13020Re: Rex Mundi film,
- Mar 3, 2007I think things go/can go odd in acheology sometimes. Sometimes, it
simply takes time to sort things out. For example (an example which
I think is kinda funny,) I was watching as show few days/weeks back
on Tut, and folks were discussing this mural of him with a deformed
leg. Basically, they were staring at this mural and yet wondering
why he had 100+ walking sticks burried with him in his tomb. ?
Then, as the program went on, essentially trying to riddle his cause
of death, they discovered his broken/missing kneecap and wondered ifn
that might've been what killed him. In time, I imagine they'll sort
things out to speculate that Tut might've had a knee injury that
didn't kill him but left him lame. Still, as yet, I don't think I've
heard they have.
--- In email@example.com, Michael Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
> Well for once I agree completely with Robert Eisenman.
> lady_caritas wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I think part of the issue in here may be that right now there
> > > movement in popular culture to place a "Gnostic" tag on things
> > > question the "orthodox" church. On top of that, though you are
> > > that some of the movies that are out now are getting people to
> > > some (like the Da Vinci Code) are actually spreading false and
> > > harmful info about Gnosticism. Because this forum tries
> > > hard to keep the info about Gnosticism as technically accurate
> > > can, some of us may sometimes find ourselves combating the
> > > book, poem, music, etc., in question (even if we may like them
> > > personally).
> > >
> > > Imagine the number of people who initially joined this forum
> > > they thought Gnostics believed that Jesus had children.
> > >
> > > PMCV
> > >
> > There seems to be a pervasive need in popular culture to commonly
> > think in terms of historical figures when it comes to religious
> > matters. And mostly I shrug my shoulders, except in some cases
> > misinformation is blatantly tagged to scholarship.
> > From an article today in /The New York Times/:
> > /Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was
> > wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a
> > fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by
> > like Elaine Pagels as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown
> > best seller "The Da Vinci Code."/
> > ("Leaning on Theory, Colliding With Faith" by Alessandra
> > *http://tinyurl.com/2sv7v5*
> > I wonder how Elaine Pagels would /really/ describe what she
> > the "foundation," the FOUNDATION (yikes), of Gnostic studies and
> > she feels about being lumped in the same sentence with Dan Brown.
> > Robert Eisenman presents a scathing contrast:
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070228/cm_huffpost/042235
> > Cari
> Excellent article.
> M. Leavitt
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>