| User |
Message |
A L E X Z A N
Posts: 2
Joined: 01/27/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I hope this will help some of you who are planning to watch the movie. I saw this article on the web site and decided to share it with you guys.
------
Introduction
There is little doubt that the Da Vinci Code has hit a cultural nerve. It has been on the best seller list in the USA for two years. The same is true of many other countries around the world. Sales estimates run at forty-three million, while reader estimates reach as high as one hundred million. A major movie produced by Ron Howard with Tom Hanks in a lead role is on the world’s radar screen. The novel’s combination of mystery, history, conspiracy and the use of romantic locations and figures have made it a popular piece of fiction. Its plot has intrigued its readers and raised many questions about the history of early Christianity. Polls by George Barna show that 43 to 53 percent of its readers have felt spiritually benefited from reading the book. By any count, that means many people are being influenced by its claims, even though its genre is fiction.
What has made it so controversial is the author’s claim that the backdrop to the novel is rooted in historical fact. Dan Brown made such claims on American morning television in November 2003, a point documented in his book by a note on page. 1. His web site originally claimed that he was a believer in the theories the book. He said he came to these views after much detailed research (He has since backed off this claim to a degree, simply saying he wanted to get these ideas out in the public square). This left the impression that the book is a kind of “tweener” genre, a cross between fiction and non-fiction, that is, fiction with a solid non-fiction skeleton.
Now everyone knows that one should not get one’s history from a piece of fiction. But what is one to do when the author claims his skeleton is real, has been carefully researched and many millions of people apparently take him at his word because their knowledge of church history is limited? Many people end up with legitimate and sincere questions about claims the book makes. This is especially the case when most people’s knowledge of church history can be summarizes as follows: there was Jesus the apostles and the book of the New Testament in the first century. Then came Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Then there was Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II. What about those first three hundred and fifty years of Christianity? Since the novel makes authoritative characters make many pronouncements about this history and people have no way to assess it, they naturally have sincere questions. So what is one to do?
The best thing to do is to examine those claims. Such claims include that (1) Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, that (2) the four gospels were chosen from among several (namely 80!) that existed in the fourth century because the four gospels presented a divine Jesus versus a human Jesus in the excluded works, and that (3) the divinity of Jesus became orthodoxy by a close vote at the council of Nicea in AD 325.
The key to the novel’s plot is that many in the church knew that Jesus was married and to protect his late emerging divinity they conspired not to let that become known, even to the point of murder. Now as fiction, this makes an intriguing story, but what about as a historical skeleton that lays claim to being almost quasi-non-fiction? There are three major problems in the book we shall look at before making an observation about the nature of our times that such a book can garner such numbers and such a response.
Three Major Problems Plus
Problem 1: Was Jesus Married? Basic to the story line is the claim that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and that many in the church knew (as did people like Leonardo Da Vinci later on in history). The evidence for this claim comes from two extra biblical gospels, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene 17:10–18:21 and The Gospel of Philip 63:33-36. Both contain remarks that Jesus had a special relationship to Mary or that he loved her more than any of the twelve disciples. One text uses the term “companion” to describe her. In addition, there is an appeal in the Phillip text where Jesus is said to kiss Mary on the lips. So the inference is that if he kissed her in public he must have been her husband.
Now the facts are these. First, almost all scholars question whether these extra biblical gospels contain anything of value in terms of the historical Jesus. However, even if they did, the texts noted do not actually affirm that Jesus was married. In fact, the famous kiss on the lips text actually has a blank in the original manuscript right at the point where it describes where Mary was kissed. So it could be the lips or the cheek, which would simply refer to a kiss of fellowship. The term companion is debated as to its force. Most interpret the term as pointing to a spiritual relationship Jesus had with Mary because of the mystic character of the gospel in which it appears. So it does not allude to actual marriage at all, but to a fellowship that Jesus and Mary shared as believers.
More than this, we have volumes of texts about Jesus from the first five centuries. I have a series in my library of 38 volumes from this period. They are small print, single space, double columned texts of several hundred pages each. They include traditional orthodox texts and those that were rejected as heretical. In all of these materials not a single text describes Jesus as married and most assume he was not, as that was a basis for some arguing that priests should be single.
In 1 Corinthians 9, the argument appears that spouse of those married should be supported. Had Jesus been married Paul could have clinched his argument by noting this fact. All of this leads to the conclusion that Jesus was single.
Now some reply that 1 Corinthians 7 mentions believers being single and yet does not mention Jesus. However, here Paul only advises being single. Had he mentioned Jesus’ example that might have said more than Paul intended, by giving an impression this is what to do. So this is the likely reason Jesus being single was not mentioned.
John Crossan and I were both asked to write articles for beliefnet.com about whether Jesus was married when the novel came out. He is a liberal; I am a conservative. We both agreed that Jesus was single. I tell my classes that when a liberal and a conservative believe something is true about the historical Jesus, then it probably is true. In sum, there is no evidence Jesus was ever married. If this is so, then entire backdrop to the novel collapses.
But one final point needs to be made. The novel claims that that a married Jesus would need to be covered up by the church because it would expose the fact that Jesus was not divine. However, it is not a given that had Jesus been married, this would have resulted in a question about his divinity, because the church has always confessed the full humanity of Jesus and the status of marriage would fit in nicely with such a claim. Thus, even the premise of the theological problem the novel sees for a married Jesus is false.
Problem 2 The Emergence of the Gospels. The novel also claims that the four gospels were chosen late from about eighty gospels to be a part of the Bible because the four gospels had a divine Jesus as opposed to other gospels that had a human Jesus. Once again we are at a place where liberal and conservative scholars agree. The study of what is called the canon (or the recognition of the books that comprise the New Testament) is a complex area when it comes to the compilation of the entire New Testament. Athanasius in AD 367 is the first figure we have who lists the 27 books of the New Testament as we have them today. It may be that Dan Brown rested his view on this fact, although he never mentions it. However, what this late date does not take into account is that the books under discussion in the third and fourth centuries were some epistles and Revelation, books like 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, not any of the four gospels.
Scholars of the canon agree that by the end of the second century the four-fold gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) was recognized as authoritative. This is a full 125 years before Constantine and the Nicean Council came on the scene to do the alleged defining work for orthodoxy according to the novel. The evidence for this includes (1) Irenaeus’s majestic description of the gospel needing to have four gospels as the world has four zones and four winds. This text appears in his Against Heresies 3.11.8, a famous and often cited text from the end of the second century. (2) The attempt of Tatian to combine the gospels into one running account in AD 170 in his Diatessaron largely failed. This effort to tell Jesus’ story in one running account on the surface made sense, but it failed because the four gospels were already too well established in the late second century church to be replaced, even by a seemingly more efficient way to present the gospels. (3) We also have a citation from Origen in the early third century from his First Homily to Luke on Luke 1:1 that gospels like Thomas are not read in the churches because they are not seen as having authority. (4) Justin Martyr’s description of the gospels in his First Apology 66:3 in the middle of the second century explains why the gospels were so highly valued. He calls them the “memoirs” of the apostles, a description that notes they are rooted in testimony that gores back to the apostles. It is the apostolic roots of the four gospels, the fact they go back to the apostles and those who followed, them that gives these gospels their historical roots and that led to the recognition of their unique status as sources about Jesus.
By the way, what about those claims of eighty gospels? That number is a gross exaggeration. We have about two dozen works called gospels from these early centuries. If we throw in works not called gospels that supposedly discuss events in Jesus’ life, then the number goes up about another dozen. That is far short of eighty. In addition, many of those works have a Jesus who is too divine. Jesus cannot be a human, because the spirit cannot mix with this flesh. This is seen in a works like Apocalypse of Peter 81:4–24 and Second Treatise of the Great Seth 56:6–19, two works of Gnostic Christians, the group of Christians Dan Brown appeals to for his claims. He does not mention such texts in detail, however. What they teach is that Jesus was in heaven laughing as the crucifixion took place because people mistakenly thought they were crucifying Jesus. This is a Jesus who is too divine and cannot be human, a view known as docetism. The works that were not recognized fail to attain an important status because their theology was so different on issues like the creation by God, the person of Jesus, the work of Jesus, and salvation. I document these differences in detail in a new book called The Missing Gospels.
Thus, the idea that the gospels emerged as a reflection of orthodoxy about the time of the fourth century around the time of Constantine and the Nicean Council is just bad history. In addition, the claim that eighty gospels were out there and that a human Jesus was present in such works is wrong. Nothing shows this more clearly than the Gospel of Thomas77. This saying from the most significant of the extra-biblical gospels has Jesus confess that he is the All. Jesus goes on to say that if you look under a stone Jesus is there and if you split a piece of wood he is there. This is an omnipresent Jesus, a reflection of high christology in a work that Brown claims teaches about a human Jesus. I do not cite this passage to say Thomas’ view of Jesus is an actual saying of Jesus but simply to note that in this earliest of extra-biblical works, the portrait of Jesus is also one that says he is more than human. This leads to the next problem.
Problem 3: Did A Belief in Jesus’ Divinity Receive its Decisive Sanction through a “close vote” at Nicea in AD 325? This claim by Brown is probably the worst of the three problems. What we know about Nicea is this. It gathered not to determine the divinity of Jesus but to discuss the Arian view of Jesus, who saw Jesus as Son of God, but appointed to that role versus the view that the council adopted that Jesus possessed Sonship from eternity. So the debate was the type of Son of God Jesus was, not whether Jesus was divine. Arius believed that Jesus was Son as the first created being with a special, unique relationship to God. What Nicea ended up affirming is that Jesus was eternally the Son and was not created.
Constantine did call this council together because he wanted peace and unity in the church. The council had from 216 to 316 bishops from around most of Christendom in attendance, but the vast majority were from the East. There was no close vote. What the bishops did was sign a creedal statement known as the Nicean Creed. Only two out of the entire group refused, so the “vote” was hardly close. Most politicians today would view a 214-2 to 314-2 vote as a landslide (a ninety-nine percent plus majority!). There were no “hanging chads” at this signing.
Now there was pressure to accept this confession at the council, as originally seventeen opposed it. When Constantine threatened exile, that number reduced to 2. However, even if we take seventeen as the number originally opposed, this is still a significant minority of less than ten percent of the total in attendance. Brown’s claim, then, is false here as well.
This claim of a late developing view of deity also ignores the fact that the acceptance of the divinity of Jesus is something fundamental to the earliest documents we have from Christianity. This appeal is a matter of historical record about our earliest available sources. One can look at the writing of Paul (1 Cor 8:5-6; Phil 2:9-11), the unknown author of Hebrews (Heb 1:3), the author of Revelation (Rev 1:1-7 and chapters 4-5), the gospel of John (John 1:1-18), or even Jesus’ own testimony at his Jewish examination (Mark 14:62-65 and parallels) to see that the claim was that Jesus was at the side of God in a position of status equal to His, receiving worship as He does. These works all date anywhere from the sixties to the nineties of the first century. One can add to this the testimony of Pliny the Younger, writing as a Roman Governor of Bythnia, far away from Jerusalem. He writes to the Roman Emperor Trajan in around AD 117 speaking of Christians singing hymns to Jesus as a god. So even non-Christian texts corroborate the views we see in the earliest Christian texts that Jesus was worshipped long before Nicea. The belief in Jesus as divine was a core belief of the earliest church. Paul’s testimony and conversion tells us that this was believed in the thirties of the first century as letter to the Galatians indicates. Jesus’ divinity was not the result of a close decision in the fourth century. Its roots go back to Jesus himself, which is what explains why the church, originally made up of Jews, held to this new view on the doctrine of God.
Other Problems. There are a host of other problems with the “historical backdrop” of the novel.
(1) The idea that Mary was an apostle to the apostles misquotes Hippolytus’ commentary on Song of Songs. He was a church father of the later second century. When he made this remark he was not describing an office that Mary held. Rather Hippolytus used the phrase to describe all the women who saw the resurrected Jesus and reported his resurrection and not just Mary. In this sense, all these women were apostles in a generic sense, namely commissioned messengers sent on behalf of another, rather than being members of a church office. In fact, the exact phrase in the singular “apostle of the apostles” comes from the ninth century at the earliest.
(2) Leonardo Da Vinci would never have painted a Last Supper scene and replace one of the Twelve with a woman. An art historian whose work we included in the latest editions of Breaking the Da Vinci Code made this point to me originally in an email. He notes that when Mary is present at the Last Supper scene she is placed at Jesus’ feet. This scene is so stereotyped in the period of this painting that there had to be twelve apostles present because the scene’s content reflects the biblical account. In a lecture given by three art historians at the Georgia Museum of Art at the University of Georgia in January, 2004, the experts on the period present said simply that Dan Brown got his art history wrong.
What to Make of the Novel?
It is my view that the interest in this novel shows a few things about contemporary culture. There is a keen interest in things related to the origins of Christianity, Indeed, there is a spiritual hunger of sorts out there. However, it is not a very discerning kind of quest. This makes it all the more important that those who teach about early Christian history today know the roots of the early history of Christianity and communicate some of that to their students, who in turn can have informed discussions with their inquisitive neighbors. Pastors need to absorb this knowledge as well.
I have found four types of people responding to the novel. (1) Some treat the novel as fiction and do not believe its claims. Just have a nice conversation with them. (2) Others never having been in the church have heard this for the first time and have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Just interact with their sincere questions. (3) Others in the church are in a similar position never having been taught about this material. What they need is good information, not an overreaction. (4) Some are looking for a reason, or, for reasons, not to believe. The novel’s information is something they grab onto for support. Be patient in interacting with them. In other words, as you talk about the novel, do so with a calm and confidence that the supposed “facts” the novel presents have missed the mark.
The fact that this book has put this history into the public square is a good thing. Perhaps if people are well equipped to dialogue with the novel’s readers in an engaging tone, then more readers may uncover the real code that opens up the way to life. Those readers may also be in a position to better appreciate the history of a faith that lies at the roots of our Western culture. (by Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D.)
***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***
|
| 05/19/06 13:31 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Fatal Rescue
Posts: 0
Joined: 03/08/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
no way im gonna read that, dont have that much time ;)
|
| 05/22/06 13:06 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
retro77
Posts: 14
Joined: 01/27/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
new record for longest post that no one will read!
|
| 05/22/06 13:09 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Pancake of Doom
Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I ain't gonna read THAT :S
|
| 05/22/06 13:11 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Nihil Zarathustra
Posts: 140
Joined: 11/14/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Well i actually read all that..
But i forgot your original question now lol.
The Official Self Proclaimed Unofficial Cynic of Gameamp
|
| 05/22/06 13:14 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
BigBishop
Posts: 2
Joined: 02/03/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I have nothing to do at work toady so im just screwing around on the net but their is no way i am reading all of that.
|
| 05/22/06 13:15 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
thejeni
Posts: 26
Joined: 08/12/2004
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I read it... and it is actually quite intresting. Well if you have read the book, and have done a bit of reasearch about it afterwards (like I did).
I even forwarded a link to this thread to my sister (she isn't an Amper) b/c how much research she did about this after she read the book.
Siggy created by DeathFetish.
|
| 05/22/06 13:18 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Ackturaz
Posts: 0
Joined: 04/06/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Another thing the author should have mentioned: The Priory of Sion, an organisation which Dan Brown asserts has existed for centuries, was formed in 1953, with forged documents.
In what distant deeps or skies,
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
-Tyger, William Blake
|
| 05/22/06 13:24 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
blackphoenix
Posts: 123
Joined: 09/23/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Well, I didn't read it, but I did glance over it. Personally I think all of this hullabaloo over the book and movie is a bunch of nonsense. What it comes down to is people can speculate whatever they want about the Bible and Jesus, but what God wants is what happens. It's a lot less complicated than we make it out to be. Either A) God exists and those that believe and accept God's git will go to heaven and those that choose not to will go to hell, or B) God doesn't exist and we are all gonna create our own hell, because the human race as a whole is in a constant downward state to eventual self destruction without some kind of divine intervention.
As for me, I'm goin with option A.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. The media and hollywood these days are good for entertainment purposes only and we should never get ourselves worked up over anything that comes from either place.
|
| 05/22/06 13:28 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Nihil Zarathustra
Posts: 140
Joined: 11/14/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Well i found the article in general quite interesting. In fact i have been following the whole debate over the Da Vince Code since it became popular and i've found interesting things. I've talked to a rabbi who said that in the Orthadox Jewish traditions, it is wrong to kiss a female in public in ANY way unless you are married. Furthermore, a Jewish male must be married at an early age. So by that reasoning, Jesus had to have been married since he was Jewish.
What i find interesting is that a piece of fiction can spark such a debate. Sure Brown claims that parts of it are true but isnt it up to the viewers to decide whether or not they want to watch the movie or believe in it?
i found that there is a major flaw in the First Amendment and that is that people are using it to force (not apply but actually force) their views upon others. For example, at our University there was a general anti-war and anti-corperation protest where people, using the idea of free speech, blockaded and harrassed people going to classrooms. In a similar manner, recently, at another University, protesters interrupted a commencement speech by Condaliza Rice because she supports the war.
Same thing with the Da Vinci code. i was watching the news and a priest was telling people that if they watch the movie then they are sinners. I think the whole situation has gotten out of hand. Also people shouldnt protest everything either. there are other, less disruptive ways. I feel that protests and statements such as these are not only selfish but signs of insecurity.
The Official Self Proclaimed Unofficial Cynic of Gameamp
|
| 05/22/06 13:31 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Brynden
Posts: 45
Joined: 02/28/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Don't see what everyone's problem is, I liked it. Very good reasons not to read the DaVinci Code. Where was this article originally found, by the way?
Signature by Mimori
|
| 05/22/06 13:33 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
retro77
Posts: 14
Joined: 01/27/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I saw the movie yesterday. It was good. followed with the book very close.
My wife went with me and she hadn't read the book and she liked it as well. Now she wants to read the book.
|
| 05/22/06 14:33 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Albino Monktress
Posts: 239
Joined: 04/09/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
ok ive gotta get this off my back..
i have read the book and it is a fabulous book 2 thumbs and 2 bigtoes up.
but with the whole deal the cherch is makeing
ITS A STINKING BOOK PEOPLE
now i feel better[/COLOR]
Check out my Fan Fic^ Sig made by me!
LEADER of [ToD]Togo Dies Always accepting new members :)
Disclamer My spelling SUXS
|
| 05/22/06 14:44 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
blackphoenix
Posts: 123
Joined: 09/23/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I don't. My eyes hurt...
lol, j/k :)
|
| 05/22/06 14:47 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Albino Monktress
Posts: 239
Joined: 04/09/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
how do u get the norm color/size back after i do that?
Check out my Fan Fic^ Sig made by me!
LEADER of [ToD]Togo Dies Always accepting new members :)
Disclamer My spelling SUXS
|
| 05/22/06 14:52 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
SirShaitan
Posts: 8
Joined: 07/28/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
I've read the book and plan on seeing the movie, this evening.
It's a piece of fiction that in my opinion was very well done.
|
| 05/22/06 14:53 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Ziggie Yaro
Posts: 1
Joined: 04/25/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
omg...I think I'll just go see the movie...I was gonna anyway...I mean with all the hype ya gotta go...
~Ziggy~
A man speaks in the forest...but there's no woman there to hear him...is he still wrong?
|
| 05/24/06 12:16 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
SozaN Valmont
Posts: 2
Joined: 05/11/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | ok ive gotta get this off my back..
i have read the book and it is a fabulous book 2 thumbs and 2 bigtoes up.
but with the whole deal the cherch is makeing
ITS A STINKING BOOK PEOPLE
now i feel better[/COLOR] |
Well what would you say if someone were to write a book about your dad that contained a whole world of lies? Sure the writing was good, but would you stand by and be silent about it? To a christian Jesus is our father. We belive in him so strongly that we will always stand up for him. Better get used to the hype, you will never rid the world of that. I know when I was comming up if anyone ever spoke ill about my dad, ida kicked is a$$. So don't go knocking someone who is just standing up for what they believe in. If you really think about it, you'd probably do the same.
***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***
|
| 05/24/06 13:13 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
CaptainBobby
Posts: 45
Joined: 03/01/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | | Well what would you say if someone were to write a book about your dad that contained a whole world of lies? Sure the writing was good, but would you stand by and be silent about it? To a christian Jesus is our father. We belive in him so strongly that we will always stand up for him. Better get used to the hype, you will never rid the world of that. I know when I was comming up if anyone ever spoke ill about my dad, ida kicked is a$$. So don't go knocking someone who is just standing up for what they believe in. If you really think about it, you'd probably do the same. |
Amen to that!!! +cred coming your way!
[DP] The Dead Presidents Worldwide Online Gaming Guild
|
| 05/24/06 13:15 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Nihil Zarathustra
Posts: 140
Joined: 11/14/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
There is a thin line between a belief and extreme zeal.. I hope that line is never crossed again..
The Official Self Proclaimed Unofficial Cynic of Gameamp
|
| 05/24/06 13:22 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
rjconroy
Posts: 8
Joined: 02/09/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
2 discussions that i will not have with anyone, friends included ....
religion and politics.
cant win either even if you are right, lol
in this case, its a movie based on a book like any other... and ill watch it as such for the entertainment value. anything beyond that... ill leave to the rest of you :)
"if you cant tell who the sucker is, you're it!"
World Of Warcraft IGNs:
Mulconroi - Gnome Mage
Floplag - Night Elf Rogue
Avalan - Human Priest
Psykosis - Undead Priest
Realms:
Kalecgos for the alliance
The Venture co for the horde
www.gamerz-united.com
|
| 05/24/06 13:23 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Headless
Posts: 3
Joined: 01/31/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
The way I see it is all of it is hypocritical, contadicting bull crap. Ten years ago the Catholic preist was a well respected divine holy man, when all along alot were just pedaphiles in robes (hate to think how many throughout history molested alter boys.) That was covered up for many, many, many years I'm sure. Why would it be so out of line to think they are covering something else up?
Bottom line, if there isn't anything to hide then what is with the big uproar. Seem's like all these religious groups are being aweful defensive over something as simple as a book and movie. Stigmata never got this kind of hype.
It's human nature to be defensive when covering up a lie.
About the article, it's completley bias. Of course the author is going to try to point out reson's why "the code" isn't true. He was asked by a religous website to write it according to the article. Besides just like there isn't any solid evidence supporting the Da Vinci Code, there isn't any solid evidence that proves it incorrect either.
|
| 05/24/06 13:43 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Nihil Zarathustra
Posts: 140
Joined: 11/14/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | Besides just like there isn't any solid evidence supporting the Da Vinci Code, there isn't any solid evidence that proves it incorrect either.
|
Good point. If i'm not mistaken then there was actually a manuscript found saying that Jesus asked Judas to betray him in order for Jesus to become a martyr and fulfill his role. There was a huge debate over it on the history channel and a bit on the news but it wasnt really talked about (for reasons understandable)..so what it really comes down to is that there isnt much evidence of what went on in the life of Jesus and it's more a matter of beliefs and oppinions. Since beliefs cannot be wrong (unlike truths) i guess we will never know the answer...
The Official Self Proclaimed Unofficial Cynic of Gameamp
|
| 05/24/06 13:51 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
SozaN Valmont
Posts: 2
Joined: 05/11/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | | QUOTE | Besides just like there isn't any solid evidence supporting the Da Vinci Code, there isn't any solid evidence that proves it incorrect either.
|
Good point. If i'm not mistaken then there was actually a manuscript found saying that Jesus asked Judas to betray him in order for Jesus to become a martyr and fulfill his role. There was a huge debate over it on the history channel and a bit on the news but it wasnt really talked about (for reasons understandable)..so what it really comes down to is that there isnt much evidence of what went on in the life of Jesus and it's more a matter of beliefs and oppinions. Since beliefs cannot be wrong (unlike truths) i guess we will never know the answer... |
We will one day my friend. It is appointed to man once to die. When that happens, we will kneel before god and have to answer for all the crap we have done or not done in our lives. It will come as a suprise to a whole load of people. Besides, belief is a choice, I choose to believe it and live by the word. And for those who don't believe, it wouldn't be the year 2006 if Jesus hadn't lived and died.
|
| 05/24/06 13:52 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
SozaN Valmont
Posts: 2
Joined: 05/11/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | The way I see it is all of it is hypocritical, contadicting bull crap. Ten years ago the Catholic preist was a well respected divine holy man, when all along alot were just pedaphiles in robes (hate to think how many throughout history molested alter boys.) That was covered up for many, many, many years I'm sure. Why would it be so out of line to think they are covering something else up?
Bottom line, if there isn't anything to hide then what is with the big uproar. Seem's like all these religious groups are being aweful defensive over something as simple as a book and movie. Stigmata never got this kind of hype.
It's human nature to be defensive when covering up a lie.
About the article, it's completley bias. Of course the author is going to try to point out reson's why "the code" isn't true. He was asked by a religous website to write it according to the article. Besides just like there isn't any solid evidence supporting the Da Vinci Code, there isn't any solid evidence that proves it incorrect either. |
Its also human nature to be defensive when defending the truth.
|
| 05/24/06 13:54 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Nihil Zarathustra
Posts: 140
Joined: 11/14/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
| QUOTE | We will one day my friend. It is appointed to man once to die. When that happens, we will kneel before god and have to answer for all the crap we have done or not done in our lives. It will come as a suprise to a whole load of people. Besides, belief is a choice, I choose to believe it and live by the word. And for those who don't believe, it wouldn't be the year 2006 if Jesus hadn't lived and died.
|
Yeah..but someone is not going to like the result one way or another..with so many religions (counting atheism which is in itself a theism much in the same way that nothing is a form of something)..it makes you wonder who was right in the end..i mean surely all the good and bad things done in the name of the respective God (or gods) could not have been for nothing (unless you are athiest in which case it was for us to learn a lesson)..personally i'm curious as to who was right and who was wrong..
The Official Self Proclaimed Unofficial Cynic of Gameamp
|
| 05/24/06 14:00 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
cswella
Posts: 11
Joined: 10/30/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Even before the Da Vinci Code, I wasn't the biggest fan of the Catholic Church.
Several things I don't agree with:
-Despite what the Bible says, Catholics seem to hold the act of 'good works' equal to faith in order to be saved. Not that being good isn't a part of faith, but it shouldn't be done in order to be saved. It should come as a natural action of a believer.
-The Pope's Infallibility. I don't think that a single human being is infallible, ever. Even though he may have been chosen by God and is guided by him, I still think that the Pope can make mistakes.
-The Apostles and the Virgin Mary. In the Old Testament, God made it clear that he did not approve of his followers worshipping any other idols. So why is the Catholic Church worshipping Mary and the other Disciples? Why do they pray to them and ask them for help?
-Mardi Gras and Lent. It seems so hypocritical, sin your heart out before Lent. I don't like the idea at all.
**POSTNOTE** This is directed at the Catholic Church in Rome, directed at their organization. I know many Catholics who are the nicest people and I have no issues with them. If you are Catholic, please don't take offense, instead either correct me or offer valid arguements. If it turns out I'm wrong, I will retract my arguement.
Panda Points x 7
|
| 05/24/06 14:19 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
honnaja
Posts: 132
Joined: 08/05/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
You seem to have some.. screwy? ideas there CS :P
I'm not sure where you get these apparent 'facts' from or what context you 'ripped' them from *grin* but.. hmm.. the only one I can't resist the urge to comment on right now is the last..
Since when was eating pancakes sinful?
LoL!
:P
P.S: Many things change over time and become something rather different..
|
| 05/24/06 17:00 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Mike_Q
Posts: 14
Joined: 04/30/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
|
| 05/24/06 17:08 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
Trivex
Posts: 0
Joined: 05/10/2006
Credibility: 0 pts
|
Hello to everyone reading this Topic.....
First off I would like to say I am a firm beleiver in the Lord Jesus Christ and GOD.
But since this forum is about Da Vinci Code uproar, remember this book is Fiction and the movie is Fiction as well.
Let me also give you Facts in my opinion most people do not know.
If those of you have ever read the bible......there are troubling Facts you should know. The Roman Catholic Church does have agendas to hide.
There are many "factions", of Christianity out there (Baptist, Jovah Witness, Catholisism, Etc...), but where does it say in the bible that you must call your self a "Baptist" or I am "Catholic" , is a form of pagan worship.
Churches - this is pretty scary when you REALLY think about it. Where in the New Testament does GOD say to build BIG Churches or buildings to Worship Jesus and GOD???? If you can prove me wrong on this question I will give you my Guild wars account. The fact is there is "NO"
mention anywhere in the New Testament to build any form of Church or building as a place of worship. During the time of when Jews were slaves in Egypt the place of worship was the home where the Father, Mother, Grandparents, and Children all lived under one roof and the head of the household (the Father) would preach as best he could about GOD, thus making the HOME the Church.
Have you ever asked yourself if you are Catholic, why is the Pope so important? The Roman Catholic Church says that the Pope is Close to GOD, but he is a MAN. We should be looking to Jesus and GOD who are the head of all our households we should not Hold HIGH the Pope or Paster or Reverand for they are like you and me "HUMAN", nobody special.
If a man or woman doesn't go to Church, does that make him a bad man?
If a man or woman is homeless and prays on the street does that make this person any different a believer? For she prays to Jesus and GOD, but in her own way.
|
| 05/24/06 17:58 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
