Odd question - Who would you even debate to debunk Jesus bloodline conspiracy theories?

[MadeUpName2]

Unusual question, but something that I’d been thinking about:

One typical option when faced with ridiculous anti-Christian conspiracy theories is to debate the people promoting them, thereby publicly debunking the arguments. For example, Jesus “mythicism” recently got a black eye after Price’s arguments were very publicly torn apart in debate (at a mythicist event, no less).

But is that approach even possible with the Jesus bloodline conspiracy theories that one finds in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code and/or Michael Baigent’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

The authors themselves don’t look like they want to debate this stuff – for obvious reasons – and I don’t think that these theories have dedicated communities like some other fringe historical theories. (Ironically, it might even be easier to find somebody willing to debate ancient aliens nonsense, Flat Earth, or Holocaust denial, even though all of those ideas are frowned upon by the general population…) Which is a bit strange, since you’d expect a widely held misconception would have at least one person willing to defend it publicly.

Or am I wrong, and the Dan Brown style conspiracy theories actually DO have dedicated communities with people who could be debated?

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Although I may have missed something some where. It has been a while since I’ve read (and enjoyed) the Di Vinci Code. I don’t think Dan Brown has ever said he believes his work is anything other than fiction. So why would he debate a work of fiction?

Peace
B

 

[MadeUpName2]

Although I may have missed something some where. It has been a while since I’ve read (and enjoyed) the Di Vinci Code. I don’t think Dan Brown has ever said he believes his work is anything other than fiction. So why would he debate a work of fiction?

Peace
B

Sadly, Brown has said in an interview that the only stuff that he made up were the Langdon adventure parts. Even in the story, hammers over and over again that his story is based on facts from history. I can dig around for the article where he says so if you’re interested, but it will take a little while to find again.

And of course Baigent and his co-authors DO claim their theory is fact, and have presented it as such on several History Channel type shows. (Baigent himself appears to be deceased, but I assume his co-authors are not.)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Or am I wrong, and the Dan Brown style conspiracy theories actually DO have dedicated communities with people who could be debated?

I don’t think that you are going to find any significant number of educated people willing to defend such nonsense theories. There is just no evidence that is not obviously fabricated. Like other rumors and conspiracy theories, this does not mean that they do not have some effect.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Unusual question, but something that I’d been thinking about:

One typical option when faced with ridiculous anti-Christian conspiracy theories is to debate the people promoting them, thereby publicly debunking the arguments. For example, Jesus “mythicism” recently got a black eye after Price’s arguments were very publicly torn apart in debate (at a mythicist event, no less).

But is that approach even possible with the Jesus bloodline conspiracy theories that one finds in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code and/or Michael Baigent’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

The authors themselves don’t look like they want to debate this stuff – for obvious reasons – and I don’t think that these theories have dedicated communities like some other fringe historical theories. (Ironically, it might even be easier to find somebody willing to debate ancient aliens nonsense, Flat Earth, or Holocaust denial, even though all of those ideas are frowned upon by the general population…) Which is a bit strange, since you’d expect a widely held misconception would have at least one person willing to defend it publicly.

Or am I wrong, and the Dan Brown style conspiracy theories actually DO have dedicated communities with people who could be debated?

I don’t think there’s any merit to debating divine bloodline conspiracy theorists. That group is pretty small and obscure (pretty much relegated to History Channel enthusiasts and Dan Brown fans), so I don’t think their opinions carry enough weight to be worth debating (as opposed to, say, Holocaust and 9/11 deniers, who have a larger following and a lot more exposure in media/academia).

The most mainstream attention that the divine bloodline conspiracy ever got was when Dan Brown published “The Da Vinci Code,” and even then I think most people were smart enough to recognize that Brown is a total nut.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Sadly, Brown has said in an interview that the only stuff that he made up were the Langdon adventure parts. Even in the story, hammers over and over again that his story is based on facts from history. I can dig around for the article where he says so if you’re interested, but it will take a little while to find again.

And of course Baigent and his co-authors DO claim their theory is fact, and have presented it as such on several History Channel type shows. (Baigent himself appears to be deceased, but I assume his co-authors are not.)

Thanks, but I’m just not that interested in the issue. While I enjoyed the book, I don’t see it as a historical work.

As for looking for people to debate, I don’t think you will find many. Those who actually believe in a bloodline are small in number. Those who believe in possibilities don’t really care enough to make it an issue. They seem to be, “Okay, so Jesus was married. Now what? Does it take away from his divinity? Nope. Okay. Next!”

Peace,
B

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t have an answer for you, but I’m interested in what you said because some people I know spend quite a lot of time debating with anonymous posters on the web. (Maybe I should ask them if there’s no one else they can debate the same topics with.)