look, firstly, the council of nicaea was real, but your taking the quote out of context. at that time, there were two sects of chrisitanity: those who believed in the divinity of jesus, therefor believing in the "trinity", and those who saw him as a man, and believed that god was the one god, or the "unity". after that, all the uniterians were concidered heretics and banned killed.

also, I don't get why peolpe all think that the da vinci needs to be argued... its a novel, and work of fiction. some of it was true, but he made some of it up, making connections that aren't real. like at the end, where he discovers that the chroy-thingys code was "apple" when that was made, it was in france, possibly by da vinci himself, so it would have been a french word.

To use the Bible as proof of it's own divinity is silly.

It is interesting that the Christian community has deciced that this professsed work of fiction needs to be challenged. Me thinks you protest too much.

Ii is also interesting that not only did D. Brown get it all wrong, in my humble opinion, so has every one else.

I do not dispute that Jesus exsisted, I dispute his divinity. He and his teachings fell victim to the same thing as many others who challenged the powers that be. When those in power realised that the things he was teaching went against thier interests they, not his deciples, started his reputation of divinity. Keep your friends close and your enimies closer. Having him executed for the sins of his followers was completly misunderstood. He did not die for thier sins but because of them, as a demonstration/ threat to those who would continue to challenge the church of the day.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit." (Ignatius of Antioch—A.D. 110)

That word, "but" brings Jesus' Spiritual self to the forefront.

What is important about Christ is the The Holy Spirit. If Jesus did marry Mary; nothing important about Him has changed. Although If He was married at that time in history; No one would have EVER called Him Rabbi, in the New Testament, right?

*EDIT*

Quote from above refernce:

"Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal...By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity." (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, New York: Doubleday, 2003, p. 233)

Regionally and in Rome this was the case. Constantines Senate, abored the fact that he had accepted Christianity. They still put their faiths in Greek gods, that had a mother god of nearly equal and necessary power as the father god.

Christianity was being widely accepted in Rome, But not ib it's entirety and people in power, clung to the old beliefs.

In order to keep from getting executed by his senate, like his predecessors had gotten themselves; Constintine also mixed some "Blessed mother" in, just to keep his head attached.

Your kooky religion has been around for two thousand years, like a foetid pestilence stifling the full potential of humanity, so why do you feel so threatened by a crap novel? Additionally, it strikes me as the acme of foolishness that you would argue against one work of fiction by citing another work of fiction. Apologists are all the same, you attempt to persuade by virtue of your blind, obstinate conviction, hoping that this will be enough to put off actually having to answer legitimate questions with anything resembling provable facts. Do us all a favor and save such beef-witted rhetoric for the pulpit, where the already mindless can swallow it eagerly.