Um...so. First, I would like to say that I KNOW The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and while I enjoyed it, it was only an okay book. I think it had some excellent publicity (as has Angels and Demons .. also just an okay book). with that said -- this book is Christian propaganda.It purports to be truth because it has a historian write about the errors in The Da Vinci Code, so? why do I care if a work of fiction isn't completely accurate? I have ready many alternate histories -- I have even written one.So, what I found most entertaining (and keep in mind, I am not a Christian -- in fact, I am on the other end of the spectrum as a practicing Pagan) are these lines from the second half of the book, written by Hank Hanegraaff, host of the popular Bible Answer Man radio program."Thus, we now move on to demonstrate what we know to be truth - namely, that the Bible is not merely human but divine in origin, that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, and that amid the religions of the ancient world, Christianity is demonstrably unique." pg 42-43 Actually, I don't know any of that to be true. In fact, I know that Christianity is NOT demonstrably unique -- many of the stories from Christianity were borrowed from earlier faiths (this author says that really, the other faiths borrowed from Christianity, and pretended they had it first -- not a quote) -- but really, it does -- as does any other faith. They are all very similar, and well, that is not surprising because as humans we all desire similar things, and so look for those similarities in our Gods/esses.Okay, funny line #2 "Furthermore, the reliability of the Gospel accounts is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of the authors." I work in the law enforcement field...and while witnesses can steer you in the right direction, they are never completely accurate. An eyewitness relates their tale based on their history, their needs and wants, their personal perspective. In a law enforcement text book they talk about a traffic accident that happens in the middle of the intersection, and on one corner is a little old lady, another corner has a teenage boy, another corner has a wife and mother -- with her kids, and on the last corner is an ex-military officer (okay, I don't remember exactly, but...) And each and every EYEWITNESS account will be a different. They all will remember, and dis-remember various facts -- so which one has the truth? None of them and all of them. So, eyewitness credentials really don't go that far for me.so, this little piece of propaganda just was that -- propaganda. But it did make me think, so, I guess it isn't all bad.Heather
It does pose a lot of questions for me!Michael Parisi
this was a good bookChris Deforge
Great book for to help prepare yourself for conversations.Nathan
Another of far too many books attempting to do the same thing. It was fine as far as it goes.Jason
The DaVinci code was terrible history that showed just how many of the elect were present in our modern churches. No sane believer was troubled by this travesty in print.Evater
Tja, das passiert wenn man das Bücherregal ausgelesen hat und sich nicht rechtzeitig um Nachschub kümmert. Da drücken einem dann bibeltreue Christen vor der Mensa sowas in die Hand.Im Nachhinein war es aber weniger schlimm als erwartet und hat sich doch recht süffig gelesen. :)Brittny
I actually listened to this one on CD on one of my many trips to Montana. I loved the approach he took and the history behind each point he makes. I loved learning more about the early Christian church.Tri Setiawan
perjuangan yang tak ada hentiNina
Der berühmte Bestseller "Sakrileg" ("The Da Vinci Code") von Dan Brown beruht leider auf vielen Lügen über den christlichen Glauben. So behauptet Dan Brown zum Beispiel, dass Jesus mit Maria Magdalena verheiratet gewesen war. Dieses aus zwei Teilen bestehende Büchlein setzt sich kritisch mit "Sakrileg" auseinander. Im ersten Teil werden die bedeutsamsten Fehler aufgezeigt und anhand der Bibel richtig gestellt. Der zweite Teil begründet, warum es so wie es in der Bibel steht, richtig sein muss.Wer sich dafür interessiert, dem würde ich dieses Büchlein sehr empfehlen. Es scheint gut recherchiert zu sein und erklärt die einzelnen Punkte gut verständlich. Allerdings ist die Thematik natürlich extrem speziell. Ich hatte "Sakrileg" weder gelesen, noch war mir bislang bekannt, dass es sich dabei um ein derart antichristliches Buch handelt. Daher hielt sich mein Interesse an diesem Büchlein auch in Grenzen. Der Verlag "cLv" hatte es mir bei einer Buchbestellung kostenlos mit dazu gelegt und deshalb habe ich es dann halt gelesen. Immerhin bin ich jetzt über "Sakrileg" informiert und weiß, dass von diesem Buch abzuraten ist.Marjorie
I found this book while I was cleaning out a house and since I was still on teh religion kick I found it very informative.J.
Discovered this book on my parents' bookshelf and immediately found it intriguing having read Dan Brown's novel years ago. I was not in the slightest convinced of Brown's "Christianity" despite its popularity in the media having spawned shows in Discovery and NatGeo in search for the truth of the "Uncrucified" and the "Married Jesus" all in vain. Numerous cults including that that worship Magdalene even denies Christ was ever married.Actually it was quite appalling for every Christian out there conscious of their history, authenticity of scripture and not only was this a ridiculous assertion of our past it was popularized and considered factual by some who are surprisingly not aware of the historical writings of Josephus, Tacitus and other early historians - none by the way even made the slightest notion of a Married Jesus. Dan Brown's book was a good fiction, a page turner. But to anyone not familiar with Christianity and its history it can lose you with its dangerous new-age sex-induced sensationalism that you might believe anything said to you by the novel's Sir Teabing.If you read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I highly recommend you read Hank Hanegraaff's The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction.