls apart. It's based on suspicion and conjecture, with little to no real historical records to back it up. Many of the so-called "documents" purporting to substantiate the claims Brown makes are, if fact, the aforementioned forgeries from the National Library in Paris.

The whole thing conveniently plays into people's fascination with the idea that the Bible, as written, is not true or only partly true. This again tickles their fancy in that it allows them to reject Scripture and continue in sin.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Poppycock! I can do anything I put my mind to. Besides nothing specific was needed. :)

I disagree wholeheartedly with these comments. First, while it is technically correct that you can do what you want, you cannot honestly expect your ideas to be taken seriously if you don't provide sufficient evidence to back up your claims.

Proud Penny has stated this above, to which you responded that you were being lazy. By this I'm guessing that you mean that there are facts to back your claims up, but you just can't muster the strength to present them here. That's a pretty weak argument, but I can certainly understand not wanting to spend a lot of time on this forum. I try not to spend as much time on it as I once did.

So, if you can't seem to find the time to present a well-thought out response, perhaps you should leave the debate to someone with more time to do so. Or you could step up to the plate and do it yourself. Either way.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Now that's just not plausable lol. Plausable means there has to be possiblity of truth to something, not that something has to be leaning towards truth as if it were on a scale. Was a fun word for 11th grade english.

I'm going to try to put this part of the debate to bed once and for all, but we'll see how it goes:

Dictionary.com defines "plausible" as

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

They also have a third definition not relevant to this discussion, but you're welcome to check it out for yourself.

Merriam-Webster has the following:

Plausible -
Etymology: Latin plausibilis worthy of applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman -- R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>

Based on these definitions, it is clear that the word "plausible" only refers to something that is likely true, or that gives the appearance of being likely true. You seem to be using the terms "possible" and "plausible" interchangeably," but "possible" has no connotation whatsoever of a particular likelihood of truth or even the mere appearance of that likelihood.

Interestingly, when one looks up the word "possible" in the Merriam-Webster thesaurus, the only direct synonyms are achievable, attainable, doable, feasible, practicable, realizable, viable, and workable. "Plausible" is listed only as a "related word" along with the words reasonable, sensible; likely, probable; acceptable, believable, conceivable, creditable, plausible; available, and usable. Notice that "plausible" is grouped with believable, conceivable and creditable. It is not a direct synonym with possible, which is the way that you have been using it in your posts.

Furthermore, I find some of the definitions of "plausible" particularly germane to this discussion. For example, the dictionary.com definition of "giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability," and the Merriam-Webster definition of "superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious; superficially pleasing or persuasive." These definitions crystalize for me the exact nature of the Da Vinci Hoax. People believe this theory because it suits their preconceived distrust of Scripture, even though the evidence for the theory is only superficial at best. In this way, the Da Vinci Code is indeed "plausible," in that it is superficial and specious, even though it is not "plausible" in that it is neither credible nor even remotely possible.


Originally posted by UDStyle
or maybe some of these controversies have been proven true in the past (I.E. preachers and under age boys)

This is a particularly hurtful and unnecessary comment. Once again you are using a particular controversy, namely the secretive actions of evil, pedophile "priests," and insinuating that because this completely unrelated secret turned out to be true, that the Da Vinci code must be (or at least could be) true as well. By that logic, I could say that any conspiracy theory is true or likely to be true simply because conspiracies and secrets exist and have been uncovered. I think this debate would be better served if all sides would refrain from making completely illogical statements like this.

It should go without saying that I deplore the actions of pedophile "priests," but since you raise the issue, I'll respond. The entire system of the forcibly celibate priesthood is unbiblical and contributes to this plague of evil blighting the Roman Catholic Church, as does the continued ordination of homosexuals. To truly combat the problem would require a complete reformation of the priesthood, which is unfortunately highly unlikely to occur. Until then, governments and lay people must put the most severe pressure possible on the Vatican and the entire RCC hierarchy to fully comply with the Law of Yahweh and turn over any and all suspected priests to the relevant government authorities. I don't want a witch hunt, but when the lives of children are at stake, anything less than full coopoeration and an end to the cover-up is heresy.


Originally posted by UDStyle
LOL Yes the gospels make no mention of it.. but who had control of what could have been kept out and left in the gospel and many times did cut certain passages from the now widely known bible? That was one of the points of the book. And how can I comment on actions I did not witness. Again nothing has proved it impossible or even improbable.

I'm well aware that this is a point in the book, and it's yet another argument that holds no water. This is one of those things that gets repeated so often that people accept it as fact, when it is based only on selective reasoning and preconceived conclusions.

The fact is that the entire New Testament well pre-dates any effort to distort or change the testimony of the Twelve Apostles and the other eye witnesses of Yeshua's life, death and resurrection. I can only touch briefly on this topic without going down a road that would surely get this thread closed, but let me try to address what you've stated as succinctly as possible.

First, the entire New Testament was written within the lifetime of those who actually witnessed the events recorded therein. Our earliest fragmentary manuscripts date from the 60s A.D. When pieced together, all of these documents make up a grand tapestry that makes clear the life and teachings of Messiah. No other historical figure has the benefit of such close historical proximity to the documents purporting to chronicle his or her life.

The entire text does not appear in one place until around 200 A.D., but with huge tracts of Scripture quoted by the early Church Fathers, it is clear that the entire document was written during the lives of the apostles, as I have stated above. There are over 36,000 quotations of the Bible in early Christian literature (dating from the earliest Christian writings to prior the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.).

Sir David Dalrymple once asked himself the question, "Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the 3rd century; could it have been collected together again from the writing of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?" His answer: "...as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses." This includes all statements about Yeshua's divinity, His Messianic claims, His status as a single man, his relationship to women and Mary Magdalene in particular, and many other topics relevant to this discussion.

Interestingly, just when one might expect legends and falsehoods to arise about an historical figure, namely after he or she is long gone and all eyewitnesses are dead, is precisely when such myths about Yeshua begin to arise. These include the writings of the Gnostics, who never witnessed Yeshua in life and were clearly and correctly labeled as heretics.

These Gospels tend to proclaim Yeshua as only Spirit (divine), and not flesh (human), precisely the opposite of what is claimed by proponents of the Da Vinci code (this heresy is addressed in Scripture and by later Church Fathers, and though the discussion would be interesting, it's off topic).

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that these Gnostic "gospels" present a Yeshua completely foreign both to Scripture and to the more (or completely) human Yeshua favored by Da Vinci Code proponents, it is these "gospels" that Brown and his cohorts often cite. This, in spite of the fact that not a single one states categorically that Yeshua took a wife, much less Mary Magdalene. They simply mention Mary more prominently than do the canonical Gospels, and mention times when Mary kissed Yeshua (a common Near Eastern sign of friendship with no romantic connotations whatsoever). Because Brown and others want to believe that Yeshua took a wife, they selectively read into these already unreliable texts their own preconceived notions about Yeshua and His relationship to Mary.

I could go on and on, but if you really want to learn the other side of the argument you're making (instead of just the side you've clearly already heard), you should check out the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0413davinci.asp
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html
http://www.consensuslutheran.org/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=332

The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1009027&item_no=20930

As for the last part about not being able to comment on actions you did not witness, you seem to be both arguing against logic and against your own point by saying this. This statement, if carried to it's extreme, is called sollipsism, which can be defined as

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

In other words, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. While this is clearly the extreme end of your point, it's instructive to note that no one alive today has witnessed any moment prior to his or her own birth. Our only knowledge of these events comes from eyewitness testimony (whether oral or written), archaeology and historical science. While none of these are as reliable as empirical science, and are open to much greater interpretation based on necessary and unavoidable presuppositions, it is folly to conclude that one cannot comment on the past with at least some degree of accuracy.

The precise level of accuracy depends on the historical event in question, and the reliability of the assumptions we use to interpret the evidence we have. In the case of Yeshua and His marital status, one can state that He was unmarried with a high degree of probability for the following reasons:

1. The earliest documented eye-witness evidence of His life consistently fails to mention a wife, much less Mary Magdalene, or any children and strongly hint that He was celibate.
2. Even those who might gain someting from the exposure of a marriage and children, such as his enemies in the Sanhedrin, fail to mention a wife or children.
3. Relatively dispassionate historians such as Josephus fail to mention a wife or children.
4. Many Jewish males chose celibacy as a sign of piety, contrary to the claims in Brown's book.
5. Early Gnostic gospels, often cited in defense of the Da Vinci Code, actually paint a far different picture of Yeshua than either the Bible or Brown and his cronies, and never mention a wife or children.
6. The first mention of a wife and children does not come until centuries later, "bolstered" by obviously unreliable, non-eyewitness testimony.

It might be said that much of this is aruing from ignorance, a point well taken. However, it is a particular kind of argument from ignorance, wherein when it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck or look like a duck, then it more than likely is not a duck. In other words, there is no evidence for Yeshua's marriage because such evidence does not exist.

You have stated that you believe in the Da Vinci code. All of the key events described in this theory took place before you were born. Therefore you are by definition commenting on events that you did not witness. So am I. The difference is that the weight of the documentary evidence is on my side, whereas the Da Vinci code rests on nothing but hot air.


Originally posted by UDStyle
You mean nothing was documented so it didn't happen? That's the first thing you learn not to take as truth with a capital T in history since "History is written by the winners". And the whole point is that it was a cover-up to the highest offices in the church, they are the ones who could and a lot of the times did keep certain things out of the bible, including not accepting certain books.

See above for comments on the history of canon. You are quoting a mythical history repeated by Brown and countless others. It is precisely that: a myth. The true history of canon is that books that are not included are not included because they do not represent reliable, eyewitness testimony. These books therefore go against not only Church teachings but the clear historical facts recorded by eyewitnesses in the canonical gospels. Again, see the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html


Originally posted by UDStyle
nope untrue on most accounts (you can actually prove something to be truer then not true, just not with a capital T).

You're using the word "true" very loosely here. There is no such thing as "truer." Something is either true or untrue. What you seem to be saying here is that you can show that something is likely, a conclusion with which I agree. It is, however, a fact that a theory can be proven false very simply. All that needs to be done is to show that said theory does not fit the evidence at hand. Of course there is always the possibility that there is more evidence somewhere out there in the universe, but for all practical purposes, what I have stated is correct.

For example, it can be stated categorically that Abraham Lincoln did not die in the 1700s, even though none of us were alive during his lifetime. It can also be stated categorically that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are viscious forgeries that promoted anti-semitism and helped lead to the Holocaust. For that matter, the Holocaust can be conclusively shown to be an historical event, neo-Nazi protests notwithstanding. In the same way, the so-called Da Vinci Code holds no water because every point on which it is based does not reflect the actual recorded history (and records are what the science of history is based on in the first place).


Originally posted by UDStyle
And no you actually haven't done anything (according to your definition of implausable). You have just taken word of scriptures which were in question in the first place lol. True you also mentioned other sources, some direct enimies of christ, but because they didn't record something doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Again consult the overused quote of history/winners.

No, what I have attempted to do is show that Scripture is a wholly reliable historical document, and that the conspiracy theories spouted by Brown and his friends are not. I feel I have done so in a logical and consistent manner, but if you disagree please state why and back it up with something other than just your own opinion.

As for your "history is written by the winners" cliché, it's not particularly apropos in this instance. During the period in question, namely the period between Yeshua's resurrection in the mid-30s A.D. and the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., Christians were actually the losers. The early believers faced constant persecution, and were killed en masse during this period in often violent and grotesque ways. Christian families were thrown into the colliseum to be ripped apart by lions. Christians were blamed for the Great Fire of Rome and subsequently heavily persecuted. Tradition and outright canon states that many early Church leaders were killed by stoning, cruxifiction (upside down in Peter's case), flaying alive, boiling, etc. These early believers were anything but winners in the traditional sense of the word.

There was a pointed shift when Constantine "converted" to Christianity, but not the shift you envision. The actual history is much more complicated, and starts much earlier. The earliest Church documents, from the New Testament Canon to the writings of early followers, all indicate a profound connection to the Jewish heritage of the faith. This began to change from the moment Gentiles were accepted into the faith, and by the time of Nicea, Constantine and the early Roman Catholic Church could feel justified in not only persecuting Jews but eliminating all traces of Judaism within Christianity. If there is a cover-up, it is precisely this, not anything to do with canon which predates Nicea by over two hundred years. For more on this, see:

http://www.biblicalholidays.com/Excerpts/What%20happened.htm
Nazarene Jewish Christianity, by Ray Pritz: http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9004081089


Originally posted by UDStyle
If you didn't read the post quoted you wouldn't. Religious people can't be trusted? Nope just a mild rise out of people. Ask K18, he got the point.. people take it too seriously.

Please forgive me, but I still don't think you're being very clear in your statement here. I read the post you quoted, and your vague answer is the reason I asked for clarification in the first place.

So, here you pose the question, "Religious people can't be trusted?" Your answer is "nope just a mild rise out of people." First that's not really a complete sentence, so it's a bit difficult to understand. Does "nope" mean, "nope, religious people can't be trusted," or "nope, I didn't say that religious people can't be trusted, and I believe that religious people can be trusted." As for the second part of that "sentence," does this mean that you're writing with the express purpose of getting a "rise out of people." If so, this is precisely the type of thing for which you chided me earlier (and as I explained above, my intentions were not to simply "get a rise out of" anyone).

I'd like a clear statement one way or the other, please. Do you believe that religious people can be trusted, or do you not? If not, why not? If you do believe that religious people can be trusted, then why even ask the religious background of the person with which you are debating?

As for the whole, "don't take it seriously" comment, I have to point out that my faith is something I take very seriously, something I have no intention of changing.

Oh, and Daphne - congratulations on your pregnancy! I'll be praying for you and your new baby.

[UDStyle]

Daaahh this again... Since I have little time I'll adress one thing this time and adress the rest later..


plau·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plôz-bl)
adj.
Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: “Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic,... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a ‘set-to’ in any crowd” (Frederick Douglass).

As I said, when this word was taught (11th grade english for me) we learned one of the interpritations is that something plausible can be something that has a chance of being accurate. Acceptable, even to it's lowest chance of being true. Now then I'll come back later when I have more time.

[yeshuamyking7]

Based on the definition of the word that you give, and the ones that I have already given, you are using the word incorrectly. You can bring up whatever anectdotal information from your high school days that you choose. It doesn't change the fact that there is a marked difference between the words "possible" and "plausible." You still choose to use the words interchangeably.

I don't really want to have a week-long semantics debate. You're using the word incorrectly, but whatever. I'd much rather discuss the topic at hand.

On that note, I feel the Da Vinci code is neither possible, nor plausible, and I've provided evidence to back that up. I look forward to reading what you have to bring to the table when you get the time.

[UDStyle]

So you say, but someone who has the job of teaching english words for a living says different. Between him and words on the internet I think I'll go with him. In that you are using it incorrectly.

But one thing you did not do and I doubt you (no offesnse to you personally, but I don't think anyone can) can provide sufficient evidence or prove in any way that the events surrounding the grail and the priory of sion is not possible. So no you didn't provide evidence to back that up cuzzo, I don't think anyone could.

[yeshuamyking7]

Once again, I'd really prefer to move on from semantics. I live in a world of literature and study amidst intelligent people. I've never heard the word "plausible" used interchangeably with the word "possible." That's the whole reason that it's a related word and not a synonym. And for the record, I think the folks at Merriam-Webster know what they're talking about when it comes to the English language. Whatever. Back to the topic at hand.

I've presented an overview of some of the compelling evidence against the Da Vinci code. I'm not attempting to write a book, as there are already plenty out there, some of which I've pointed out already. If you're unwilling to look at the evidence on the other side, that's not my fault. You and others seem dead-set on believing this theory (or any other that contradicts Scripture, for that matter).

Once again, you haven't provided any positive evidence to bolster your case. You've merely stated that I haven't provided enough evidence (your subjective opinion). I look forward to seeing you produce some actual evidence. So far, all I've heard from your side is hearsay and opinion. Give me facts and we'll have a debate.

[k18]

Here is the definition by Oxford Dictionary:

plausible, a. (n.)

A. adj.

1. Deserving of applause or approval; praiseworthy, laudable, commendable. Obs.

2. a. Such as to be received with favour; acceptable, agreeable, pleasing, gratifying; winning public approval, generally acceptable, popular. Obs. (Common in late 16th and 17th c.)

b. Of persons, or their manners, etc.: Affable, agreeable, ingratiating, winning. Obs. (Cf. 3b.)

3. a. Having an appearance or show of truth, reasonableness, or worth; apparently acceptable or trustworthy (sometimes with implication of mere appearance); fair-seeming, specious. (Chiefly of arguments or statements.)

b. Of persons: Characterized by presenting specious arguments, etc.; fair-spoken (with implication of deceit).

4. In active sense: Expressive of applause or approbation; plausive, applausive. Obs.

B. absol. or as n. That which is plausible; a plausible argument or statement.


So judging by the definition given by Oxford Dictionary, I'd say that UDStyle is using it correctly. Also, I think that Oxford dictionary is more reliable than Merriam-Webster.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50181169?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=plausible&first=1&max_to_show=10


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
I'm going to try to put this part of the debate to bed once and for all, but we'll see how it goes:

Dictionary.com defines "plausible" as

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

They also have a third definition not relevant to this discussion, but you're welcome to check it out for yourself.

Merriam-Webster has the following:

Plausible -
Etymology: Latin plausibilis worthy of applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman -- R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>

Based on these definitions, it is clear that the word "plausible" only refers to something that is likely true, or that gives the appearance of being likely true. You seem to be using the terms "possible" and "plausible" interchangeably," but "possible" has no connotation whatsoever of a particular likelihood of truth or even the mere appearance of that likelihood.

The definition of possible (from Oxford Dictionary) is:

possible, a. (n., adv.)

A. adj.

1. That may be (i.e. is capable of being); that may or can exist, be done, or happen (in general, or in given or assumed conditions or circumstances); that is in one's power, that one can do, exert, use, etc. (const. to the agent). a. Qualifying a noun or pronoun, attributively or (more usually) predicatively.

b. Qualifying an infinitive or other clause, usually introduced by it.

c. With infinitive or other complement (nearly coinciding with 3). Cf. IMPOSSIBLE a. 1b

d. In elliptical phrases, as if possible = if it be (or were) possible, if it can (or could) be; as much as possible = as much as may (or might) be, as much as one can (or could).

e. ellipt. for ‘all possible’, ‘the greatest possible’. Obs. rare.

f. That can or may be or become (what is denoted by the n.): as a possible object of knowledge = something that may be an object of knowledge, that can or may be known. (See also 2b.)

2. a. That may be (i.e. is not known not to be); that is perhaps true or a fact; that perhaps exists. (Expressing contingency, or an idea in the speaker's mind, not power or capability of existing as in 1; hence sometimes nearly = credible, thinkable.)

b. That may be (what is denoted by the n.); that perhaps is or will be.. (Cf. 1f.)

c. Philos. Logically conceivable; that which, whether or not it actually exists, is not excluded from existence by being logically contradictory or against reason. Freq. in phr. possible world; also attrib. Also in gen. use, orig. with allusion to Voltaire's Candide (see quot. 1759).

So as you can see, something that is possible can be credible, which is the definition of plausible. So this just backs up UDStyle's argument more.

I got your back, UDStyle. :)

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Once again, I'd really prefer to move on from semantics. I live in a world of literature and study amidst intelligent people. I've never heard the word "plausible" used interchangeably with the word "possible." That's the whole reason that it's a related word and not a synonym. And for the record, I think the folks at Merriam-Webster know what they're talking about when it comes to the English language. Whatever. Back to the topic at hand.

You live in a world of literature.. etc., And? You think you are alone in that? C'mon cuzzo think about what you just said. Because of your company what you say must be fact? Does that sound reasonable? Just because you never heard that word in that context doesn't mean it's not used or cannot be used that way. That's cool that webster knows what they are talking about too since it didn't say anything against the interpretation I gave. Only your take on what their dictionary says did. It looks like k18 seems to have backed me up a little (much love cuddie!). Take a look at number 3 of the definition interpretation given from the oxford dictionary on the word plausible. Another thing, if you want to move on from semantics feel free to not include it in your posts. Just because you don't want to talk about it don't mean I have to stop.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
I've presented an overview of some of the compelling evidence against the Da Vinci code. I'm not attempting to write a book, as there are already plenty out there, some of which I've pointed out already. If you're unwilling to look at the evidence on the other side, that's not my fault. You and others seem dead-set on believing this theory (or any other that contradicts Scripture, for that matter). That's cool and the gang, but I am not overlooking any of the evidence you gave. All it shows is that there is evidence that possibly none of the events ever occured. I'm not saying that they did (like I said before) I am saying is that there is no hard proof that it didn't happen. Nothing you presented proved that it is impossible. In fact nothing less than an eyewitness, who would have had to lived 2000 years ago, could ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it didn't happen. The most anyone can do is show that it most likely did not happen, but even then it does not mean it still didn't happen. History is written by the winners and facts can be covered up.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Once again, you haven't provided any positive evidence to bolster your case. You've merely stated that I haven't provided enough evidence (your subjective opinion). I look forward to seeing you produce some actual evidence. So far, all I've heard from your side is hearsay and opinion. Give me facts and we'll have a debate. Oh lord, how many times do I have to say this.. I do not need to provide evidence since it was never my intention to prove that the events occured. The only thing I have ever stated is that there is a possibility that the events surrounding the grail and the priory of sion did happen. In that I don't need to present any evidence that it happend, only to disprove the notion that it is impossible. That's it. If you mean bring forth something that suggests the church has the capability and the will to cover events up or make sure certain texts were left out of the bible, well then I already spoke on that. I addressed fact the church was caught keeping under wraps that certain members of the clergy were sexually abusing young children >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal. And as for scriptures one that comes to mind is the Apocrypha (sp?), but there are many other testimonies about jesus christ that the church has denied entery into the bible. So are they capable of keeping out testimoney and covering up events? Yes.

Also if you stop to think about it everything you presented is hearsay and opinion aswell. It is another parties account, you were not there yourself, therefore it is not truth. I have said it before, there is no such thing as truth with a capital T, and in essence that's all I am saying when it comes to the matter of the grail and the priory of sion. Every little piece of "evidence" you gave were from other articles, scriptures, or testimonies from other individuals. That is a form of hearsay. The only thing not hearsay and is pure fact is first hand knowledge; to be in attendence to an event.

I ain't got nothing against you yesh, it's all love in the end but I stand by what I said. Oh yeah again good lookin out K18. 1

[Zungas]

It just keeps going and going......

[k18]

like the energizer bunny!

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by k18
Here is the definition by Oxford Dictionary:

...

So judging by the definition given by Oxford Dictionary, I'd say that UDStyle is using it correctly. Also, I think that Oxford dictionary is more reliable than Merriam-Webster.

I have abbreviated the quotes above and below to save space. For those of you just joining the debate, please note that the definitions k18 gave for the words "plausible" and "possible" can be found above (or on the last page, depending on how long my post is).

k18 - you give the Oxford Dictionary's definition of the word "plausible," which is essentially an expanded version of the two sources I have already used. I have carefully read each line of this definition, and see no reason to correct any statement I have made. Each line of the definition carefully qualifies the word "plausible" in a way that shows that it means "deserving of approval," or "giving the appearance of trustworthiness" (with the obvious exception of 3.a, last line; and 3. b, which I have discussed elsewhere). At no point does the definition make use of the word "possible." UDStyle has cosistently used the word "plausible" interchangeably with the word "possible," and based on all three sources presented here, that usage is incorrect.

As for which dictionary source is more reliable, you're welcome to your opinion. It's hardly relevant, in that Oxford's definition is merely an expansion on what I have already provided, and in no way contradicts anything I have said. But, for the record, I prefer the Oxford definition you gave, and I thank you for presenting it here. It only serves to bolster my argument.


Originally posted by k18
The definition of possible (from Oxford Dictionary) is:

...

So as you can see, something that is possible can be credible, which is the definition of plausible. So this just backs up UDStyle's argument more.

Not to be contrary, but your conclusions are entirely selective. Every line of the definition for "possible" is qualified by phrases indicating the inherent contingency of the word. Something that is "possible" may be credible, and it may even be likely. On the other hand, it may be unbelievable and unlikely. It does not even have to give the appearance of credibility to qualify as "possible." Thus, by definition, the words "possible" and "plausible," though related, are not synonyms.

That being said, the portion of the definition that you highlighted in bold deserves particular attention. Notice again that the definition is carefully qualified. The key phrase is "expressing contingency, or an idea in the speaker's mind, NOT power or capability of existing." [emphasis mine] In other words, the speaker may assign credibility to the idea or theory in his or her mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean that said idea or theory is plausible, credible, probable, etc.

Furthermore, the definition goes on to say, "hence sometimes NEARLY = credible, thinkable." [again, emphasis mine] You seem to conveniently neglect the word "nearly" here, and jump to the conclusion that "credible" is an exact synonym with "possible." Given that the lexicographer painstakingly avoids this conclusion by making it clear that any notions of credibility are in the speaker's mind, and therefore not necessarily accurate, and given that said dictionarian takes the time to include the words "sometimes nearly," I find it quite incredible that you would jump to the conclusion that the words "possible" and "plausible" are synonymous.


Originally posted by UDStyle
You live in a world of literature.. etc., And? You think you are alone in that? C'mon cuzzo think about what you just said. Because of your company what you say must be fact? Does that sound reasonable? Just because you never heard that word in that context doesn't mean it's not used or cannot be used that way.

I made the statement based entirely on the highly illogical statement that you made preceding it. You stated that "someone who has the job of teaching english words for a living says different." Based on what you've written before, I'm assuming this is your aformentioned 11th grade English teacher, who apparently told you that the words "plausible" and "possible" are synonyms. First, this information is anectdotal at best, and obviously cannot be verified. Second, it contradicts the definitions given in all three dictionaries cited above. Third, you made the statement in such a way as if to say the rest of us were not educated in the English language, and we must therefore accept the word of your 11th grade English teacher as gospel. I have never personally met your teacher, so I can't say one way or the other how I feel about his credibility. At the very least, I know that you say he told you that "plausible" and "possible" are synonyms. Since this is not true based on all three dictionaries presented above, and since two of the three are highly respected, widely circulated dictionaries, I think I'll go with what you call "words on the internet." More on that below.


Originally posted by UDStyle
That's cool that webster knows what they are talking about too since it didn't say anything against the interpretation I gave. Only your take on what their dictionary says did.

First, the definitions presented by Merriam-Webster and by Oxford are not difficult to interpret. You and k18 can claim they mean whatever you want. That doesn't change the plain and incontrovertible meaning of the words. My "take" as you put it, is not a illogical leap as is yours and k18's.

Again, though, the point of mentioning that the people at Webster know what they're talking about is important. You dismiss their definition as "words on the internet," but Webster's dictionary has a 200 year history in this country and is the premier American English dictionary. Oxford certainly has great stature as a more scholarly dictionary, something I have not disputed and will not dispute. However, as I stated above, Oxford's definition merely adds to my argument, and in no way contradicts the definitions I gave, or my interpretations of said definitions.

In any event, I almost hesitate to even call what I have written an "interpretation" of the definition, since it should be patently obvious what the definition means. Your protestations notwithstanding, "plausible" and "possible" are not synonyms.


Originally posted by UDStyle
It looks like k18 seems to have backed me up a little (much love cuddie!). Take a look at number 3 of the definition interpretation given from the oxford dictionary on the word plausible.

Actually, nothing in the definitions he gave in any way backs up your claims (see above). But let's look at the specific part of the definition that you cite:


3. a. Having an appearance or show of truth, reasonableness, or worth; apparently acceptable or trustworthy (sometimes with implication of mere appearance); fair-seeming, specious. (Chiefly of arguments or statements.)

b. Of persons: Characterized by presenting specious arguments, etc.; fair-spoken (with implication of deceit).

Given the mountain of evidence against the Da Vinci code, I see no reason to assign even the appearance of trustworthiness to such a theory. You seem to assign a great deal of trustworthiness to it, but have as yet failed to produce positive evidence to bolster this claim. Until and unless you do, I see no reason to even contemplate assigning the word "plausible" to the Da Vinci Hoax.

As for the second part of the definition above, we've discussed that if anything, the implication of deceit and speciousness inherent in the Da Vinci Hoax might warrant the word "plausible." However, given that the word "plausible" is more commonly used in a positive light, I think that "deceitful" would be a better word for Dan Brown's theories.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Another thing, if you want to move on from semantics feel free to not include it in your posts. Just because you don't want to talk about it don't mean I have to stop.

I will continue to answer any and all posts on this topic, so long as you remain steadfast in you illogical interpretation of the word "plausible."

And it's not so much that I don't want to debate semantics. I happen to love the English language and have always enjoyed a spirited semantics debate. My problem is that this whole tangent is taking us away from the topic at hand, namely the Da Vinci Code. I would very much prefer to remain on-topic, and only raised the issue of "plausible" and "possible" because I feel you are using the former not only incorrectly, but also in a way that can be misconstrued to give credibility to what is essentially a bogus theory.

So, if you'd like to move on to the actual topic of this thread, then I'd be happy to drop the semantics debate. If, on the other hand, you choose to respond to what I have written on the subject of "plausible" and "possible," or if you and others continue to assign the word "plausible" or any of its synonyms to the Da Vinci Code (especially in the absence of positive evidence to bolster this claim), I will continue to address the issue as I see fit.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Oh lord, how many times do I have to say this.. I do not need to provide evidence since it was never my intention to prove that the events occured.

Yes, as you have consistently stated. So, as I have consistently asked, why would you believe in something for which you are unwilling to or unable to provide evidence? I have provided some compelling evidence against the Da Vinci Code theory, and have pointed to sources where additional evidence against the theory can be found. I have been anxiously awaiting an interlocuter from the other side in this debate. You seem uninclined to be such a counterpart, and nobody else seems to be stepping up to the plate.

I'd like to have an actual debate on this topic. That requires that both sides present positive evidence to bolster their case. Can you imagine what a debate about science or politics would be like if people took your position:



Politics

Democrat: "I believe that the Bush administration lied us into the war in Iraq, and here are my reasons for believing this ..."

Republican: "While I am not disputing that as a possibility, I am saying that it is also possible that President Bush is an impeccable leader, and is leading us in a just war. But I'm not going to even try to back up those claims. All I'm saying is that it's possible."

Without saying which side of this debate I'm on (because of Kryptonsite's rules against political discussion; those of you who know me already know the answer), this is certainly no way to have a political debate. If the Democrat stated only what I have written here, and did not go on to explain his or her reasoning, that would be a pretty poor argument. What the Republican has said is also a non-starter, because debates aren't about what is possible. Just about anything is possible. Most of those possiblities are quite remote, however, which is precisely the reason for presenting evidence in the first place.



Science

Scientist A: "I believe in the plum pudding model of the atom. Here are my reasons ... "

Scientist B: "I disagree. I believe in the Rutherford model. But don't ask me why. I just think it's possible.

If this were the end of the debate, no progress on Atomic theory could ever be made. Repeat this type of debate, but replace the opposing theories with whatever scientific concepts you choose, and the result will be the complete destruction of science as we know it.

I'd like to have a debate, but no progress can possibly be made if you continue to refuse to back up your claims. Is the Da Vinci code possible? Perhaps. I have only used the word "impossible" in relation to the code for two reasons:

1. There is ample evidence that disproves the claims of the Da Vinci Code.

2. There is no unassailable evidence that supports the Code.

3. The Code contradicts Scripture, which I accept as Truth.

4. I accept Scripture on faith, tempered by the mountains of evidence in support of said faith.

We've been through reasons #1 and #2 already. We have briefly touched on reasons #3 and #4, but this point requires additional discussion. Because of my faith, I cannot accept as even remotely possible the ideas of the Da Vinci Code. That is not to say that I have not studied the evidence purporting to support this theory, because I have. I simply reject it because it neither corresponds with secular historical evidence, nor Scripture, which is Truth.


Originally posted by UDStyle
The only thing I have ever stated is that there is a possibility that the events surrounding the grail and the priory of sion did happen.

There is a possibility that I will wake up tomorrow on another planet. That possibility is highly unlikely. So, the question is, where does the Da Vinci Code lay on the spectrum of possibility? I have presented evidence that places it closer to impossible, and you have shrugged off the entire debate, falling back to the continuous repetition of the word "possible." I don't really care about the word "possible," because it's meaningless without qualifying the word with evidence to show just how "possible" something is.


Originally posted by UDStyle
In that I don't need to present any evidence that it happend, only to disprove the notion that it is impossible. That's it.

Again, this is not how to conduct a reasoned debate. If it were, I could throw out any wild theory I wanted, and so long as I put the word "possible" in front of it, nobody could question me. That's not how it works, UDStyle. If you want to be taken seriously, back up your claims. If not, I'm not sure what you're doing here.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I have nothing against you personally. I'm just a little tired of having a one-sided debate, and would very much enjoy it if you or someone would step up and at least try to deliver something on the side of the Da Vinci code.


Originally posted by UDStyle
If you mean bring forth something that suggests the church has the capability and the will to cover events up or make sure certain texts were left out of the bible, well then I already spoke on that.

...

And as for scriptures one that comes to mind is the Apocrypha (sp?), but there are many other testimonies about jesus christ that the church has denied entery into the bible. So are they capable of keeping out testimoney and covering up events? Yes.

Again, you're using the logical fallacy of generalizing the specific. You state that the Church has "covered up" texts that did not meet with its approval. I see this as a complete mischaracterization of the nature of canon.

First, every group is entitled to state who does and does not speak for said group. Whether or not you agree with the specific deciscions of the group, it's only logical that they be in charge of deciding which people and texts actually represent them.

For example, if a group of evolutionists get together and form a group like the National Academy of Sciences, and a member of that group starts promoting creationism, they should have the right to single that person out as not representative of the larger group. This says nothing about whether evolution is correct, or whether creationism is correct. It merely means that such a person is outside the bounds of the groups creed.

Here's another example. If a vegetarian starts proclaiming that she loves meat, and eats meat all the time, can she still be called a vegetarian? I think not.

To bring us back to the history of canon, there were always and continue to be people who promote theories and views that are outside established doctrine handed down to us by the Apostles. In fact, Yeshua Himself predicted that such heretics would persist and even gain ground in the temporal scheme of things. It is wholly fitting that such people be labeled as what they are: deviants. They preach a gospel that is unknown to those who actually witnessed the events of Yeshua's life, the Apostles, and who carefully chronicled those events in the wholly reliable documents now found in the New Testament.

I have addressed this issue twice now, and have linked to two articles on the subject:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read those articles, or if you have decided only to look at evidence that backs up what you already believe about Scripture.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I addressed fact the church was caught keeping under wraps that certain members of the clergy were sexually abusing young children >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_..._abuse_scandal.

Yes, you've brought this up twice now. And what did I say to this? A certain percentage (exactly what percentage is anyone's guess) of "priests" are vile, evil men who prey on children, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy has sinfully chosen to cover up these horrible crimes. All this means is that the RCC is corrupt, at least in this one instance. I could point to many, many other ways in which the RCC hierarchy is corrupt, and has been corrupt since its inception circa 325 A.D. I can also point to ways in which a great many individual members of said hierarchy, and an even greater number of individual Catholics, have throughout history maintained the light of Truth.

All this serves to do is add to the general atmosphere of the discussion. It does not do much, if anything, to show definitively that the Da Vinci Code is true or false. Again, you'll probably respond that it is not your intention to show that the Da Vinci code is true, but merely that it is possible. I have stated my reasons for seeing this as a cop-out, and why I think it makes a farce of true debate. If we're ever going to get anywhere, someone on Brown's side of the issue will need to present something resembling actual evidence.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Also if you stop to think about it everything you presented is hearsay and opinion aswell. It is another parties account, you were not there yourself, therefore it is not truth.

What I have done is stated my opinion about the Da Vinci code, namely that I think it's worthless and that the events described therein never happened. I have then gone on to back up this opinion with what I believe to be reasoned analysis and research done by outside sources.

This in contrast to what you have done, which is mainly to say that you are under no obligation to provide any evidence supporting the theory. You're absolutely right. But if you don't, and no one else fills in the gap, I don't see how anyone here can take this theory seriously.

Before I move on, though, I want to address one specific problem I have with the last part about my not having been an eyewitness to the events described in the Da Vinci Code. First, I think there is ample evidence, only some of which I have presented here, that the events described in Brown's book never happened. So, it's pretty difficult to be an eyewitness to an event that never occurred.

That being said, you are again straying into sollipsism. If one can only comment on those events to which he is a witness, then nothing can be known to any degree of certainty about history. This is an untenable and illogical position. What's more, since I did not personally witness your birth, and have never seen you in person, I have no way of knowing that you aren't a computer program responding to my posts. I'm pretty sure you're a real person, but if I go by your "only an eyewitness" rule, my whole reason for being here becomes pretty meaningless.

In actual historical analysis, people rely heavily on the eyewitness accounts of others. Whether or not these accounts are reliable can be debated, and depends entirely on the circumstance of the particular historical event or person at issue. The four canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the eyewitness accounts in dispute when discussing the Da Vinci code [Matthew and John were both disciples, and therefore eyewitnesses; Mark relied heavily on the disciple Peter, and likely was himself an eyewitness; Luke was an early disciple, but not one of the Twelve, and as an historian, he relied heavily on the accounts of the Twelve, and on that of Mary, the mother of Yeshua]. There is compelling historical evidence that suggests these accounts are not only actual eyewitness accounts, but are also highly credible accounts at that. I would recommend that you read the following book and articles on this subject for more information:

The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel: http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...p;item_no=20930
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/loftus.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq11.html
http://www.rapturealert.com/canigetawitnessfaq.html


Originally posted by UDStyle
I have said it before, there is no such thing as truth with a capital T ...

So, the only true statement is that there is no Truth. :lol: Are you sure? ;)

Seriously, though, I hear this self-defeating, relativistic proposition so often that I think it could be called the great illiogical credo of our time. Relativism is king, even though it has no basis in logic or objective philosophy.

You're welcome to believe that Truth does not exist. I'm simply pointing out that by saying that, you're making a statement of fact that can only be described as Truth. You're chasing your tail on that one.

I, for one, believe in transcendent Truth, and I believe that Truth is found in Scripture. All Truth flows from the mouth of the Almighty One, Yahweh, blessed be He. I will affirm that Truth until my dying breath.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Every little piece of "evidence" you gave were from other articles, scriptures, or testimonies from other individuals. That is a form of hearsay. The only thing not hearsay and is pure fact is first hand knowledge; to be in attendence to an event.

According to the Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary, hearsay is "a statement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true."

Since neither of us are actually in court, this definition is not wholly germane. However, I have used "hearsay" to describe much of what you have said because you have provided next to nothing in the way of evidence to back up what is essentially an opinion. I, on the other hand, have attempted to provide ample evidence against the Da Vinci Code and in favor of the canonical Gospel account of Yeshua's life.

It may also be relevant to look at Merriam-Webster's definition of the "hearsay rule," used in courtrooms throughout the United States:



hearsay rule:

a rule barring the admission of hearsay as evidence

Note: The hearsay rule is stated in Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence because of the unavailability of cross-examination to test the accuracy of the statement. There are numerous exceptions to the rule, however, mainly for statements made under circumstances that assure reliability. Statements made spontaneously, for example, or as part of a business or medical record are inherently trustworthy and thus excepted from the rule. A statement need not be made orally for purposes of the hearsay rule. Written statements, gestures, and even motion pictures are included.

In our context, I have chosen outside sources as corroboration because I do not want to merely state my own opinion without backing it up. The nature of a reasoned debate requires that corroboratory evidence, and not just the subjective opinions of the participants.

I have chosen outside sources that I deem credible and exhuastive. If, after reading these articles and books, you believe them to be shoddy, then tell me why and we'll discuss it. But I'm not simply picking them out of a hat. I have weeded out a great many sites and articles that I feel either misrepresent the opposing side, or fail to present credible evidence to support their claims. I am putting these sources out there in the hope that you will dispute them, because only under cross-examination does a source become credible. So, please, read away, and post any and all articles, books, movies, etc. that you think I should check out. I'll be more than happy to do so.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I ain't got nothing against you yesh, it's all love in the end but I stand by what I said.

I feel exactly the same way, UDStyle. I strongly disagree with you. I stand by what I have said. I hope that we can have a more reasoned and two-sided debate, rather than what has preceded. But I don't have anything against you personally. I love you and everyone else on this board.

I hope the debate will continue, and I hope to see some actual evidence on the other side. I look forward to seeing that evidence.

[Zungas]

Whoa

[k18]

double whoa!

[UDStyle]

seeing as I only got 7 minutes online right now and you wrote a short novel, I'll address the plausible thing only for now..

Wether you want to believe that one meaning of plausible coincides with the word possible or not doesn't matter to me. From k18's defination and one i gave earlier, one possible way of using the word plausible is substitute for the word possible. But why take my word for it (which you haven't)? Let's consult a Thesaurus to see if I am right:

Entry: plausible
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: reasonable
Synonyms: believable, colorable, conceivable, credible, creditable, like enough, likely, logical, persuasive, possible, presumable, probable, smooth, sound, specious, supposable, tenable, valid, very likely

Well I guess that ends that once and for all. In your own words I guess the two are "interchangeable".

Oh and two more things:

1) I really don't care about Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary since I am not trying to prove anything in a court of law. First thing you learn in college history is what? EVERYTHING IS HEARSAY. Now when i said everything you brought me is hearsay, that's what I meant. I already stated before why that is so I won't repeat myself.


2)

So, the only true statement is that there is no Truth. Are you sure?

Seriously, though, I hear this self-defeating, relativistic proposition so often that I think it could be called the great illiogical credo of our time. Relativism is king, even though it has no basis in logic or objective philosophy.

You're welcome to believe that Truth does not exist. I'm simply pointing out that by saying that, you're making a statement of fact that can only be described as Truth. You're chasing your tail on that one.

I, for one, believe in transcendent Truth, and I believe that Truth is found in Scripture. All Truth flows from the mouth of the Almighty One, Yahweh, blessed be He. I will affirm that Truth until my dying breath

Yes I am sure, but you made it clear why you don't. You find truth in scripture. Seing it as self defeating is the problem. Life is always changing and truth is at best a point of view. And I'm not chasing my tail because I did not use the words you did. I didn't say that no truth is the only truth, I said there is no such thing, meaning I don't believe that there is because life is always changing. (Vauge I know, but im short on time so it is what it is).

1 Love, 1 Thug, 1 Nation..

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by UDStyle
Wether you want to believe that one meaning of plausible coincides with the word possible or not doesn't matter to me. From k18's defination and one i gave earlier, one possible way of using the word plausible is substitute for the word possible.

The simple definitions given in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries preclude the notion that the words "possible" and "plausible" are synonyms. I have already explained in detail the reasons why this is the case, so doing so here would be repetitive.


Originally posted by UDStyle
But why take my word for it (which you haven't)? Let's consult a Thesaurus to see if I am right:

Entry: plausible
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: reasonable
Synonyms: believable, colorable, conceivable, credible, creditable, like enough, likely, logical, persuasive, possible, presumable, probable, smooth, sound, specious, supposable, tenable, valid, very likely

Well I guess that ends that once and for all. In your own words I guess the two are "interchangeable".

You may want to "end this once and for all," but logic won't let you.

I'm guessing that you have used the thesaurus at thesaurus.com, since what you have above is an exact copy of their entry for the word "plausible." While I generally find this resource reliable, in this instance I believe it to be misleading. Because both Oxford's and Merriam's definitions explicitly clarify the obvious distictions between the words "possible" and "plausible," and because both the aforementioned dictionaries have a long and distinguished history (in sharp contrast to dictionary/thesaurus.com), I will continue to reject the idea that "possible" and "plausible" are synonymous.

What's more, other, more reliable thesauri take a different position than the one you have above:


Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus

Entry Word: plausible

Function: adjective

Text: worthy of being accepted as true or reasonable <it's a plausible explanation for the demise of that prehistoric species> -- see BELIEVABLE

Entry Word: believable

Function: adjective

Text: worthy of being accepted as true or reasonable <she had a believable story for why her homework was late, so she didn't receive any punishment>

Synonyms: credible, likely, plausible, probable

Related Words: acceptable, conceivable, imaginable, POSSIBLE, practical, reasonable; dependable, reliable, trustworthy

Near Antonyms: absurd, doubtful, dubious, fantastic, flimsy, outlandish, preposterous, questionable, ridiculous; IMPOSSIBLE, inconceivable, unimaginable, unthinkable; skeptical, suspect, suspicious, uncertain, unsure; hopeless, unworkable, useless

Antonyms: far-fetched, implausible, improbable, incredible, unbelievable, unlikely

Entry Word: possible

Function: adjective

Text: 1. capable of being done or carried out <I think that building the entire set in two days is possible, if difficult>

Synonyms: achievable, attainable, doable, feasible, practicable, realizable, viable, workable

Related Words: practical, reasonable, sensible; likely, probable; acceptable, believable, conceivable, creditable, PLAUSIBLE; available, usable

Near Antonyms: impractical, unrealistic; doubtful, dubious, far-fetched, improbable, unlikely; IMPLAUSIBLE, inconceivable, incredible, unbelievable; futile, useless, vain; absurd, fantastic, outlandish, preposterous, ridiculous; unthinkable

Antonyms: hopeless, impossible, impracticable, unachievable, unattainable, unworkable

2. existing only as a possibility and not in fact <only one of several possible outcomes> -- see POTENTIAL

Notice the portions that I have highlighted. The synonyms of "plausible" are as follows: believable, credible, likely, probable. That's it. Among related words (NOT synonyms), is the word in question, "possible." The same can be said in reverse for "near antonyms." I have also included the entry for possible, with a similar result. The status of "related word" for the words "possible" and "plausible" is consistent with all previous definitions given of the words "possible" and "plausible."

They are related words, in that something that is plausible is also possible. However, something that is merely "possible" is not necessarily "plausible." It's a lot like rectangles and squares. As we all know, every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. Only a specific kind of rectangle is a square, and only a specific kind of "possible" idea is a "plausible" one. That specific kind of "possible" idea is one that is apparently likely, or deserving of trustworthiness.

Since the Da Vinci Code is neither aparently likely, nor deserving of trustworthiness, it is not a plausible theory.


Originally posted by UDStyle
1) I really don't care about Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary since I am not trying to prove anything in a court of law. First thing you learn in college history is what? EVERYTHING IS HEARSAY. Now when i said everything you brought me is hearsay, that's what I meant. I already stated before why that is so I won't repeat myself.

If historians took the position you do, namely that we can't say anything about an event unless we were physically present, then we would know nothing about history whatsoever. I, for one, am very happy that this is not the case. We can rely on reasoned and believable eyewitness accounts of past events, even if we were not there to witness the events ourselves. One can certainly debate the degree to which such accounts are truly representative of reality, but this must be done on a case-by-case basis.

The first rule of historical documentary analysis is that all documents are innocent until proven guilty (or in many cases, shown likely to be guilty). Your statements seem to indicate that you would throw out every historical document because nobody alive today witnessed the events chronicled therein. This is an extreme position, and is not even consistent with your own position that the Da Vinci Code really happened. If such an event did occur, the only evidence would be historical documentation, which you reject as unreliable based on your "eyewitness rule."

This whole debate is particularly interesting considering the age of the canonical Gospels relative to the Gnostic "gospels" often used to support the imagined marriage of Yeshua and Mary Magdalene. Forgetting for a moment that these "gospels" say nothing about a marriage between the two, and actually strongly suggest that such a marriage did not exist, the Gnostic texts postdate Yeshua's ministry by several hundred years. Any material in these texts is therefore highly suspect.

On the other hand, the four canonical Gospels were all completed within the lifetime of those who actually witnessed the events described therein. They give no indication that Yeshua was married to anyone, let alone Mary Magdalene, and strongly indicate that He was celibate. Because of their close temporal proximity to the events they describe, these documents have a high degree of credibility. This is not only because the events were fresh in the minds of those who wrote the Gospels, but also because many other eyewitnesses, still living, could corroborate the accounts. If material were left out, or if portions of the documents did not reflect reality, those who actually witnessed the events could have easily and effectively spoken out against the Apostles. Nobody would have believed a fictionalized account of the events that occurred because so many eyewitnesses were still alive and able to attest to the truth. The absence of this criticism and the explosion of the faith are both strong indicators that the canonical accounts of Yeshua's life are true and reliable.


Originally posted by UDStyle
2)Yes I am sure, but you made it clear why you don't. You find truth in scripture. Seing it as self defeating is the problem. Life is always changing and truth is at best a point of view.

I would very much like to know on what empirical evidence you base your belief that "truth is at best a point of view." This is a very popular assumption nowadays, but I have yet to hear a clear, logical and sound explanation of why anyone actually believes this.

Also, to which thruths are you referring? If it is scientific truth, then you doom us to the Dark Ages. If it is governmental truth, then you consign us to anarcy. If it is historical truth, then you wipe the slate of time clean and leave us with no past and no future. If it is moral truth, then your philosophy is no better than the moral philosophy of a sociopath.


Originally posted by UDStyle
And I'm not chasing my tail because I did not use the words you did. I didn't say that no truth is the only truth, I said there is no such thing, meaning I don't believe that there is because life is always changing. (Vauge I know, but im short on time so it is what it is).

You made the following statement:

"... there is no such thing as truth with a capital T."

This is a declarative statement, and is therefore a statement of fact. Fact is synonymous with truth. You are therefore saying that it is true that there is no truth. Please tell me how that makes any sense to you, because it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

As for this "life is always changing" business, I'm not sure what conclusion I'm supposed to draw based on this concept. Are you saying that if somewhere down the line your life changes, then truth will change as well? And what truth would change exactly? Your own personal truth? Are we all islands unto ourselves, floating in a universe of our own egos and choosing what we believe truth to be? I am reminded of three passages from Scripture:



Romans 1:25
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

2 Timothy 4: 3-4

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Jude 1:17-19

17 But, dear friends, remember what the Apostles of our Lord Yeshua HaMashiach foretold. 18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

You're right about one thing, though. What you've written is pretty vague. You're going to need to clarify that when you get the opportunity.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
The simple definitions given in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries preclude the notion that the words "possible" and "plausible" are synonyms. I have already explained in detail the reasons why this is the case, so doing so here would be repetitive.



You may want to "end this once and for all," but logic won't let you.

I'm guessing that you have used the thesaurus at thesaurus.com, since what you have above is an exact copy of their entry for the word "plausible." While I generally find this resource reliable, in this instance I believe it to be misleading. Because both Oxford's and Merriam's definitions explicitly clarify the obvious distictions between the words "possible" and "plausible," and because both the aforementioned dictionaries have a long and distinguished history (in sharp contrast to dictionary/thesaurus.com), I will continue to reject the idea that "possible" and "plausible" are synonymous.

What's more, other, more reliable thesauri take a different position than the one you have above:
LMAO! OK stop where you are. Now you are trying to say that thesaurus.com is unreliable? Okay you have tried to say some pretty out of this world things combined with clover usage of words but this is just rediculous. I'm sorry, but I don't care how confident you are in how well educated you think you are, but to claim your reasoning of the word stands out against thesaurus, which is apart of reference.com, one of the most popular and recognized net resources for word usage and grammer. Just stop lol. I'm going to tell you right now that no one is going to take your interprutation of the word, which are more or less based on nothing but your opinion, over reference.com. To add to that my edition of Roget's Thesaurus also lists possible as a synonym for Plausible. Agains another credible source that claims they are synonyms. And one more thing, just because webster did not add it to their synonym's list, and instead to related words, DOES NOT make Roget's or Thesaurus.com less credible. That's just nonsense. You can continue to reject it but that doesn't matter since it is entirely your opinion and nothing more.

So it did "let me end it once and for all and logic did let me" lol. But this notion might stop the fun a little too early, so...

And the reason why the idea that there is no truth with a captial T, truth is a point of view, and the notion that the world is onstantly changing is because they are more accurate then not. When someone writes their account of an event, it is just that, their account. Now I'm sure you are going to dissmiss this like you do everything else I have said, but luckily everything you have said has been nothing but an opinion backed by other opinions. I found it funny that you tried to use law as backing for hearsay though, seeing is that we are not trying to prove anyhting in a court of law. You heavily rely on written documents of people that you never knew, and about events you did not witness and hope to god that nothing was tampered with in the process.


Please tell me how that makes any sense to you, because it makes no sense whatsoever to me

Simple, it is my belief but that doesn't mean that is absolutely true. A lot like your statements yet you still believe everything you say is 100% truth, and would never ever entertain the idea that you be in error on the possibility that your resources are in error. You already have shown why you defend each small notion as best as you can in this topic; it's your strong belief in the scriptures themselves. Thing is it doesn't matter what is said to you because you will always have another opinion to reinforce your belief that the scriptures are the Truth.

The best part about all this fun is that you still haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the events surrounding the grail and priory of sion are impossible. Then again that maybe the closest thing to impossible we may ever find in this. Here is the trick, I'm not actually debating you, :) i don't need to bring any positive evidence to the notion that it did happen. You still think I believe it did and thats why you are still going all out. But I never actually said I believe it did. All I ever stated was it cannot be proven that the events were impossible. I presented a notion that was improbable to prove impossible which I knew someone would wrack their brains about trying to prove it impossible. An impossible task. I admit it was mischevious on some level, but it was all in good fun and I couldn't help myself the moment I saw this topic.

I told you from the begining, I was in this for the fun. And I gotta thank you, you gave me exactly what I was looking for. :) :)

[Zungas]

This is the battle of all battles.

[k18]

I think we can call it a war, now.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by UDStyle
LMAO! OK stop where you are. Now you are trying to say that thesaurus.com is unreliable? Okay you have tried to say some pretty out of this world things combined with clover usage of words but this is just rediculous. I'm sorry, but I don't care how confident you are in how well educated you think you are, but to claim your reasoning of the word stands out against thesaurus, which is apart of reference.com, one of the most popular and recognized net resources for word usage and grammer. Just stop lol. I'm going to tell you
right now that no one is going to take your interprutation of the word, which are more or less based on nothing but your opinion, over
reference.com. To add to that my edition of Roget's Thesaurus also lists possible as a synonym for Plausible. Agains another credible
source that claims they are synonyms. And one more thing, just because webster did not add it to their synonym's list, and instead to
related words, DOES NOT make Roget's or Thesaurus.com less credible. That's just nonsense. You can continue to reject it but that doesn't matter since it is entirely your opinion and nothing more.

So it did "let me end it once and for all and logic did let me" lol. But this notion might stop the fun a little too early, so...

First, if you'll actually look at my post, I specifically stated that I find thesaurus.com to be a generally reliable resource. That is not to say the resource is perfect, which seems to be your position. Given that two other well respected dictionaries give definitions that clearly indicate the differences between the words "plausible" and "possible," and given that Merriam-Webster's thesaurus follows suit in indicating that the two are not exact synonyms, I feel perfectly confident in saying that the two are not exact synonyms. So, you can claim that it's "entirely [my] opinion and nothing more," but the fact remains that two well-respected dictionaries and at least one well-respected thesaurus give results in accord with what I have been saying all along.

What's more, you seem dead-set on establishing everything that I say as merely "opinion," when I have done my level best to back up everything I've said not only with logical, coherent writing of my own, but also with the reasoned research of others. This is the nature of true debate. Whether you agree with my "opinion" or not is another matter, but you seem willing neither to form coherent sentences, nor to state precisely what your position is on the topic at hand, nor to back up what you've said with independent research, nor even to read the independent research provided by others. If this is the way you act in all your debates, then I feel very sorry for the people with whom you engage in this type of excercise.


Originally posted by UDStyle
And the reason why the idea that there is no truth with a captial T, truth is a point of view, and the notion that the world is onstantly changing is because they are more accurate then not. When someone writes their account of an event, it is just that, their account.

Essentially, you're saying that there is no independent, universal Truth, and that nobody has the right to tell anyone else what Truth is. That's very New Age, relativistic, "I'm okay, you're okay" thinking, but I wonder if you've stopped to consider the consequences of this philosophy. Who's to say that the thief, or the liar, or the rapist, or the murderer, or the child molester are not all right in their actions under your schema? They all have a "point of view," don't they? You have mentioned several times the child abuse scandal that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church. Under your philosophy, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else would have any logical justification for saying anything about this scandal, because without independent, absolute Truth, we have no basis to judge what it right and what is wrong.

Thankfully, absolute Truth does exist, and we can know for certain what that Truth is by reading the Word of Yahweh. What's more, each of us is born with a conscience, given to us by our Creator. Whether we ignore that conscience or not is another matter, but the fact that you, a non-believer, still attest to the sinfullness of the RCC abuse cases is a powerful testament to the fact that your Creator gave you a sense of right and wrong. It's unfortunate that you refuse to listen to His voice on so many other matters.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Now I'm sure you are going to dissmiss this like you do everything else I have said, but luckily everything you have said has been nothing but an opinion backed by other opinions.

Whenever I have taken issue with something you have written, I have attempted to do so in a reasoned manner, always trying to back up what I've written with independent analysis. What you have done, on the other hand, is to dismiss everything I've said out of hand, without even so much as attempting to see things from my perspective.

When you present an opinion, as you have, without even attempting to back that opinion up with anything but your own experience, then you invite the opposition to point this out. All I am asking for is for both sides to actually look at the information provided on each side of the issue at hand. I have provided ample material on the side of the Gospel account of Yeshua's life, and have been met with paltry material on the side of the Da Vinci code.

If, on the other hand, those on the side of the Da Vinci code were to step up and bring their own reasoned analysis, bolstered by something resembling actual independent research on the subject, then I would have no business complaining. I would still engage in the debate, mind you, but it would be an actual debate, as opposed to what we have right now.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I found it funny that you tried to use law as backing for hearsay though, seeing is that we are not trying to prove anyhting in a court of law.

I find it funny that you don't read my posts. So, let's look at what I wrote again, since you don't seem to have understood it the first time:


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
According to the Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary, hearsay is "astatement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true."

Since neither of us are actually in court, this definition is not wholly germane. However, I have used "hearsay" to describe much of what you have said because you have provided next to nothing in the way of evidence to back up what is essentially an opinion. I, on the other hand, have attempted to provide ample evidence against the Da Vinci Code and in favor of the canonical Gospel account of Yeshua's life.

Notice the highlighted section. Hearsay is a legal term, which is precisely why I used a legal dictionary to define it. Because we are not in a court of law, I specifically stated at the outset that the definition is not WHOLLY relevant. Notice the caveat, "wholly." This definition IS partly relevant to the discussion, because the precise reason why hearsay is inadmissable in a court of law is that it is unverifiable. I have attempted to back up the things I have said with independent analysis, a type of verification. You have not brought much of anything in the way of outside analysis, and have chosen instead to rely almost entirely on your own slanted opinion.

Now, is the analysis I have provided accurate? You be the judge. That's why I have provided it. Instead of "yelling" at me about my "opinions," why don't you try reading the research I've presented, and then see if you believe the Da Vinci Code is accurate?


Originally posted by UDStyle
You heavily rely on written documents of people that you never knew, and about events you did not witness and hope to god that nothing was tampered with in the process.

I rely entirely on the Word of Yahweh. I have seen nothing in my many years of researching His Word, and researching the many critiques by non-believers meant to discredit the Word, that would lead me to do otherwise.

But once again, we're discussing written documents purporting to be eyewitness accounts. There is ample evidence that the Gospels are precisely this, so the only question becomes, how reliable are these accounts? That's for you to decide, but I have given more than enough evidence, and several sites where additional evidence can be found, to show that the Word is indeed True. Here's some more:

http://tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

On a related subject, I find it interesting that you did not really respond specifically to my last post on this subject. Based on your statements about being unwilling to rely at all on other people's eyewitness accounts, history as we know it would collapse as a science. Almost everything we know about history is derived from such accounts, with the obvious exception of historical artifacts (for which would have no context without accompanying written records).


Originally posted by UDStyle
Simple, it is my belief but that doesn't mean that is absolutely true. A lot like your statements yet you still believe everything you say is 100% truth, and would never ever entertain the idea that you be in error on the possibility that your resources are in error. You already have shown why you defend each small notion as best as you can in this topic; it's your strong belief in the scriptures themselves. Thing is it doesn't matter what is said to you because you will always have another opinion to reinforce your belief that the scriptures are the Truth.

So, let me get this straight. You made the following statement:

""... there is no such thing as truth with a capital T."

Once again, this is a declarative statement, meaning that it is a statement of fact. Fact is also truth, so you are saying that it is true that there is no truth. And, according to you, this nonsensical statement makes perfect sense because the statement you've made isn't necessarily absolutely true. So, instead of the statement above, what you should have written is,

"I think there is no such thing as truth with a capital T, but I may very well be completely mistaken.

So, your original statement, which you use to rule out absolute Truth, in fact does nothing of the kind. And while the revised statement makes a bit more sense, it's hardly a philosphy on which to base one's worldview. You'll be in a constant state of uncertainty. If this is your credo, I don't envy what your life must be like.


Originally posted by UDStyle
The best part about all this fun is that you still haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the events surrounding the grail and priory of sion are impossible. Then again that maybe the closest thing to impossible we may ever find in this.

Nope, I've merely shown that it is highly improbable, nigh on impossible, and based on forgery, assumption, conjecture and a self-reinforcing, anti-Scripture ideology. I have also shown that the Code is entirely inconsistent with the canonical Gospels, which are wholly reliable eyewitness accounts of the events of Yeshua's life.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Here is the trick, I'm not actually debating you, :) i don't need to bring any positive evidence to the notion that it did happen. You still think I believe it did and thats why you are still going all out. But I never actually said I believe it did. All I ever stated was it cannot be proven that the events were impossible. I presented a notion that was improbable to prove impossible which I knew someone would wrack their brains about trying to prove it impossible. An impossible task.

I'm well aware that you have never stated explicitly that you believe in the Da Vinci Code. Your use of the word "plausible" however, makes clear that you believe the Code to be likely true, which is the definition of that word. This, unless of course by "plausible" you mean merely "possible," in which case you are using the word incorrectly.

And once again, you're absolutely right. You do not need to bring any positive evidence to show that the Da Vinci Code happened. I don't see how you can believe something to be likely true if you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence to back it up, but that's your prerogative. Given this, if you are unwilling to provide said evidence, maybe someone who is interested in an actual debate on the subject would like to step up to the plate.

And by the way, this doesn't really take much brain wracking. I've done most of the research in advance, and have no trouble calling it up for this debate. If you're attempt is to get me or anyone else on this side riled up or upset, I'm afraid you've failed.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I admit it was mischevious on some level, but it was all in good fun and I couldn't help myself the moment I saw this topic.

I told you from the begining, I was in this for the fun. And I gotta thank you, you gave me exactly what I was looking for. :) :)


I am here for the fun of a real debate. Apparently, you're here to cause mischief, make people angry, and have fun at other people's expense. I am certainly not angry, although that seems to have been your goal. I have, however, spent considerable time in this debate, most of which is wasted on you since you seem unwilling or unable to participate in an actual debate on this subject. I would apreciate it if you would do the following:

1. State your position on the topic.
2. Back that position up with something resembling actual research.
3. Engange in this debate in a friendly manner, rather than in the disengenuous, rude, and intentionally confrontational manner you have displayed thus far.

That would go a long way toward elevating the level of this debate. If you are still unwilling or unable to do this, then you clearly are not in this for anything but the mischief to which you have admitted.

[UDStyle]

hmmmm nope, plausible still is a confirmed synonym for possible and you still haven't (not that anyone can) prove the events were impossible. But then again I (and it seems k18) knew what i was doing from the begining. Oh and Hearsy is a legal term, or more like a term used as a tool in upholding law, but not limited to law.


If you're attempt is to get me or anyone else on this side riled up or upset, I'm afraid you've failed. Actually from the last post (and the few behind that) I think i did more then match my "goal" lol. But let's not be so dramatic, it wasn't to make people angry, that's too strong of a word.


3. Engange in this debate in a friendly manner, rather than in the disengenuous, rude, and intentionally confrontational manner you have displayed thus far. now that's just hypocritcal since from the begining you were guilty of all that, Apoligized for it and then went right to doing it again :lol: You have a pompus and arrogant attitude that creeps out each time. That's what made it more fun.


Thankfully, absolute Truth does exist, and we can know for certain what that Truth is by reading the Word of Yahweh. LOL thank you again.

Anyways.. See all i did was stand a point that I knew was beyond contestation and I knew it would fish out ppl who would take it to the extream. So did a few others it seems which is why some were egging it on (good for you!). I don't care if it's true or not, only thing i ever said was it's possible. Like K18 and I said ppl take it too seriously.

And your reply is...

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by UDStyle
hmmmm nope, plausible still is a confirmed synonym for possible

Maybe in your mind it is, but we don't live in your mind, now do we?


Originally posted by UDStyle
and you still haven't (not that anyone can) prove the events were impossible. But then again I (and it seems k18) knew what i was doing from the begining.

Did I say that I had proved them impossible? Nope. I explained my used of the term "impossible" several posts ago. I guess you were too busy trying to "rile people up" to pay attention.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Oh and Hearsy is a legal term, or more like a term used as a tool in upholding law, but not limited to law.

So now you're admitting that hearsay at least has some application outside a courtroom? Before you were chiding me for using a legal dictionary because we weren't trying to prove anything in a court of law. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Actually from the last post (and the few behind that) I think i did more then match my "goal" lol. But let's not be so dramatic, it wasn't to make people angry, that's too strong of a word.

If I say I'm not angry, then you can believe it. I'm not the one playing mind games here, UDStyle. That seems to be your job. And it's not me being "dramatic" when you admit your intentions.


Originally posted by UDStyle
now that's just hypocritcal since from the begining you were guilty of all that, Apoligized for it and then went right to doing it again :lol: You have a pompus and arrogant attitude that creeps out each time. That's what made it more fun.

I admitted nothing of the sort. I said that my comments were interpreted as such, and that it was unintentional on my part. I was not trying to be pompous or arrogant, but in that one post, I can see where you might interpret it that way. That's precisely why I apologized.

You, on the other hand, have admitted to your "mischief," namely the intentional baiting of a fight. All I want is a friendly debate. You're the one obfuscating, skirting the issue, and being intentionally confrontational.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Anyways.. See all i did was stand a point that I knew was beyond contestation and I knew it would fish out ppl who would take it to the extream. So did a few others it seems which is why some were egging it on (good for you!). I don't care if it's true or not, only thing i ever said was it's possible. Like K18 and I said ppl take it too seriously.

And your reply is...

My reply is that your post begs the question, "why even come here in the first place?" You clearly don't care whether the Da Vinci Code is true or not, so the only reason I can see why you would want to be here is to stir up a fight. To do this, you have intentionally withheld your opinion on the matter, engaged in lengthy semantic tangents, brought up hurtful and completely unnecessary issues like the RCC abuse scandal, etc. I find this to be deplorable, especially when you cloak yourself in smiley faces and act like you have nothing against anyone.

And I'd like to address something from your previous post:


Originally posted by UDStyle
A lot like your statements yet you still believe everything you say is 100% truth, and would never ever entertain the idea that you be in error on the possibility that your resources are in error.

I'm not going to just fold on something I hold to be true simply because you want me to do so. If you want to get me to change my mind, you're going to have to earn it. I've been proven wrong many times in my life, and have readily admitted my faults and foibles. However, these incidents came from people who clearly care about me and wanted to show me the error of my ways not to tear me down, but rather to build me up.

You, on the other hand, seem dead-set on fighting for a fight's sake, a penchant I got over in grade school. I see nothing in what you've written so far that would lead me to change my opinion on something as simple as whether two related words are synonyms, much less whether my faith is based on a lie.

I will continue to hold fast to the Truth, and I don't really care if you think that makes me arrogant. I would rather have the praise of Almighty Yahweh than the praise of men any day of the week.

[UDStyle]

lol Just like I thought. Your like the gift that keeps on giving.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Maybe in your mind it is, but we don't live in your mind, now do we? No No reality.. refer to thesaurus.com for that :D. But maybe that's in my mind too :lol:




Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Did I say that I had proved them impossible? Nope. I explained my used of the term "impossible" several posts ago. I guess you were too busy trying to "rile people up" to pay attention. .
That's high quality grade A frustration.. Anyways.. saying they were not impossible was all I ever said, so i guess anything else would be "in your own world".



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
So now you're admitting that hearsay at least has some application outside a courtroom? Before you were chiding me for using a legal dictionary because we weren't trying to prove anything in a court of law. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
when did I say it never had a place in the courtroom? lol I just said that wasn't limited to the courtroom. LMAO @ "Oh how the mighty have fallen". Now that's dramatic! I love it!



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
If I say I'm not angry, then you can believe it. I'm not the one playing mind games here, UDStyle. That seems to be your job. And it's not me being "dramatic" when you admit your intentions.
We believe you ;). ...Or what you think are my intentions.



Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
I admitted nothing of the sort. I said that my comments were interpreted as such, and that it was unintentional on my part. I was not trying to be pompous or arrogant, but in that one post, I can see where you might interpret it that way. That's precisely why I apologized..

You, on the other hand, have admitted to your "mischief," namely the intentional baiting of a fight. All I want is a friendly debate. You're the one obfuscating, skirting the issue, and being intentionally confrontational. :lol: I'm sure, it was 'unintentional', So I guess what you apologized for just comes natural since you still did it after you apologized. lol A fight? No. Seeing someone go as far as you did? Yes




Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
My reply is that your post begs the question, "why even come here in the first place?" You clearly don't care whether the Da Vinci Code is true or not I already explained that. Because people, like you, take it too serious. Because I knew there were people here, like you, who saw it as much more then a simple debate..


Thankfully, absolute Truth does exist, and we can know for certain what that Truth is by reading the Word of Yahweh. Remember. You can say it was for a simple debate all you want potna. No one goes out of his way to write such long winded replies unless they really got something to say that holds something personal for them.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
I will continue to hold fast to the Truth, and I don't really care if you think that makes me arrogant. I would rather have the praise of Almighty Yahweh than the praise of men any day of the week. Good for you *thumbs up* You're still have an arrogant & pompus attitude though. Both symptoms of Pride. You read the bible, what does that teach you about pride? :)

And believe it or not this is still all love. But don't stop now we are having too much fun.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by UDStyle
That's high quality grade A frustration.. Anyways.. saying they were not impossible was all I ever said, so i guess anything else would be "in your own world".

It's not hard to get frustrated when someone intentionally picks a fight, and then claims that it's "all in good fun." The blame is laid squarely at your feet, UDStyle. All I wanted was a friendly debate on the subject, and that's all I still want.

In that vein, if anyone else on the side of the Da Vinci Code would care to step up, please feel free. I'm sure there is someone out there who actually wants a debate, instead of a surreptitious attempt at childish humor at the expense of those on the other side of the issue.


Originally posted by UDStyle
when did I say it never had a place in the courtroom? lol I just said that wasn't limited to the courtroom.

:rolleyes: Again, you aren't reading my posts. I never said that you said hearsay has no place in the courtroom. I pointed out that your initial posts seemed to indicate that you think the legal definition has no place outside the courtroom. So, let's go through this slowly. Here's what you initially wrote in response to my definition of hearsay:


Originally posted by UDStyle
I found it funny that you tried to use law as backing for hearsay though, seeing is that we are not trying to prove anyhting in a court of law.

In other words, you're claiming that since we aren't in a court of law, the legal definition of hearsay has no place in this debate. I responded that hearsay is primarily a legal term, but with application outside the courtrooom (as I said in my initial post on the subject). Then you write that hearsay is a legal term with application outside the courtroom, which is exactly what I said all along. That's why I pointed out your inconsistency, because your initial posts called into question my use of legal terminology in a non-court setting, whereas your last post argues that the word hearsay has non-legal implications.


Originally posted by UDStyle
:lol: I'm sure, it was 'unintentional', So I guess what you apologized for just comes natural since you still did it after you apologized. lol A fight? No. Seeing someone go as far as you did? Yes

You can believe what you want, UDStyle. I'm not an arrogant person simply because I disagree with your position, no matter how strongly. You seem to want everyone to just bow to your whims, but that's not the type of person I am.


Originally posted by UDStyle
I already explained that. Because people, like you, take it too serious. Because I knew there were people here, like you, who saw it as much more then a simple debate..

Remember. You can say it was for a simple debate all you want potna. No one goes out of his way to write such long winded replies unless they really got something to say that holds something personal for them.

Who are you to decide what I should and should not take seriously? The Da Vinci Hoax is a not-so-subtle attack on the very fabric of my faith. I won't apologize for taking that attack very seriously. My faith is indeed something I take personally, and I will defend it against malicious and completely unfounded trash like the Da Vinci Hoax.


Originally posted by UDStyle
Good for you *thumbs up* You're still have an arrogant & pompus attitude though. Both symptoms of Pride. You read the bible, what does that teach you about pride? :)

You can call me arrogant, pompous and prideful all you want, UDStyle. It won't make it true. But then again, you don't believe in truth anyway, so I guess it's all relative.


Originally posted by UDStyle
And believe it or not this is still all love. But don't stop now we are having too much fun.

Love? :lol: You crack me up, man. If this is how you "love" people, I'm afraid to see how you hate them.

As for me, I see no reason to continue answering the fool according to his folly. If somebody else would like to have an actual debate on topic, I'll be around. Otherwise, UDStyle, you can play in your sandbox by your lonesome.

[UDStyle]

And you still don't understand. No I read everything you said cuzzo, you just misread mine (over and over and over and over lol). Instead you get hung up on words like Plausible which was shown to be used correctly, though you tried to discredit the point with all your heart. And yes it's all love, but you still ain't figured out what I mean by that yet. That's cool. It wouldn't be the first time in this topic that you didn't catch on to what I was saying or doing (followed by a belligerent remark from you towards me).


You can call me arrogant, pompous and prideful all you want, UDStyle. It won't make it true. You're right, that's why I quoted each time you were pompus, arrogent etc. most of the times you did it and pointed it out to back up that statement. :D

[k18]

To be honest, I don't think anyone can be 100% positive that the things in the Da Vinci Code were all lies or fictional. There is no way of telling that it never happened. It's hilarious how some people take offense to this stuff. The fact that some people take so much time to prove that the things in the book never happened, makes me wonder who they are trying to convince; the ones they are debating against or themselves? Well, that's just my two cents.

[yeshuamyking7]

My comments to UDStyle's last post would be repetitive if included here. No matter, I hope someone on the side of the Da Vinci Code has the time and inclination to have an actual debate on the topic.


Originally posted by k18
To be honest, I don't think anyone can be 100% positive that the things in the Da Vinci Code were all lies or fictional. There is no way of telling that it never happened.

It can be shown to be highly unlikely, which is precisely what I have attempted to do. I think the evidence against the Code, only some of which I have presented here, is compelling.

The fact that such a baseless claim continues to fascinate the public is yet another example of self-serving ideology. Those who believe in the Code are already inclined not to believe in Scripture. Therefore, they will continue to follow after the Code, or any other theory that discredits Scripture, no matter how insane it is.



Originally posted by k18
It's hilarious how some people take offense to this stuff.

Once again, the Da Vinci Code is an attack on the very fabric of my faith and that of millions of others. I see every reason to take that attack seriously, as it has seduced many into a false belief in an imagined history, drawing them away from the Truth and away from salvation. I don't find that in the least bit "hilarious."


Originally posted by k18
The fact that some people take so much time to prove that the things in the book never happened, makes me wonder who they are trying to convince; the ones they are debating against or themselves? Well, that's just my two cents.

Well, that's a rather spurious argument, k18. I'm already quite convinced of the Truth of Scripture, and need no further self-assurance. What I am concerned about is the eternal fate of those who accept the Da Vinci Code or any other lie as truth, for they are heading through the wide gate to destruction.

[Zungas]

Can't wait to hear the movie reviews from u guys.

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by k18
To be honest, I don't think anyone can be 100% positive that the things in the Da Vinci Code were all lies or fictional. There is no way of telling that it never happened. It's hilarious how some people take offense to this stuff. The fact that some people take so much time to prove that the things in the book never happened, makes me wonder who they are trying to convince; the ones they are debating against or themselves? Well, that's just my two cents. Couldn't agree more. Shame certain ppl will go so far to try claim it didn't occur that they get clouded and even get hung up on trivial things. Shame, but it's just reality. And you're absolutely right. There is no way whatsoever to be 100% positive that it did or did not happen.

[SheBangs]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
The fact that such a baseless claim continues to fascinate the public is yet another example of self-serving ideology.

What is so wrong with self-serving ideology? Shouldnt people be able to create their own form of beliefs, if it gives them something that such as hope?


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Those who believe in the Code are already inclined not to believe in Scripture.

The same thing could be stated at the Bible itself. Those who believe that the Bible is all Truth are already inclined to believe that the Code is not real.


Originally posted by yeshuamyking7
Therefore, they will continue to follow after the Code, or any other theory that discredits Scripture, no matter how insane it is.

That is a huge generalzation. Just because believes the code does not mean that they follow any other theory that discredits the Bible.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by SheBangs
What is so wrong with self-serving ideology? Shouldnt people be able to create their own form of beliefs, if it gives them something that such as hope?

Everyone is free to follow whatever beliefs they choose. That doesn't make all beliefs inherently good, much less inherently believable. If someone can't provide sufficient evidence for his or her beliefs, then what is the point of having them in the first place? Baseless claims are not deserving of anyone's time.

This is precisely the problem I'm addressing. Because a person is already inclined not to believe in the Bible, they delude themselves into believing whatever trash comes along that discredits it, no matter how baseless the charge.


Originally posted by SheBangs
The same thing could be stated at the Bible itself. Those who believe that the Bible is all Truth are already inclined to believe that the Code is not real.

That's certainly true. The question is, whose beliefs have basis in actual hard facts, and whose do not? I've presented an overview of evidence for my beliefs, and against the Code. I believe this evidence is compelling. On the other side of this debate, all I've received are excuses and baseless reprimands. If someone would at least attempt to present some actual evidence on the side of the Code, then maybe we can have a debate. Until then, it's pretty one-sided.


Originally posted by SheBangs
That is a huge generalzation. Just because believes the code does not mean that they follow any other theory that discredits the Bible.

That's not what I said. I said that the type of person who has a pre-conceived bias against Scripture will be predisposed to a belief in the Code or another anti-Scripture theory. That doesn't necessarily mean that any individual person will believe more than one such theory, but that this class of person is predisposed to believing in that class of theories.

[TMLS]

Originally posted by TMLS
Never read it, want to see the film first and actually see a film based on a book without being able to nit pick it. Enhanced my viewing of Narnia that trick so happy to do it again.

In this case I guess I'm a liar! Bought myself the book for my birthday last week, I read it as quickly as would a Harry Potter book. It engrossed me and captured me. Now reading Angels and Demons, and bought Brown's other books too.

Simply an amazing book, I can't see what all the fuss is about to be honest, it states pretty heavily the reasons for what it's saying so if someone feels their religious argument is now devalued then they can't have had much faith in that argument in the first place.

Some very interesting stuff that's undeniable to be fair.

Oh, and according to a news report at the weekend there's some belief now that the Grail is located 10 miles down the road from me!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4818084.stm

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by TMLS
Simply an amazing book, I can't see what all the fuss is about to be honest, it states pretty heavily the reasons for what it's saying so if someone feels their religious argument is now devalued then they can't have had much faith in that argument in the first place.

I'm not sure about the way you're phrasing the statements above, so I'll try to explain why I take issue with you here.

First, "all the fuss" is about the fact that Brown is recycling old claims that were false when they were first raised and haven't gotten better with age. Rehashing a tired, incorrect theory in novel form, even if it's an engrossing novel, is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig.

As for your last statement, while I certainly take the Da Vinci Hoax for what it is, namely a direct attack on my faith, I don't feel it "devalues" my beliefs in the way that you've described. The theory is just that - a theory. Some theories have a great deal of evidence to back them up. Others, like the Da Vinci Hoax, are riddled with errors and inconsistency. It hasn't made me question my faith. It's only strengthened my resolve to tell people about that faith, because many have been deceived by Brown's baseless claims.


Originally posted by TMLS
Some very interesting stuff that's undeniable to be fair.

I'm sorry, but it's very easily denied, and with good reason - it's false. I've mentioned some of the most compelling arguments against the theory, and have provided ample material for further study. If people continue to accept the Hoax after only examining one side of the issue, that's not my fault.


Originally posted by TMLS
Oh, and according to a news report at the weekend there's some belief now that the Grail is located 10 miles down the road from me!

I have to say that while I find some of these sorts of Indiana Jones-esque archaeological speculations to be fascinating, I really don't see the point in spending much time on it. The obsession with religious artifacts in Christendom was one of the reasons for the Reformation. These things take on a sort of fetish-like "magical" aura that only cheapens the faith.

Scriptural faith has nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin, or pieces of the Cross, or the Holy Grail. These are just things, and whether or not they really are authentic artifacts is beside the point. People are dying in their sins. Finding the Holy Grail does nothing for that sobering reality. The obsession with these artifacts is just a further sign that the spiritual message of salvation isn't getting the attention that it deserves.

[Rafael122]

Just saw the trailer for this, and it looks AWESOME. Is this a summer film?

[shadowcat20x]

Dude, now I want a smart car even more

[UDStyle]

Originally posted by Rafael122
Just saw the trailer for this, and it looks AWESOME. Is this a summer film? Yeah it does. If you're grown and don't catch feelings it definately looks like a movie you can get into and enjoy. Definately an entertanment contender with some of the other blockbusters.

[suave_man]

Hi guys, this is my first post. I just want to say that I am currently reading the Da Vinci Code and it's amazing! I couldn't put the book down! I'm still reading it, but so far I love it. I can't wait for the movie, either!

[Rafael122]

Originally posted by UDStyle
Yeah it does. If you're grown and don't catch feelings it definately looks like a movie you can get into and enjoy. Definately an entertanment contender with some of the other blockbusters.

I'm 24 and I haven't read the book so I'm totally going into this with no prior knowledge of whats going on. Though I have heard about the controversy.

[suave_man]

I finished reading the book and it was amazing. So much suspense going on in every chapter. I can't wait for the movie!

[littlegreenelf]

I started reading the book but never finished it for some reason. i have been meaning to start it again but haven't got around to it. But from the trailer the movie looks like it is going to be great.

[suave_man]

I'm reading Angels and Demons right now. Another Robert Langdon adventure. Dan Brown sure is a great writer!

[slayer]

I hate Hanks' hair! :eek:

[Knoxy]

:lol: I didn't even recognize him at first. At least it's better than Castaway.

The movie should be good becasue it's not a very long story, and the writing style should translate nicely to the big screen. Especially with Ron Howard directing the film.

[Happy Random]

I just finished the Da Vinci Code a few days ago. I can't wait to see the movie! The book was awesome, and it should make a great movie. :D

The trailer was really cool. I'm not sure who it is that Sir Ian McKellen is going to play though. Does anyone know for sure? :)

[suave_man]

yeah, he plays Sir Leigh Teabing.

[Happy Random]

Oh, ok, thanks! I figured it was Teabing or Aringarosa. :D

[umm]

Oh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but maybe it's already have been known on this thread, anyway, the critics proclaimed it to be, well to put it nicely a not so good adaptation of the book! Now, I haven´t seen the movie, so I don't know if they are being fair or not, but that's the newest buzz!

[redraven]

I've read the book and I want to see the movie...the movies are never as good as the books, for me, anyway so it's okay. I'll still watch it. :)

[umm]

Originally posted by redraven
I've read the book and I want to see the movie...the movies are never as good as the books, for me, anyway so it's okay. I'll still watch it. :)

I just bought the book, the problem is, its ca. 450 pages long, and I am in the middle of my exams, and since I am one of those who can't put a book down until they have read it completly, I can't risk it! Because if I start reading the book instead of preparing for my exams, well then I am in a jam, as they say!

[redraven]

I'm the same way. :D We have exams, well major tests all week too. *sigh* They suck.

[Rafael122]

Yeah, the local news here claimed that those who have seen it already say its laughable and doesnt follow the book. Its one of my pet peeves, books that are turned into movies because you know its not going to be exactly like the book, yet people keep bringing up the argument.

[Zungas]

Didn't go over to well at Cannes.

[vyperman7]

Originally posted by Zungas
Didn't go over to well at Cannes.

I just read that on yahoo news.

Sucks to be Ron Howard.. :lol:

[Welsh Dragon]

Originally posted by Rafael122
Yeah, the local news here claimed that those who have seen it already say its laughable and doesnt follow the book. Its one of my pet peeves, books that are turned into movies because you know its not going to be exactly like the book, yet people keep bringing up the argument.

That's funny, a bad review I heard last night said it was too close to the book and therefore had no surprises!

Looks like it's an opinion splitter...

[k18]

I'm looking forward to the movie either way. I think I will see it on Saturday.

[Keyblade]

I'm seeign it tomorrow and I can't wait.

[Rafael122]

Well, the Movie Mom over at Yahoo gave it a B-. I think the movie is going to break $100 million anyway. From there, who knows. I'll be seeing it tomorrow.

Ebert gives it *** which I'm assuming is an A. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060517/REVIEWS/60419009

[Keyblade]

I think it was ****, pure and utter ****. I hated the film, it was boring and all the "twists" were obvious, especially the end.

[UDStyle]

uh huh.. anyways the film was pretty good. Not oscar worthy but not bad either. From the stand point that i had already read the book nothing was a big surprise to me but it was an overall cool film.

[Spirit5]

it broke $30 mill on it's first day which is no small feat.

[Rafael122]

Saw it last night, theatre was packed and I thought it was an excellent movie. Highly recommended. The only drawback is that it was about 2 and a half hours.

[LuckyKrypto]

I saw this on Friday, and I have to say I really didn't care for it too much. It started off great, but overall, the ending of this movie bothered me. I really would have liked it better had they stayed a little closer to the book.

[Welsh Dragon]

Film was OK but nothing special.

[redraven]

Well I thought it was pretty good, maybe because I had low expectations. I always do when movies that are made after books come out. It wasn't shocking or anything...and the ending wasn't perfect, but I liked it.

[umm]

I am currently reading the book, chapter 24 to be exact, so of course I am staying clear of the movietheatres and the movie itself! But once I read the book, I'll watch the movie!

[k18]

It was a good movie, but not excellent. Loved the book more though.

[umm]

Oh my God, I just read the book! It was great, exciting, keept me on my toes the whole time! I imagined myself racing through the different stages of the hunt together with Sophie and Robert! Simply great!
As for the movie, even though I haven't seen it yet, I am sure it is a fairily good movie, still it couldn't possibly live up to the book!

[Shinzon2004]

I think that people expected too much about the movie,sure it is interesting,but not Academy Award material.

I liked Tom Hanks and certain moments of the film but sometimes it was a bit boring....anyway I havent read the book yet but it seems that it is better than the movie.

Tom Hanks is one of my favorites actors,I think that the movie had too much publicity but it wasnt really spectacular.

[Rafael122]

The thing is, all the hype came from the critics and religious protesters. In fact, all the negativity helped the movie make more money than it did.

[chlex_44]

After seeing the movie, I think the book was 10 times better. Not to say I didn't like the movie, because I did, but there seemed like there were alot of componenets that were changed, which i thought shouldn't have.

But I was happy it did really well. All those critics trying to persuade the public into not seeing it, definetly didn't work.

[natalie s]

I've just got back from seeing it, (God bless study leave!) and i really enjoyed the film.

The plot was a bit predictable, but it was still good to watch it all unfold. However as i haven't read much of the book i can't make a comparison.

[The Petri Dish Kid]

Either way I say it's still best to read the book. The movie failed to capture the phenomenon that the book created.

Most significantly they failed with the Robert Langdon character. Tom Hanks made him so wooden and two dimensional. The Sophie Nevue character was better and Audrey Tautou is just like they say: cute as a button

[WathorigHH]

I saw the movie last Wednesday and I really liked it. I haven't read the book before, but it's defintetely the next on my to-read-list.

OK, the plot was sometimes a bit predictable (especially the ending), but sometimes surprising. My friend who was with me in the theater and has read the book said the movie was very close to the book. Whatever! I'll see soon for myself. ;) The movie was very thrilling and had a good pace. The 150 minutes went by very fast.

I liked the theories although I went in the movie knowing it is all fiction. Most of the mentioned symbols even don't exist. From that point I couldn't understand all the controversy before. All in all the movie was good entertainment.