Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Off Topic Discussion => Topic started by: indianasmith on August 25, 2007, 04:21:47 PM



Title: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 25, 2007, 04:21:47 PM
I brought this up on another thread and a discussion began, but I didn't want to be a thread hijacker (I rank them barely above spammers!), so I thought I would open a thread here where it belongs. 

First of all, this is going to be a primarily religious topic!  If you don't like such, don't read it!! :lookingup:

Secondly, a word of explanation.  I am a Christian, and have made no attempt to hide it on this board.  But I am not one of those book-burning, movie-banning, clinic-protesting stereotypes that seem to define our faith to so many.  I mean, after all, I am a Dedicated Viewer on BadMovies.org!!!!  I rarely have issues with works of fantasy or fiction because they are, after all, made-up stories created for entertainment.  Even JESUS H ZOMBIE, which someone posted a link to not long ago, didn't get a rise out of me - even though I do find the concept a little offensive - because it's so over-the-top stupid that NO ONE in their right mind would ever take it seriously.  Same with Harry Potter, Star Wars, and any number of other works that simple minded people have gotten their knickers in a twist over.

The DA VINCI CODE is different, however.  (NOTE: My comments are based on the book which I read cover to cover, not the movie, which I have not yet seen.)

First of all, although it is a work of fiction, Dan Brown says in the beginning that "All the architectural descriptions and commentaries in this work are historically accurate" or something to that effect.  And he has repeatedly said that he believes the major historical premises of his work to be true.  So even though this book is a novel, he is attempting to market it as a HISTORICAL novel, which always implies a ficticious story in a realistic historic setting.

So what are the historic points he tries to make?  Let's see -

1.  Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and had children with her.
2.  Jesus was not, and never claimed to be, the Son of God.
3.  Jesus entrusted Mary to carry on his ministry after his death.
4.  Jesus never rose from the dead.
5.  The other disciples were jealous of Mary and drove her away, hijacking the church from its original purpose.
6.  Christianity was originally a female-dominated cult that used sex as a way to achieve communion with God.
7.  The church censored some 80 gospels that showed Jesus as a wise teacher but only a mortal man, and accepted only those 4 that presented him as a divine being.
8.  The church did not proclaim Christ as a deity until the Council of Nicea in 324 AD, and then only did so by a very close vote.
9.  The church has carried out a systematic war against women, and a smear campaign against Mary Magdalene,   throughout much of its history.
10.  A secret organization called the Priory of Sion has protected the bloodline of Jesus and the truth about his teachings for 2000 years, led by men like Leonardo da Vinci, Victor Hugo, and the French diplomat Talleyrand.

Everyone of those premises is either COMPLETELY false or grossly misrepresented in the book.  (If you have a question on any of those points, I'll be glad to present my evidence, but it would take me several hours  to type up my comments about each of these.)

 The Da Vinci Code is one of the most insidious attacks on Christianity in decades, because it wraps an all-out assault on every major tenet of the faith in the form of a fast-paced, well-written mystery story that is very engaging and hard to put down.  It has caused a great amount of unmerited doubt to be cast on the origins of Christianity and the authenticity of the New Testament with no strong historical proof to back up any of its claims.  Most folks will never know how flimsy Brown's historical claims are, because after all, it's a lot easier to watch a movie or read a thriller than it is to do real historical research.  Please note I am not trying to force anyone to my religious or historical point of view, but I am trying to put some information out there for anyone who cares to read it.  If no one comments, this thread can quietly die.  If you have questions about any of the points I have raised, I will be happy to address them.  This may cost me all my karma points, or add to my total, but I don't really care.  I'm too Baptist to believe in Karma anyway . . . . :lookingup:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 25, 2007, 04:24:38 PM
"I mean, after all, I am a Dedicated Viewer on BadMovies.org!!!! "

OOOPS!!!  I see I've been upgraded to Bad Movie Lover!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: ulthar on August 25, 2007, 05:20:34 PM
I've neither read the book nor seen the movie - and doubt I will any time soon.  Though also a Christian, my reason for avoiding these is more the hoopla surrounding them than any notions of being offended or at least irritated.

I tend to avoid movies/books/tv shows/etc that are heavily hyped and 'big news' in pop culture.

This said, reading in your post the points that Brown uses as historical basis for his novel is amazing.  And saddending - as you said, many folks won't take the effort to educate themselves on historical fact and what is believed in scholarly circles.

To that end, I will address only one of those points - the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  One afternoon years ago, I caught a TV show (Nova perhaps???) about the New Testament that covered the Gospels and Acts in particular.  I recall from this show a whole bunch of academic scholars, including some admitted atheists and devout skeptics, interviewed about the resurrection.  Their point was as much as they may not WANT to beileve it, there is a LOT of historical evidence that SOMETHING happened.  Of all the men alive and active at the time of Christ who may be been called a Messiah, Jesus is the ONLY one for whom MANY historical records show was seen by MANY people after his death.

Now, I don't want to derail the discussion into a "did Jesus rise from the dead or no" religious debate.  The only point I am trying to make is that Dan Brown is nuts if he thinks the historical record does not support the Resurrection of Christ.  There's a whole bunch of antheist academics that would love to side with Brown, but they know the facts.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 25, 2007, 06:08:14 PM
Thanks, Ulthar!!  That is very typical of Brown's style - ignore well established history, and go for whatever supports your wild assertions.  indeed, whether you believe it actually happened or not, the very existence of the early church and the rapid growth of Christianity is incomprehensible without a strong  belief on the part of the disciples that Jesus did, indeed, return from the dead.  Paul himself said in AD 54, about 20 years or so after the fact, "If Christ be not raised, we are of all men most to be pitied!"
I appreciate your commentary!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 25, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
While I have not (and will not) read Brown's book (there are just too many other, better books to read), I am familiar with several of his arguments. And, as you have already noted, many people won't bother to find out the facts, instead preferring to believe Brown and others like him simply because Christians denounce him (and so they must have something to hide). The Priory of Sion has conclusively been proven false repeatedly. The man who made the whole thing up came forward and admitted as much, and it is this same "organization" that put forward several of your other points.

That said, and while I wish people like Brown would not get the public recognition they do, I am by no means in favor of silencing them, as some who can only identify Christians by the stereotypes might believe (how snarky a statement is that?). I do not favor censorship in any form or fashion (Christianity has survived two thousand years of denouncement; it can survive more without the government's or Church's help). If the Christian faith can't endure attack, it doesn't deserve to exist.

I heard another interesting take on the Resurrection, from Chuck Colson of Watergate fame (while he's too conservative in some ways for my taste, he does do some good work through his organizations). He said that one of the main things that finally convinced him of the Resurrection was his own experiences with the Nixon administration (in a roundabout way, at least). Those guys, Nixon's most trusted confidantes, couldn't keep quiet about their roles in the Watergate burglary for more than two weeks, and they were simply threatened with jail time. The apostles were executed for proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, and not one of them (okay, Judas betrayed Him, but then he killed himself when he realized the extent of what he'd done) ever claimed anything had been faked or that Jesus had not risen from the dead. Colson's contention was that it is highly unlikely for a group of people to uniformly stick to a false claim in the face of death threats and executions, but not at all unlikely for that same group to stick to its claims if they were true.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Jason on August 25, 2007, 06:26:46 PM
I have to admit, I have very little time for religion - I'm not one of those pushy atheists that dismisses all religious believers as zealots or anything like that - if faith makes you happy, that's fine by me, but I personally don't believe.

Anyway, now that I've made my position clear, allow me to say that I have no problem with The Da Vinci Code's religious standpoint. If that's what Dan Brown thinks, then he is more than entitled to say so - freedom of speech, yada yada yada. If he is solidly presenting something as fact, that is a different matter, but he has frequently stated that the book is a work of fiction. There are parts of the book which are accurate (the architectural details for example), but to the best of my knowledge, he has never claimed that any of the things with regard to Jesus Christ are fact. He has stated that he believes they are true, but not that they are fact.
My point is, Mr Brown is entitled to believe what he likes, and he is also entitled to express that belief in his work, in this case the book. It works the other way round too - if you've ever sat through more than five minutes of some of the televangelists crowing away on tv, they will express their opinions and beliefs in a very strong manner indeed, and once again with precious little proof to back it up. I might even go so far as to say that one or two of them probably do claim their beliefs as fact, but I cannot prove that, so I won't.

In my opinion, the church themselves are as responsible for the popularity of the book as much as, if not more than the book itself. As any Z-list celebrity will tell you, any publicity is good publicity as far as trying to sell something goes. If they hadn't have kicked up such a huge fuss about the book, there's a better than reasonable chance it would have acheived moderate sales and then quitely died away. Dan Brown is not a particularly brilliant writer, and his other works (other than Angels and Demons, which is better than The Da Vinci Code by some distance) are tepid, thriller-by-numbers jobs, but because of all the hype and publicity, it has attracted a massive audience who would not normally read books. Heck, even my younger brother, who ordinarily wouldn't know a book if the Oxford English Dictionary fell on him from a great height has made an attempt to read it.

All in all, I feel that the Da Vinci Code is partly a demon the church itself has created. However, I do feel sympathy for Christians, because there are plenty of idiots out there who are quite prepared to read the first thing they see in black and white, and unfortunately, The Da Vinci Code has snared quite a few idiots.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 25, 2007, 07:05:47 PM
In my opinion, the church themselves are as responsible for the popularity of the book as much as, if not more than the book itself. As any Z-list celebrity will tell you, any publicity is good publicity as far as trying to sell something goes. If they hadn't have kicked up such a huge fuss about the book, there's a better than reasonable chance it would have acheived moderate sales and then quitely died away. Dan Brown is not a particularly brilliant writer, and his other works (other than Angels and Demons, which is better than The Da Vinci Code by some distance) are tepid, thriller-by-numbers jobs, but because of all the hype and publicity, it has attracted a massive audience who would not normally read books. Heck, even my younger brother, who ordinarily wouldn't know a book if the Oxford English Dictionary fell on him from a great height has made an attempt to read it.

All in all, I feel that the Da Vinci Code is partly a demon the church itself has created. However, I do feel sympathy for Christians, because there are plenty of idiots out there who are quite prepared to read the first thing they see in black and white, and unfortunately, The Da Vinci Code has snared quite a few idiots.

I would tend to agree with this notion. The same thing happened with The Last Temptation of Christ. I finally watched that a couple of years after it was released and, frankly, found it more boring and silly (not to mention pretentious) than sacrilegious. The hype/controversy surrounding it catapulted it into international attention and caused many to go see it when they otherwise would not have bothered. Even today, some still claim it is "great art," mostly because (it seems to me) doing so ticks off Christians. I knew the same would happen when I first heard about The Da Vinci Code, and, sure enough, an otherwise unremarkable book gained worldwide fame. Same with Rushdie's The Satanic Verses a few years ago in the Muslim community. If Christians could learn to ignore things like this, or at least only defend against them at appropriate times and in a calm, reassured manner, most of these "attacks" would simply die away. Sadly, even Christians do not seem to want to educate themselves on these types of issues and so can only defend their faith with the "That's evil! Ban it!" defense.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: ulthar on August 25, 2007, 07:34:21 PM

Sadly, even Christians do not seem to want to educate themselves on these types of issues


Wow.  That's a mouthful.  And true in so many (too many) issues, in many of which the 'public' side of Christianity give Christianity as a whole a bad name.

I recently taught a class at our church called "Chistianity in the News: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design."  The point of my class was to 'expose' both sides of both issues and how both sides are, nowadays, in more of a political/social arguement than a theological one.  We spent a fair amount of time discussing how some Christian groups are doing Christianity more harm than good.

As a Christian I am not threatened by someone else's non-belief.  As a former atheist, I think I understand many of the reasons behind that viewpoint, but now view it with a bit of sadness.

I am not in favor of censorship.  Some comments I have read/heard against Christianity do anger me, but mostly because these particular commentors had closed minds.  There could be no intelligent discussion and there certainly was no "tolerance."  But, I do remember the "Moral Majority" days and loud cries for the burning of books, record albums (backward masking -- OH MY) and other such "cleansing."  Nothing good comes from this sort of thing.

I could go on an on (as you all know), but I'll close with this thought.  I believe God created our creative, imaginative minds.  If we create a work of fiction or more substantive philosophical challenges, that should be celebrated.  Something that should not be celebrated, in my opinion, is the kind of willful ignorance IndianaSmith alluded to in the original post - those folks who take the words in a work of fiction as fact without troubling themselves to learn if those words are true or not.



Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: asimpson2006 on August 25, 2007, 08:25:20 PM
Being a non practicing Christian myself I have never read the book, but it just another look at something that could have happened.  A co-worker of mine had an interesting comment about religion but I will not go into it, since it was quite complex. 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 25, 2007, 08:50:42 PM
I've never said I was in favor of censoring Brown's work.  Free will, free speech.  It just grieves me that so many immature believers have let such a poorly researched piece of claptrap rattle their faith.

BTW, I've heard some architectural historians say his descriptions are inaccurate as well! LOL :teddyr:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 25, 2007, 10:19:11 PM
I've never said I was in favor of censoring Brown's work.  Free will, free speech.  It just grieves me that so many immature believers have let such a poorly researched piece of claptrap rattle their faith.

BTW, I've heard some architectural historians say his descriptions are inaccurate as well! LOL :teddyr:

Sorry if I seemed to imply that you were in favor of censorship, indianasmith. I just brought the point up because that is the stereotypical "Christian" reaction to issues like this. I never got the impression you wanted to ban the book; I just wanted to make it very clear that, while I do not think it is in anybody's best interest to try to put any credence into Brown's ideas and wish that they had not gotten any publicity, I personally would never favor a ban or somesuch. As you say, free will, free speech.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: dean on August 26, 2007, 12:09:32 AM

Religion is one of those touchy topics that seem to get knickers in knots way too easily.  Luckily most of the people here on this board seem to have a bit of sense that allows them to choose the right battles.

I personally found the whole Da Vinci Code idea interesting, but only from a story-telling standpoint, since I'm a big fan of "What-If" story-telling.  But for me to think this is real... Come on... That's just silly. 

I haven't read the book, but the movie was ok.  Not great but not bad.  After watching it, anyone thinking that this is based on true fact is just a plain moron.  Sure, you can have your own 'but WHAT IF' moments about it and talk about what may have happened. 

I think that's actually pretty constructive: discussing an issue and in doing so learn more about not only the subject [in this case this particular religion] but some of the opposing 'theories' on it.  It's like an anti-drugs campaign on in our country at the moment with ads promoting parents to talk to their kids about drugs. 

The theory is to dispel wrong notions about drugs and expose kids to the idea, making it less of an issue when they're actually confronted with the choice.  This can easily apply here when talking about bannings etc.

You can take the offending text and talk about it logically in constructive argument and I think that'll do wonders.  Screaming blue murder and trying to ban something is akin to sweeping it under the bed and out of sight.  It's still there, and the curious will always want a gander.

All in all, I think that anything that promotes discussion of an important topic is an important tool, whether it be religion or something else.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 26, 2007, 12:39:59 AM
First of all, although it is a work of fiction, Dan Brown says in the beginning that "All the architectural descriptions and commentaries in this work are historically accurate" or something to that effect.
You read the book, where's your copy?  I don't want to give you a hard time, but if you're going to go to the trouble of stating a case as you have, you should be quoting the object of your criticism, not offering a paraphrase of the "something to that effect" ilk.  Without doing so your commentary comes across as from someone you have claimed you are not.  (I read that book too.  Of course it is a fiction.) 

And he has repeatedly said that he believes the major historical premises of his work to be true.  So even though this book is a novel, he is attempting to market it as a HISTORICAL novel, which always implies a ficticious story in a realistic historic setting.
"...attempting to market...?"  Babe.  You missed the boat on this one; I mean this book ain't new and has been marketed, very well sold, one of the best-selling books yet printed, made into a film as you noted, and read by "...everybody..."  (even me and I don't read novels anymore; but this book is a lot of fun). 

Most folks will never know how flimsy Brown's historical claims are, because after all, it's a lot easier to watch a movie or read a thriller than it is to do real historical research. 

Or, to maybe...read the bible !!   :smile:
Since I avoid Religion and Politics, I will say these are interesting thoughts, Indianasmith, and I read everyone's response.  As for my own opinion on this topic, the only thing I have to say is I do not think it is at all appropriate or smart for anyone to comment upon a book that he has not read, such as The DaVinci Code, or The Bible or The Tale Of Peter Rabbit.   


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 26, 2007, 08:35:25 AM
Thanks for your comments, AllHallows.  I did indeed read the book, but not wanting to put any money in Dan Brown's pocket, I borrowed someone else's copy, so I  had to do the quote from memory.   I believe it was substantially correct, but I am sorry if I gave the impression that I hadn't actually read it.
 It was a quick read - I finished it in a single weekend.  The story is quite engrossing.  Again, my whole issue was with the presentation of a LOT of false information about the Bible and the early church in a context designed to make people think it was factual.  That's intentionally deceptive!

Oh, and I have read the Bible too - all of it, more than once. :teddyr:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Jack on August 26, 2007, 08:45:28 AM
I read about halfway through the book.  Just WAY too much exposition.  Authors are supposed to show, not tell, and that's something Dan Brown doesn't know how to do.  I think it would have been much better if he had the characters finding out about various things through their actions, not just making 90% of the book a bunch of conversations where everything is explained.  His descriptions of Paris were almost laughable, like he was writing a travel guide.  Authors are supposed to make you feel as if you're in a place, giving you the sights, sounds, smells, etc.  Brown was telling us how many kilometers it was between point A and point B, LOL. 

When an author lacks even the most basic skills at his craft, as Brown so obviously does, the best option is to wirte something controversial, because that's the only way he'll get noticed. 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Dennis on August 26, 2007, 10:49:15 AM
I read the book, thought it was a pretty good story, watched the movie, the book was better, but then they usually are. When I was a young boy I was taught that Jesus started His teaching at the age of 30, at the age of 33 He was crucified, rose from the dead 3 days later, and from there on we have Christianity. (Don't mean to offend, just making a long story short.) For me it has always been fun to think about those 30 years. Did Jesus have a normal childhood, did He play with His friends ? What about adolescence, did He have a girlfriend, was He your standard issue teenage boy, just dying for a chance to explore the difference between girls and boys ?  Did He get married, have children ? Who did He marry ? Did He always know who He was, or did He wake up one day at the age of 30 and say to Himself "I am the only begotten Son of God, for the next 3 years I must spread his word to the people, then be tortured and die so that these people may have eternal life with my Father in Heaven."
I find all of these questions interesting and fun to think and talk about, but I also realise that there is no way to know the answers, and no reason to be upset when others make up stories about these questions, because that's all they are, just stories, just fiction.
South Park had an episode dealing with Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" and along with all the cheap shots and tasteless jokes there was a lesson at the end. One of the boys reminds the people that the minor details of the Jesus's life are not important, what is important are His teachings and trying to live by them each and every day.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 26, 2007, 11:36:29 AM
Thanks for your comments, AllHallows.  I did indeed read the book, but not wanting to put any money in Dan Brown's pocket, I borrowed someone else's copy, so I  had to do the quote from memory.   I believe it was substantially correct, but I am sorry if I gave the impression that I hadn't actually read it.
You made it perfectly clear that you read the book indianasmith; my comments directed to you are so noted, but the last thing I wrote is a general observation and directed at anyone who has commentary about any book that he has not read.  When I contribute to any thread on any website, I read all of the prior postings before adding my own. 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: ulthar on August 26, 2007, 01:23:47 PM

 a general observation and directed at anyone who has commentary about any book that he has not read.


So, directed at ME perhaps??    :twirl:

I did not read the book.  I did not comment on THE BOOK - I commented on the comment made by IndianSmith.

As I re-read this thread, I see comments from those that read the book and those that did not.  From those that did not is comments about why they did not read it and comments about the hype surrounding it.

From your statement above, am I to infer that because I have not read this book that I should not comment about the hype and the way 'some people' have reacted to it?

Just curious...not offended.... :wink:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 26, 2007, 01:53:01 PM
So, directed at ME perhaps??    :twirl:
As written, my comments are general.   :twirl:

I did not read the book.  I did not comment on THE BOOK - I commented on the comment made by IndianSmith.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that assertion, but I'm not interested in a debate.   :smile:  I myself am often mis-read... 

From your statement above, am I to infer that because I have not read this book that I should not comment about the hype and the way 'some people' have reacted to it?
You may infer such, but that was not my inference.  You for one noted the impact the book has had on popular culture and you're right.   First hand observation or intelligence is always worthy. 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 26, 2007, 02:18:54 PM
Sorry about that AllHallows, I thought you were implying that I hadn't read it, and one of my pet peeves is people mouthing off about books they've never read or movies they've never watched.  (The latter is a bit more understandable, considering that these days trailers give away pretty much the whole movie!)  That's why I have aboslutely no comment about the Harry Potter books - I haven't read any of them yet.  I have, however, seen all but the most recent movie and will comment on all the ones I've seen.  Peace?


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on August 26, 2007, 02:32:01 PM
Sorry about that AllHallows, I thought you were implying that I hadn't read it...  Peace?
Never implied you did not read the book.  I actually read what you wrote and understood you had read the book. 
Always: PEACE.   :smile:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 26, 2007, 02:36:41 PM
Excellent.  Nice avatar, BTW - Gene Wilder will ALWAYS be Willie Wonka to me.  The Johnny Depp version reminded me too much of Michael Jackson.  Eeeew.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: trekgeezer on August 26, 2007, 07:28:19 PM
I saw the movie, but haven't read the book. I do know that every conspiracy and theory that's stated  in the movie has been around for centuries. The part about Constantine and how the bible was put together is the most truthful thing in there.  The author simply wrapped all these ancient conspiracy theories into a modern mystery novel format.

I grew up in a very fundamentalists church, but when I married a Catholic we compromised and became Methodists.  Now we don't have much to do with organized religion (too much dogma).  I have real problems with people of any religion ( including atheism) that push their faith on other people because they own the truth.

Most Christians I have known in  my life were people trying to make it through life the best they could with their faith to help them along.  Faith can do wonders for people, I know this personally.


Christians have the same problem a lot of other groups do, a very vocal minority claiming to speak for everyone.  These folks do a great disservice to the whole.

Ulthar, I would make one comment about the evolution debate. A lot of folks put too much emphasis  on the when and how and not enough on the who and why. 

 


 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 26, 2007, 09:45:41 PM
Trekgeezer, you raise a number of interesting points, some of which I can agree with, but not this statement: "The part about Constantine and how the bible was put together is the most truthful thing in there. "

Unfortunately that is altogether NOT true, although many modern critics have tried to assert it. Let me explain where I am coming from.  I have devoted a good part of my life to studying the origins of the New Testament, because if it is NOT trustworthy and reliable in its statements about Christ, then I have thrown my life away on a lie.  My personal motto is actually a quote from the atheist Huxley: "Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man."

Now to explain my disagreement:
Constantine obviously embraced Christianity for political reasons, as Brown asserted.  It had become the largest religion in Rome despite being illegal and subject to the death penalty, and by legalizing it and cozying up to Christian leaders, Constantine would win the loyalty and love of some of his most honest and decent subjects.  Once he had issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christianity, he consulted with Eusebius, one of the leading churchmen of his day, on exactly what constituted Christianity and how to distinguish it from Arianism, a Gnostic sect that mainstream Christians  condemned as a cult.  Eusebius summoned the Council of Nicea in 324 AD and they sat down and worked out a Confession of faith that remains the standard for most of the world's Christians to this day, the Apostle's Creed.  (NOTE - there was NEVER any dispute, at Nicea or at any other church council, that Christ was the Word Incarnate and the Only Begotten Son of God.  What was put to a vote was the NATURE of Christ's divinity - was He one in substance or one in form with God?  It was decided by a vote of 312- 3 that He was one in form AND substance with God the Father.  That's the "extremely close vote" that Dan Brown alluded to.  A real nail-biter, huh?)
  What the Council of Nicea did NOT do was choose the New Testament canon.  Constantine asked them to draw up fifty complete copies of all Christian scriptures to be disseminated to every major city of the Empire.  The New Testament canon was already 90% agreed on at that point.  All four gospels had been universally accepted by the church since very early in second century AD.  Ignatius, writing in 115 AD, commented that the four gospels were as sure and steadfast as the four corners of the earth (an old phrase alluding to the four cardinal directions, not a belief that the earth was square!).  Acts, Revelations, and the major epistles were also all universally recognized by all churches by the end of the second century (almost 150 years BEFORE Constantine).  What was found, during and after Constantine's time, was that there was some disagreement about whether or not II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Philemon belonged in the NT or not.  That's only five out of the 27 canonized books, and in terms of length, less than 10% of the total manuscript length of the NT.   Those are the five shortest books in the whole New Testament, and because of their brevity were not as widely circulated and known as the others.  Also, some in the Eastern churches said that I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, two early Christian works, should be counted as Scripture.  Finally, in 400 AD, the Council of Hippo met to settle the dispute.  The five books I mentioned were all included because they met the trifold test the council established:  1.  they were authored or at least sponsored by one of the original Apostles, 2. they were recognized by the early church as being inspired works, and 3. they conformed doctrinally with all the already recognized scriptures. Clement and Hermas were commended as excellent Christian works that were profitable reading, but because they were not written by the original apostles, they were not considered to be Scripture.
  The Gnostic Gospels - the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and abou ten or twelve others - were condemned, PRIMARILY because they were forgeries.  Written, for the most part, two to three centuries after the time of Christ, they were both historically useless (in fact, rather than presenting Jesus as a mortal man, as Teabing claims in Brown's book, they almost all presented him as a pure spirit being that never had a physical body!) and doctrinally bizarre.  NONE of the Gnostic gospels was actually written by the disciples whose names were attached to them, nor within the lifetime of any of the Twelve.  The earliest Gnostic gospel, that of Thomas, was written around 140 AD, 110 years after Jesus' crucifixion.
   Brown claims that Constantine supervised the Council of Nicea, ordered them to declare Jesus a God when the early church had not believed that He was, superintended the selection of the New Testament canon, and ordered the destruction of all alternate versions of Jesus' life.  None of those claims are true.  Constantine was happy to let the Christians pick their own Scriptures and write their own creed.  All he wanted was a unified church whose leadership would support him, and that was what he got.  His legalization of Christianity was a mixed blessing - believers were finally free to publicly preach and meet together, and their Scriptures and leaders were no longer in daily danger of being burned.  But he got the church intimately involved in the power politics of the Empire, which eventually resulted in the New Testament church being corrupted into the heavily politicized and Scripturally ignorant Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages.



  Sorry to have been so longwinded, but if I am going to blatantly contradice someone, I feel I owe them an explanation of why I disagree with their opinion.  Hope that wasn't too much!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: trekgeezer on August 27, 2007, 07:36:58 AM
The only point about the bible that I've ever tried to make is that it was put together by men and written by men.  You've obviously done a lot of reading on the subject.

I don't think people should get so worked up over Brown's book, even he has proclaimed many times that it is a work of fiction.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 27, 2007, 08:19:29 AM
I wasn't able to get to this site yesterday, and I seem to have missed some good stuff.  :tongueout:

Very nice history lesson, indianasmith. I for one appreciate the thoughtfulness of the response.

In response to Allhallowsday's comment about people making comments about books they haven't read (this isn't a flame; just a minor defense on my part): I made it clear that I had not read the book and only commented on the information from the book that I was familiar with: the Priory of Sion and its conspiracy claims (in case anyone is interested in a report of the Priory of Sion's debunking, here is a Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion) that covers the subject quite well). In general, I would agree with the idea that one shouldn't make assertions about books without reading them; I personally wish people who have never read the Bible would not make such confident assertions about it (not a comment aimed at you, Allhallowsday; I just get a bit irked at people on a couple of other websites I read that constantly make ignorant, snarky remarks about Christianity, Christians and the Bible). This sentiment includes Christians who have never read the Bible, which, unfortunately, seems to be a growing number of them.

Trekgeezer: Yes, Brown repeatedly proclaimed that his book was a work of fiction. In most interviews I saw/read, I personally got the impression that this proclamation was just to cover his backside, and that he believed most of the claims he made to be true and was presenting a fictional account of someone discovering the "truth" about Jesus. In other words, he was presenting a "history" lesson in a fictional setting. As I said before, I would never be in favor of censoring him or anyone else, but I always found his claim that "it's just a piece of fiction" to be a bit disingenuous.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 27, 2007, 11:36:45 PM
First, I have avoided posted in this thread long enough, and what I say here is solely my opinion and thoughts. For the record my brother is a Southern Baptist preacher, so yes Thanksgiving can be interesting.

I find it interesting that the Gnostic Gospels are called forgeries, in the utmost respect this label has been placed on them by the "The Church" primarily because it contradicts many of the dogmas of organized religion. As I have seen it many Christians have tendency of cherry picking the Bible as to what works for them and what doesn't, what they choose to believe and what they don't. I'm not saying ALL Christians just many of the ones I know. This finely crafted art of selective religion holds true for church leaders both modern and those of antiquity as they cherry pick what books of the Bible are to stay and what books are to go into the dust bend of history. The Nag Hammadi Library, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary all parts of the Gnostic Gospels are early Christian writings, additionally the there are other lost books of the Bible that have been culled through history by various early Popes and other Religious leaders. These included but are not limited to The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Secrets of Enoch, The Psalms of Solomon, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans, The Odes of Solomon, The Letter of Aristeas, The Gospel of Nicodemus and about 20 more. Now then again with respect to the church they will tell you these books are non-canonical text and therefore not worth the papyrus they are written on.

Early Christian leaders removed or dismissed what they could not control or want and in cases where religious fact contradicted other religious fact they threw together a Council to solve these issues, namely the Council of Nicea where they solved that little issue with 3 Gods (Polytheism) verses 1 God (Monotheism) when the Bible stated no other Gods but one. So slice of pie we have the Holy Trinity, 3 rolled into 1. Sort of a buy 1 God get 2 free special. OH I'll burn in the fiery pits for that one or if I'm Catholic I can just pay off the Pope and smoke a turd in purgatory, then poof off to heaven.

Anyway before I get long winded and make a bunch of people mad, which IS NOT my intention. I'll just ask, why doesn't the Christian church take all the writing in question and put them before their flock and let them decide? What are they afraid of? (I have an answer for that.)
As I ask my brother "The Gospel of Thomas (Gnostic) Jesus says "I am the light that shines over all things. I am everywhere. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there."  so what's wrong with that message other then it undermines the need for the church (Organized religion), because it says and confirms God is everywhere you look not just in the church between 9am and 11am on Sunday provided you tithe 10%? Which again some of the church will tell you you are required to give 10% (of your adjusted gross income) when in fact it mean to deprive yourself of 10% of your wealth, which is everything not just cash to give to others. Meaning time, property, money to anyone of God's children. Ok I'm getting off on a rant ...

See my BIG issue is not with Christianity, but organized religion ... I could bore you to tears more so than I have already with why, but I won't. I respect everyones belief and how they choose to believe, it's your business. But I take exception when Religious leader start telling people what to and how to believe. Faith is individualized, religion is not and in there lays the differences.

I do realize I'm off topic somewhat and said nothing of the book in question, book is fiction it never claimed to be the gospel. Take it as such. Many Christians need to spend a little more time understanding and reading their own book(s) and stop worrying about other one.

I have NO proof of what I say anymore then Religious leaders have proof of what they say, you're just going to have to take it on faith.

Done now, I really hope no one is offended as it is not my intent ... alright,  I'll be looking for cover.



Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: RCMerchant on August 28, 2007, 05:31:52 AM
 When people knock on my door,trying to soft soap a religion on me, I simply reply, "Thanks...but I already believe in God. I just don't believe in Church."  I don't need a religion to play referee between me and God.
  More death and hatered and pain has been because of organized religions butchering others of different faiths. I won't be a part of that.
If I am to be damned because I am not babtized, kiss someones ring, bow to a wall or speak in tounges...well so be it. If it makes others feel good about themselves-more power to 'em.  :thumbup:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: trekgeezer on August 28, 2007, 07:39:20 AM
I respect others beliefs as long as they don't try to force me to believe it.  I was always trouble in Sunday school because I questioned too much.

There is a tendency among Christians to pick the parts of the bible to judge others by, while living by the ones they think apply to them.

There's no counting the atrocities that have taken place in God's name that he had nothing to do with.

A comment and I'm done with this thread.

One thing the bible should teach anyone who reads it, in 6000 years humankind hasn't changed much.



Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 28, 2007, 08:27:52 AM
Cheeseflixz, RCMerchant, and others,

I am sorry that you have had enough bad experiences with organized religion to make you so bitter about it. I can understand that attitude to some degree; I personally am extremely independent in my thought processes and, like trekgeezer, I caused problems in my Sunday School classes because I never was one to tow the line simply because I was told to. I guess I'm more of an infiltrator, though; I am willing to stay within the confines of my little part of organized religion in order to try to make them understand that you can't pick and choose biblical principles to suit yourself. One of Jesus's main teachings was to look out for the best interests of others before yourself (that whole "love your neighbor" thing). He never said anything about one person exercising authority over another through fear or intimidation; leaders were always to lead by serving. Some Christians get this; many do not.

Since this thread is becoming more heated than productive, I, too, am going to be done with it barring any direct questions. Cheeseflixz, there are answers (legitimate ones, even) to most if not all of your questions, but it's pretty obvious that your mind is set, and it is not my place to argue with you here or anywhere else. Peace now and always.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 28, 2007, 09:47:15 AM
Quote from: Derf
Cheeseflixz, there are answers (legitimate ones, even) to most if not all of your questions, but it's pretty obvious that your mind is set, and it is not my place to argue with you here or anywhere else.

Believe my friend I do not want to argue, it's never productive, I will listen attentively to anything you or anyone has to say and I will respect what you have to say regardless if I agree with you or not. I will not try to sway your ideologies, beliefs or faith in any way. It is not my place to do so.

I'd call myself more of a seeker than a 'follower' of any doctrine. I grew up around Baptist and went to a Methodist Church while attending a Catholic school, I joined the Marines and spent years in the Middle East around Judaism and Islam in the early 80's then I worked for companies where I spent most of my time and years in Asia around Hindus and Buddhist. Call it Religion overload.
My mind is never 'set' my thought are fluid and ever changing as I read and try to understand more about various religions around the world. I'll listen to anything anyone has to say as long as I'm not preached or witnessed to, I do find that slightly annoying and living in a notch of the Bible belt I get it quit often. I can talk about the philosophy of religion as long as one my want and remain civil. Because I will not judge you, and the irony in that is I find many Christians do just that.

I know so many Sunday Christians it's pathetic, and I'm not calling anyone here that as I do not know anyone here well enough to make that call. But you know that ones I speak of, they go to church for business reasons, or political reasons, or they're afraid of what the neighbors might say if they don't, many are not there for a message or to get closer to God, it's an social club. It's not for fellowship but for the exchange of business cards. I've seen it in so many Church's and I bet you have too.

In regards to not towing the line you must understand I'm in a very small rural community and not towing the line and asking questions, challenging dogma, well you just don't do that here it's political and business suicide. I mean they don't even sell alcohol here because of Religion, but start asking about the water to wine and the wine at the last supper, or God teaching Noah how to make wine and so on, well you just dig a hole to lay in it. Meanwhile I have a friend that own a liquor store and a neighboring community and sees most of them every week buying booze ... it's hypocrisy. We don't want booze in our community because it's bad, however we'll drive 20 miles down the road and buy it. And as soon as it's on the ballot there they are, on the radio and TV talking about the evils of drinking probably with a flask in their pocket.

So that's the kind of Christians I have around here, not all of them but many of them. Who's got the bigger better Church, who's got the most members, who's got the best denomination. Knowing how the area was, when I moved here from another local area I was asked 184 times (yes I actually counted) to come to this or that church, I went to a few but they just didn't do it for me.

Anyway thanks for your reply and feel free to answer any of the questions I raise or not. It's a free country.


   


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 28, 2007, 11:39:19 AM
Cheeseflixz,

I will offer you my viewpoint on what I feel qualified to answer, which is probably not all that much. Indianasmith answered some of the historical questions about the gnostic gospels, to which I will only add my impressions: you interpret the Council of Nicea to have "dismissed what it could not control," while I see it as less of a control issue and more of a truth issue; the gnostic gospels were written well after those to whom they are attributed were dead. They were, for the most part, written to undermine Christian teachings. This makes them questionable at best. Why should the biblical canon include works specifically written to contradict works that were already accepted? You may have better knowledge than I do of those works; I freely admit to only reading about them rather than to having read them. But most scholars I've read agree that they were written to corrupt church teachings rather than to refine or even to question them. Certainly there were politics in even the early church, but I am willing to assume that there was a better balance of people who were more concerned with the truth of the matter than with any power to be gained. As with any movement, those closer to the idealistic source will usually remain idealistic; as time passes and that movement becomes further removed from its founders' vision, power players move in and corrupt things for their own gain. Read (if you haven't already) Animal Farm for a condensed version of this idea. It's not the greatest example, but it illustrates a good idea ("everyone is equal") corrupted by politics ("but some are more equal than others"). As to the "lost" books, many were lost well before the age of Christianity (and therefore were not "cut" by the Nicean Council). The apocryphal works that I have read were interesting, and several would have been included in the canon except for what I consider to be a pretty flimsy reason: the original Hebrew texts were lost and the only available texts were translations (Ecclesiasticus is a very good wisdom book, for example).

As for the idea of three Gods versus one, I see nowhere in the Bible where three Gods are even hinted at. Paul's writings (used as a representation of early church beliefs) are very clear that there is one God, with three aspects: The Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These are roles more than separate entities. For example, I am a father, a son, a husband, a teacher, etc., but I am still only one being. The Jews horded the role that they were given as God's chosen people. Instead of being a light to all mankind, they grew into a very cliqish society, so God needed to give humanity a drastic new view: Jesus. Jesus fulfilled His role in the Resurrection, and we needed the direct communication promised in the Gospels: the Holy Spirit, the communicatory aspect of God. One God, three major roles based on the readiness of mankind to understand.

One last question you raised that I have a fairly strong viewpoint on is the one concerning the quote from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Peter (ironically, the man who was supposedly the first pope) makes it very clear that all believers are in effect priests, and that we have no need for anyone to stand between us and God (in case you can't tell, I'm not Catholic. I understand that the Catholic priests may have been a necessary measure when few people could read, but they were never needed to play the same role as the Jewish priests were). Yes, again, politics creeps in and people (Christians are just people, after all) corrupt good things and turn them into ways to gain power over others. Many have lost sight of the fact that churches are about a fellowship of believers, not an organization to rule over others. Some organization is necessary to take care of day-to-day activities of any group; as far as I can see, that is the extent of church organizing in the Bible, and that's not really a bad thing. Like you, I, too, am from a small, rural community, and I know the kinds of churches you are talking about in your last post. For whatever reason, people seem to like having power over others (not my bag, personally; I don't like that kind of responsibility). Does this mean that all organized religion is bad? Not really; there are those individuals who understand the idea of mutual support and encouragement, and they are often quite active in local churches. Churches are full of superstitious and/or political people, just like the rest of humanity, and it is always people who corrupt good ideas. That doesn't mean that the ideas are not worth pursuing, and a strong local church is a good starting place for a Christian to pursue those ideas.

I guess a decent summary of all this is simply that people are people; claiming adherence to any religion (or any ideal, religious or not) doesn't automatically free them from all imperfections: We are all hypocrites in some way, and so we are all in the same metaphorical boat. I have found that Christianity offers a more comprehensive plan to dealing with reality than any other religion/philosophy (in my opinion), but that doesn't make me the be-all and end-all of humanity, and I certainly don't claim to have all the answers or to be the final authority on anything, so take all of this as my viewpoint. I like to think it is well thought out (though this post seems to ramble a lot), but it is ultimately my assessment.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 28, 2007, 12:46:01 PM
Derf thanks for your answer and I don't disagree with much of what you have said, I'd really like to reply in quality, but alas I'm swamped today.

Just one note to ponder I do not see the relevance of when something was written as the the Gnostic text, we really don't know when they were written, we only know the approximate age of the copies on hand. They could be copies of copies, we just don't know. To dismiss them simply based on an assumed time frame would be akin to saying any non-fictional history written today or in the past is false and should be dismissed because it was written well after the event. So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Edward Gibbon, David Hume et al. should all be dismissed because much of there writing were of events long before they lived. Not to ramble on but I think you understand my illustration.

ok back to the grind ...   


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 28, 2007, 02:59:16 PM
One last quick note from me:

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospel) is a Wikipedia article concerning the gnostic gospels that does a much better job explaining the dating than I can. A big problem I have with the accuracy of the gnostic gospels is their claim of "secret knowledge." With the Bible, everything is laid out for anyone to read. True, God often seems to fulfill His promises listed there in ways no one thought of, but as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as "secret knowledge"; it is simply a ploy to claim to have something that no one else has, thereby gaining a kind of power over them.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 28, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
One last quick note from me:

Here ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospel[/url]) is a Wikipedia article concerning the gnostic gospels that does a much better job explaining the dating than I can. A big problem I have with the accuracy of the gnostic gospels is their claim of "secret knowledge." With the Bible, everything is laid out for anyone to read. True, God often seems to fulfill His promises listed there in ways no one thought of, but as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as "secret knowledge"; it is simply a ploy to claim to have something that no one else has, thereby gaining a kind of power over them.


Yes I'm familiar with the dates, and while some books of the Bible date from the same period such as 2 Peter (circa 160CE) and Titus (circa 150CE) they are included in the canonized text while some (actual many) non-canonized gospels per date very books like the Fayyum Fragment (70CE), Sophia of Jesus Christ (50CE), Gospel of the Nazoreans (100CE) just to name a few non canonized early Christian text. there is a bunch, and some are in question and hotly debated by scholars as the who, what, when, where and why? Like the    Passion Narrative (30CE), Didache (50-100CE) and    Lost Sayings Gospel Q (40-80CE)
I will say and I think you know that Wiki is not the best source for information, it'll do in a pinch.

As far as secret text goes, early Christianity was laced in secrecy most people were illiterate and only knew what they were told, unable to read to book if given it. So early leaders kept many in the dark ... (hmm maybe that's why it was called the dark ages?) anyway you know early Christian power was abused (still is by some) and masses were kept ignorant, because knowledge is power and those with the knowledge had the power. You're a bright guy I don't need to tell you the history of Christianity and the 'believe it or die' method of that prevailed for many 100's of years. And just like the radical Islamics today, Christianity was spread at the tip of a sword.

Anyway I'm getting off track because I'm trying to do to many things at once and nothing good ever comes of that.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 28, 2007, 09:36:17 PM
I linked to the Wikipedia article mostly because it corresponded pretty well to what I had recalled reading in other places.

Could I ask where you got the dates for 2 Peter and Titus? My sources place Peter around 66 CE and Titus around 65 CE.

I am unfamiliar with the other writings you mention, so I'll refrain from commenting. But I'll try to look into them at some point.

As far as early church secrecy goes, I think we are talking about two different kinds of "secret knowledge." Christians made knowledge of salvation freely known in order to grow the church. What I meant by the term is more the mysticism practised by the gnostics, the "I know the really deep truths about God that He hasn't revealed to the plebes" kind of knowledge that usually involved numerology or some other secret codes or rituals. The early church had very few if any rites other than baptism because there were too many cultures coming together. Yes, after Constantine, the church leaders began to be more and more political and less and less spiritual, and they began to abuse their literacy and turn it into a power trip. It all culminated in the Crusades, which had little to do with Christianity and much to do with politics. After the ninth Crusade, Rome began to lose its political might, and then we move into the Renaissance, where the Catholic Church's influence fell even more, resulting in its return to more spiritual emphases. The Crusaders were "christian" in the same way that everyone in Western Civilization is "christian" (i.e., culturally, not actual adherents to the tenets of the religion). This of course excepts the Muslim mercenaries fighting for Rome. Religion at that time was simply a tool, much like it is today (God bless America! We are fighting for the right and God is on our side!) With the advent of better schools, literacy, often taught by reading the Bible, pretty much erased the type of secrecy you brought up (or should have; literacy doesn't always bring understanding). Mysticism, however, is still going strong. I recall as an example the recent trend in celebrity religion of Kabbalah (or however it is spelled), which claims secret knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. People love conspiracies, which is basically what mysticism offers (the "inside scoop" on God), but there really is none of that in the Bible; it is much more concerned with helping people to understand how to treat each other and how to relate to God.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 28, 2007, 09:55:27 PM
Hey guys, I haven't meant to bail on this thread that I have created, but I came home late Monday after a 15 hour day and found that the upstairs AC window unit - that's the part of the house where my wife and I as well as our two daughters sleep, and where our computer alcove is - had died.  It was 91 up here last night and is 88 as I type this tonight.  Needless to say we've been sleeping downstairs.

Cheeze, your comments about smalltown religion remind me of a Texas joke - "What's the difference between a Methodist and a Baptist? - A Methodist will say hello to you in the liquor store."

As far as your comments on the Gnostic Gospels, I have read a good many of them.  Many of the ones you refer to actually only exist in fragmentary form, and a couple of the Epistles you mention no longer exist at all.  I do think that your dates on Titus and II Peter reflect some outmoded thinking - although in all fairness, many scholars do think that someone other than Peter wrote it.  Still, it resembles the undoubtedly authentic I Peter more than any of the other forgeries attributed to Peter in the Second and Third Century, such as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Peter.  In the end, Gnosticism was a cult that grew out of Christianity, but it was NOT Christian.  It denied many key attributes of Christian doctrine, such as the Incarnation and Resurrection.  The Gnostics were notorious forgers.  Other early Christian works, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and I and II Clement, were not censored at all - they were treasured and preserved as solid doctrinal works and profitable reading, but not counted as Scripture because they were not authored or sponsored by the Apostles of Jesus.  The early church set the bar for canonical status very high because there were a lot of spurious works out there.  But every book included in the New Testament was written or directly associated either with the 12 apostles, Paul, or one of Jesus' brothers.  None of the Gnostic works could make that claim - or, more accurately, could make that claim and have it stand independent examination.  Also, to be honest, most of the Gnostic stuff is rambling, inconsistent, mystical, and much more farfetched than the simple accounts contained in the Gospels.
   I agree with many of your comments about organized religion, even though I am a minister.  The problem with America's Christians is too much church and not enough Christianity.  If you enjoy reading, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's wonderful books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith.  However, whatever you choose to believe and however you choose to live, you have my respect!


Now I only have four pages of unread posts to catch up on, and 30 minutes till bedtime!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 28, 2007, 10:18:23 PM
Indianasmith - side note - not sure about Texas, but the day after Labor Day builders stores (Lowe's Home Depot) put AC units on clearance ... that's the secret knowledge of a contractor ... j/k

Yes I know that joke and there is more truth than joke there.

Derf - I got my dates from an old book  I've got, but for an online list of dates and links to the writings both canonized and non canonized I use http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/)

Like I've said I have no problem with Christianity and all I intend to do is to seek out all information possible and draw my own conclusion not just the information sanctioned by the church. Am I a Christian by classical definition, I don't know do I believe in a great power, Yes I do.

Guys, I'd really like to talk more on this and give you a decent reply to your comments and I will try to, but I have got to get these books done before months end or the IRS will taketh away.

 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 29, 2007, 07:37:13 AM
Cheesflixz,

Understood. It has been a good discussion; you have challenged me and taught me a few things as well. If we get to continue, great. If not, I appreciate your candidness and your willingness to genuinely discuss things.

Indianasmith,

I realize that we blatantly hijacked your thread (when was the last mention of Brown's book anyway?  :tongueout:), but I appreciate your comments as well. I would love to talk more with you sometime about this topic; there is still much I have to learn, and you seem to have a firm grasp on this particular subject.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on August 29, 2007, 07:42:03 PM
Thanks Derf!! (he types, sitting in the glorious coolness of a brand new $599 air conditioning unit).  This is something that I teach on a regular basis, so I try to stay up on it.

Cheeze,  one comment I will add to your post:  the older works on the New Testament (pre-1960 or so) generally tend to date all of the books later than more recent scholarship.  Of course, there are some scholars who still try to put the books as late as possible, but much of the reasoning behind that is due to preconceved notions about the origins of Christianity, not what the actual evidence indicates.

The Jesus Seminar is a good example.  A group of far-left Biblical scholars who are much better at controversy than they are at research, they have rejected over 80% of the material in the four Gospels as being spurious.  They rate the Gospel of Thomas more highly than they do any of the canonical gospels.  But when you look at their reasons for doing so, their whole rationale falls apart.  They basically reject any account that has Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, or performing  miracles, as purely legendary.  Their reason for doing this is because they believe Jesus was nothing more than a popular rabbi who had a legend of deity built up around him after his death.  Since the Gospel of Thomas contains only sayings of Jesus, no miracles, and few claims of divinity, they accept some 70% of it, even though it was composed 110 years after the Crucifixion!  In short, they accept or reject Gospel material based on whether or not it fits their preconceived, naturalistic view of Jesus, not according to its early origin or historic merit.  If their view of Jesus is incorrect - if he really did work miracles or claim to be the Son of God - then all their conclusions are screwed as a result!  And all the very early evidence we have, both in the New Testament and outside it, is that Jesus saw Himself as divine, and was known even in the Jewish Talmud as a "wonder-worker".
  Another example of date revision is the date ascribed to the Gospel of John.  From the 1840's on it was thought that this Gospel was written in the mid to late Second Century (AD 140 - 180) because of its "advanced Christology").  But late twentieth century archeology has demonstrated that the author was intimately familiar with the geography and social mores of Judea in the EARLY part of the First Century, and then the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, a small piece of parchment with part of John Ch. 18 on it, was firmly dated between 110 and 125 AD a few years back.  The fragment was found in the remote Egyptian hinterland.  For the Gospel to have been copied and circulated that far would have taken probably a minimum of 20 years from the date of composition . . . pushing John's gospel to around 95 AD, which is when the Church and the earliest Christian writings said it was composed all along!
  While the creation/evolution debate continues to give many Christians headaches, the fact is that archeology has again and again confirmed the details of the Gospel accounts and pushed the dates for their composition right back into the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, which is where we said they originated all along!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 30, 2007, 12:10:56 AM
I'll look into those books, a few years ago I read Evidence That Demands a Verdict which you may know. It seems to be written by fundamentalist Christian to hard sell Christianity to the fence sitters, but it lost me when it made the claim that Christianity is the best religion because it's objective. IMHO an objective religion would not make that claim. The title was interesting since much "evidence" was suppressed, namely the Apocrypha. It was very much cherry picking the information and making it's case based on culled information. One of my pet peeves is cherry pickers of faith. Take it all or leave it, it's not a spiritual buffet.
I'm not an Gnostic I find the gnostic writing and all religious writing interesting. I don't believe Gnostic had secret knowledge as in 'ssshhh this is a secret' but I feel they thought they had more of an higher understanding or an more abstract concept of the higher powers. Many Gnostic writing only exist in fraction do the systematic destruction of them waged by early Christians.
I'm not sure I'd call Gnosticism a cult, I feel that is a label placed upon them by Christians as term 'cult' carries so many negative connotations and tends to make many people fell better about there belief all while discrediting other beliefs. I've heard many Christians call anything from Buddhism and Islam to Judaism and Taoism a cult. Many Protestants call Catholics, idolaters and disallow the 5 extra books in the their Bible. I'm not saying you are doing any of these things, just that it seems to me to be a Christian "habit". Sort of a my God's better than your God even when in many cases it's the same God.

My knowledge is somewhat rusty on all this stuff as I have not read any of these writings in quite some time, but I need to again. I'm getting to old to remember everything in great detail.

Anyway my motto is try to do right, try to be fair, treat folks how you want to be treated, and be honest.

But you know that doesn't matter, as I know folks that would rather be ripped off by a guy with a "Jesus Fish" than dare do business with a guy with a "Darwin Fish" so 99% of the time I just keep my thoughts to myself around here, it's good for business. LOL.

Quote
(God bless America! We are fighting for the right and God is on our side!)

You know it's the same God and surely God wouldn't take sides.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 30, 2007, 12:05:23 PM
Yes, there are negative connotations to the word cult, but in my experience, the word is used much like the term "goy" is used by Jews. If you're not a Jew, you're a goy. Sometimes it is negative, sometimes simply descriptive (yes, there is always an element of superiority involved, though often to a lesser degree than one might assume). To Christians, anything not Christian is a cult, though typically the term is used to describe religions more or less similar to Christianity but that do not adhere to the Apostle's Creed. Islam, Hinduism, etc., are other religions rather than cults, though in its most general sense, "cult" fits. I may be overgeneralizing, but that is my basic understanding of "cults." In regard to the "my God's better than your God," I don't personally find that to be applicable. If, for example, I take Jesus's words seriously that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that there is no other way to God but through Him, how can I at the same time validate the claims of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., which propose contrary paths? If I'm going to base my life on a religion (or any philosophy or any belief whatsoever), there will inherently be an element of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." And that will undoubtedly be construed as that sense of superiority by someone else. When I choose a life path, I automatically unchoose other paths, putting my faith in my chosen path being the right one.

I notice that you are introducing a new element of comparative religion into the discussion ("in many cases it's the same God."). I'd be perfectly willing to discuss that issue in a one-on-one or small group setting, but not so much on a public forum; it is simply too inflammatory no matter how understanding one tries to be. Maybe someone else will take up that discussion, but I am not willing to in this setting. I'm not trying to be difficult, and it is a subject I do have definite opinions on, but this is not the place for it, in my opinion. I hope you understand.

You quoted a statement of mine. My meaning behind it was that it is an empty statement; there is no "God" to it because it is simply a political rather than spiritual statement, just as the Crusades used the facade of religion to achieve purely political ends.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: ulthar on August 30, 2007, 12:45:59 PM

 One of my pet peeves is cherry pickers of faith. Take it all or leave it, it's not a spiritual buffet.


I've been reading the discussion with interest.  I like a good 'back-n-forth' without acidity and mutual respect.  Good job guys.   :cheers:

I agree with the point above.  There is quite a bit in the Bible in general and the teachings of Jesus in particular that is 'uncomfortable.'  But, we cannot throw these bits away for that reason.

One good example of this is the attention Jesus gave to judmentalism of one person toward another.  In my opinion, there are far too many Christians 'passing judgement' on this or that group as being 'unworthy.'  The easy, comfortable way is to say "WE are the in-group, the acceptable ones" and then use such inclusivity to exclude others.  I do not believe this is what Jesus had in mind.

Having a spiritual life is difficult.  Making that committment is difficult and it takes a lot of work.  If there is something I am "supposed to do," I cannot ignore that just because it is difficult or not what *I* want.

One other point on topic to several of the points raised by others.  A lot of what you guys mentioned that was "wrong" with the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages was what The Reformation was intended to address.  Luther, for example, abhorred the notion that Priests should stand between men and God, and sought to put the Bible into the hands of families directly - that Biblical scholarship begins in the home.

Just some rambling thoughts on thie Thursday afternoon.....


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on August 30, 2007, 05:05:47 PM
Derf - I certainly hope you were not offended or put off by anything I have said. I assure you it was not intended it so. I respect you choice to opt out of any discussion you are not comfortable with, or feel they are to personal to discuss. I fully understand. It has been an interesting conversation thus far. 

Quote from: Derf
You quoted a statement of mine. My meaning behind it was that it is an empty statement; there is no "God" to it because it is simply a political rather than spiritual statement, just as the Crusades used the facade of religion to achieve purely political ends.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

Quote from: ulthar
I've been reading the discussion with interest.  I like a good 'back-n-forth' without acidity and mutual respect.  Good job guys.

I thank you, I find an exchange of beliefs, ideas, concepts or whatever get a lot further if you show respect for the other viewpoint regardless of personal conviction.

I think if this was practiced on a global political scale the world would be a much happier place. I have friends in nearly every faith and belief and some with none at all and we all get along great.

 :cheers: to all ... life to short, enjoy it while you can.

 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Derf on August 31, 2007, 07:41:14 AM
Cheeseflixz,

No worries; I wasn't offended by anything you said and didn't mean to come across that way. I was in a bit of a hurry with that last post and wanted to get the thoughts in. I know that anything I say about Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any faith other than my own could easily be misconstrued, and so I choose not to go there on a public forum. Also, I know less about the origins/tenets of those faiths and recognize that some of what I've read did not come from the best of sources. I have looked into them to some degree and would choose Christianity over any of them based on my readings. I respect anyone's right to choose any faith (or no faith) he/she desires. However, I reserve the right for myself to believe that my choice is the correct one; as I said, it is inherent in the choice itself. They are welcome to think I am wrong; it is inherent in their choice. It's just one of those things we as humans deal with since not everyone can see things as clearly as I do  :teddyr:.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 01, 2007, 07:52:12 AM
Been a few days since I posted anything - sorry about that!  Beginning of school craziness has had me busier than a one armed man with a bad case of poison ivy.  I must say I am a veteran of MANY religous discussions and debates on a wide variety of message boards, and this is one of the most civil and informative ones I have ever been party to!  I'm gonna karma everybody after I write this reply!

Cheeze, you mentioned this -
"while some (actual many) non-canonized gospels per date very books like the Fayyum Fragment (70CE), Sophia of Jesus Christ (50CE), Gospel of the Nazoreans (100CE) just to name a few non canonized early Christian text. there is a bunch, and some are in question and hotly debated by scholars as the who, what, when, where and why? Like the    Passion Narrative (30CE), Didache (50-100CE) and    Lost Sayings Gospel Q (40-80CE)}"


The thing about the Gnostic gospels is that many of them indeed are lost, and some are probably legendary.  I haven't heard of the Fayvum Fragment, but the Sophia of Jesus is almost certainly late Second Century.  The Gnostics were particularly fond of personifying "wisdom" and in their later works actually came to consider "Sophia" as a feminine incarnation of the Godhead.  I'm pretty sure the Gospel of the Nazarenes is known to us only by its title, from an early Third Century reference, and any attempt to nail a date to it is vain.  The Didache, as well as
I Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, are still well-known and complete.  The early church never denounced or censored those works - they were encouraged as devotional reading, in fact.  They were just not included in the canon because they were not authored by an apostle.
    Both the Passion Narrative and the Q Document are theoretical constructs by 19th and early 20th century Bible scholars - there is no ancient proof that either actually existed as a separate document, but they are considered to be the source of the accounts of Jesus' death in the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke),  and Q is supposedly the source of all the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.    The problem with both those theories is that they presuppose the death of all eyewitnesses before the Synoptics were written, so that Matthew and Luke HAD to have separate written sources.  The more recent thinking on the dates for Matthew and Luke renders the whole idea of the Q Document and a written Passion narrative unnecessary - since Matthew was an eyewitness and Luke interviewed numerous eyewitnesses, by his own account.

   I think the real reason the Gnostic gospels and other works have faded away is that they simply failed the test of time.  They don't reflect many, if any, actual historic words and deeds of Jesus - they are simply vague theological ramblings that are totally at variance with the plain and understandable accounts contained in the New Testament writings.   The God of Gnosticism is not a dynamic, personal incarnation of the creator of the universe - he is (according to which Gnostic gospel you're reading) a misogynistic Zen master spouting wise sayings and incomprehensible  analogies, or an obviously embellished, frequently psychotic legendary figure that is almost scary at times (like the story in the Gnostic gospel I Infancy, in which Jesus curses a neighborhood boy to die for pushing him into a puddle).  One scholar I was reading this week commented that the Gnostic traditions reflect exactly the kind of legendary development that builds up around historic figures a century or more after their death, like the miracle stories in the Hadith about Muhammad and the embellished accounts of the Knights of the Round Table grafted onto the historical Briton warlord Artorius.  They are a fascinating window into the thinking of this splinter sect that branched off of Christianity in the Second Century, but they add little to our understanding of the real Jesus.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on September 01, 2007, 12:43:14 PM
Quote
I must say I am a veteran of MANY religous discussions and debates on a wide variety of message boards, and this is one of the most civil and informative ones I have ever been party to!

Ditto that ... they say you shouldn't talk religion or politics, the 2 single most important subjects going. I talk both all the time, oddly enough while I take what is call a 'left wing liberal' view of religion, I take a 'ring wing conservative.' view of politics. So I guess I'm truly fair and balanced.   

The Fayyum Fragment is just that a fragment and reads a lot like Mark 14:26-31 so there is a little bit of it just not much. It's just another old writing that some regard as the real and some don't, it's really very minor as it only consist of about 100 Greek letters.
One the Sophia of Jesus I guess I missed the part and will have to refresh my knowledge of it as you noted it "was consider a feminine incarnation of the Godhead." I always thought "Sophia" was just a Greek word for 'wisdom' in antiquity, I'll have to research that at some point and enlighten myself.

Yes the original Gospel of the Nazorenes (Nazarenes) are likely lost and first mentioned by Hegesippus around 180CE, and "what we know now mainly come from the writings of Jerome (ca. 400CE), who incorrectly identifies this gospel with the Gospel of the Hebrews, but who, his testimony notwithstanding, certainly had firsthand knowledge only of the Gospel of the Nazoreans." For those out there in b movie land reading this that don't know The Gospel of the Nazoreans is an expansion of the Gospel of Matthew, translated from Greek into Aramaic or Syriac.

Quote
Both the Passion Narrative  and the Q Document  are theoretical constructs by 19th and early 20th century Bible scholars - there is no ancient proof that either actually existed as a separate document, but they are considered to be the source of the accounts of Jesus' death in the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke),  and Q is supposedly the source of all the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Correct, and on that note we have no more proof that the original 10 commandment every existed, but yet we place card broad signs in our yards and argue there merit to be displayed on government property. (Which I have no problem with in the least)
So my point is that even if we do not have the original it doesn't always mean that it never existed, if that is the case then much of the canonized Bible will have to be thrown out. After all we come closer to validated the truth behind the some of works of Homer than the works of the Bible.

Quote
One scholar I was reading this week commented that the Gnostic traditions reflect exactly the kind of legendary development that builds up around historic figures a century or more after their death, like the miracle stories in the Hadith about Muhammad and the embellished accounts of the Knights of the Round Table grafted onto the historical Briton warlord Artorius.

Or others like walking on water, feeding the masses with 5 fish and a loaf of bread, healing the blind, making the cripple walk, turning water to wine, and rising from the died. See I never understood how scholars accept without question or debate some miracles and flatly disregard others as flights of fancy or heresy. Again we go back to cherry picking. Many of the non-canonized text are not canonized in my opinion simply because they don't fit the mold set forth by scholars and experts, and if I have not learned anything else in life, I have learned one thing ... there are no experts.

See my outside of the box observation has seen that Christianity is a great religion because ... 1.) It's all about peace, love, acceptance and forgiveness. That's a great concept even if few practice them. 2.) It requires no proof it's all about faith. I can tell you it happened, I can tell you it existed and tell you I have nothing physical to show you, just trust me it was here at one time long ago ... have faith.
I find it interesting that nearly all Christian celebrations fall on pagan holidays. Some even in name like Easter which is named after Astarte another name for Beltis who was/is/called the queen of heaven. Both are Chaldean in origin, the easter bunny is a Pagan symbol of fertility... Semiramis.
And just a little more useless trivia for you, Sunrise Service is also pagan as Christ did not rise at sunrise it was still dark, see John 20:1. It was a pagan worship service to the sun god.  And 'lent' can you say 'Tammuz.' Easter has more to do with Ishtar, than Jesus Christ ... but I digress. (Great thing about having ADHD is you can wonder in 50 directions at once.) 

On the other hand if I show you (I'm using 'you' collectively) a dinosaur bone or a prehistoric skeleton of an early human and say this is 3.5M years old or 200M years old, I will get a cornucopia of bazaar logic as to how and why those are here from them being just rocks that look like bones to works of the devil to trick and tempt us. I actually had a preacher tell me once that dinosaur bones came from some proto-earth were God had made the earth several times before experimenting until he got it right ... I was 'WHAT? God was experimenting? That sort of flies in the face of being God-like doesn't it?" So  what did God say ... 'Well damn that didn't work back to the ole drawing cloud.' I couldn't find the duct tape fast enough as my brain was about to explode. God was practicing, warming up for the big final project. Mind you this wasn't some back road preacher it was at a church we were going to that had 2500 member and active services of nearly a 1000 ... I never went back there after that. It was just to far fetched for even fundamental Christian logic. I have many stories about this preacher, some would scare you more than than some of the Gnostic text.     



Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 01, 2007, 08:09:04 PM
Lots of good stuff there to respond to, Cheeze, but I am in the middle of writing a newsletter for my artifact club that is a month overdue . . . so please accept this raincheck.


BTW, besides being a minister, I am an amateur archeologist and paleontologist . . .  I personally discovered and excavated the mosasaur in my avatar!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on September 01, 2007, 10:57:34 PM
Lots of good stuff there to respond to, Cheeze, but I am in the middle of writing a newsletter for my artifact club that is a month overdue . . . so please accept this raincheck.


BTW, besides being a minister, I am an amateur archeologist and paleontologist . . .  I personally discovered and excavated the mosasaur in my avatar!

No problem ... there's some sort of irony to a Minister being an amateur archaeologist and paleontologist. It's almost an oxymoron, The Minister of Bones. I enjoy both as well, I have a rather extensive fossil and Indian artifact collection, but by no means am I a plethora of knowledge. I chalk it up to neat stuff I like.

Probably ought to take a break anyway, me thinks some don't care for my post.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 02, 2007, 03:00:57 PM
I wanted to comment some on Cheeze's earlier post -
(translation - I think the dead horse twitched - let's flog it some MORE!!!!  :teddyr:)


First, he said:


Or others like walking on water, feeding the masses with 5 fish and a loaf of bread, healing the blind, making the cripple walk, turning water to wine, and rising from the died. See I never understood how scholars accept without question or debate some miracles and flatly disregard others as flights of fancy or heresy.

Here is the difference - there are some 35 documented miracles of  Jesus mentioned in the Gospels.  All of them are, first of all, consistent with his character; secondly, they are documented in sources that go back to the original apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus; and last, were performed for the benefit of others, not himself.  Of course, skeptical scholars like the Jesus Seminar reject all miracles on the principle that they do not believe God intervenes in this world (frankly, I think most of the guys in the Jesus Seminar don't even think God exists).  Thomas Jefferson cut all the miracles out of his Bible for the same reason.  But starting with a flawed premise leads first to a flawed hypothesis and finally to a flawed conclusion.  If God exists, and were going to incarnate Himself into the world to save mankind, then one would expect Him to validate the claim to divinity with miraculous claims.  Jesus said "the works which I do testify of me."  However, the miracles that occur in the Gnostic gospels are generally either selfish and vindictive in their motivations, or else out of character with the Jesus that was written about by those who actually knew Him, which none of the Gnostic authors did.

The next comment is this:

I find it interesting that nearly all Christian celebrations fall on pagan holidays. Some even in name like Easter which is named after Astarte another name for Beltis who was/is/called the queen of heaven. Both are Chaldean in origin, the easter bunny is a Pagan symbol of fertility... Semiramis.
And just a little more useless trivia for you, Sunrise Service is also pagan as Christ did not rise at sunrise it was still dark, see John 20:1. It was a pagan worship service to the sun god.  And 'lent' can you say 'Tammuz.' Easter has more to do with Ishtar, than Jesus Christ ... but I digress. (Great thing about having ADHD is you can wonder in 50 directions at once.)   

You will get no argument from me there.  The fact is when Constantine legalized Christianity, he knew that if he were to ban or discourage all of Rome's traditional pagan holidays he would have a riot on his hands.  So he just Christianized them.  Christmas replaced Yule and so on . . . actually the birth of Jesus was probably in late summer or early fall, not in December.  I will say, however, that if we want to celebrate his birth, December is as good a time to do it as any.  Christmas is, you might say, not a Scriptural holiday, but it is (or at least was) a Christian holiday on the old grounds that possession is nine tenths of the law.
  As for Easter, while the name itself is pagan, at least we have the season right.  We know Jesus was crucified at Passover, and since the Jews have kept Passover for over 3000 years, we know the month and possibly the day that Jesus was crucified (The year is another matter - some scholars argue for 29 AD, others for 30 AD, and a few still hold out for 33).  As far as sunrise services - the women set out before daylight and probably arrived just as dawn was breaking or a bit before.  But have you ever tried to get a churchful of Baptists to assemble BEFORE dawn?  Heck, one church I belonged to held their "sunrise" service at 8 AM.  (Sluggards!)

  As far as evolution and the Genesis creation narrative go, I honestly have no idea how to fully reconcile the two.   I firmly believe that God placed us here for a reason, and the idea of me being a cosmic accident with no eternal significance is unacceptable to me.  Whether God formed me out of clay or genetically engineered me over millenia, I am His child and He's stuck with me!


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on September 02, 2007, 08:26:17 PM
I don't think indignation at purposeless existance is enough evidence for me, but I can relate!   :twirl:

I've read CHEEZEFLIXZ comments and I tend to agree or at least see whence they came.  I've grappled with similar questions.  Any thinking man has.  I do avoid religious discussions for personal reasons.  But, comment about certain festivals on the calendar is getting nearer my own interests, and should point out that Christmas supplanted two roman festivals: the six to five day SATURNALIA ending December 24, and the DIES NATALIS SOLIS INVICTI (birth of the new sun, or the sun unconquered) which was celecbrated on December 25, and traditionally the beginning of the new year... Yule is a Scandanavian festival, celebrated at the same time, but documented in later centuries.  All of these terms are well known to Christian scholars, and their familiarity to us is due to Christian scholarship.  However, it is well noted that history is written by the victors. 
Sol invictus. 


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 02, 2007, 08:33:19 PM
That is indeed one of the laws of history, however, the exception that proves the rule is the American Civil War . .  . for a century after it ended the scholarship on it was done largely by Southern historians, which is why so many people to this day insist it was not about slavery, but state's rights.  Jefferson Davis pretty much invented that excuse in his retirement after the war, although he sang another tune at its beginning . . . .


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on September 02, 2007, 08:38:40 PM
Interesting comments about the Civil War, my Dad said it was about economics, but what about the Roman festivals supplanted with Christian holidays?   :smile:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on September 02, 2007, 09:58:48 PM
While the urge to talk about the Civil War is killing me being a direct descendant of a Southern General and having many on both sides ... I'll reframe.

As for Roman festivals and many other pagan holidays were mainly adapted by the Christians in order to convert pagans to Christianity as some sort of religious practice compromise. Come join our religion and we'll let you keep Astarte and Yules but we're going to redesign them, and the pagan joined the Christians rejoiced.

So thanks to this co-mingling of religions we now have ...

Mistletoe (Norse and Celtic)
Santa Claus, Sinter Klaus, Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle (Assorted places)
Easter Bunny (Semiramis)
Easter Eggs (these date back to Egypt)
Gift Giving (Various)
Christmas Trees (Germanic and Norse)
Yule Log (Germanic)

Anyway you get the idea ... there are many and most of then come from some pagan ritual or holiday.



Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Allhallowsday on September 02, 2007, 10:27:55 PM
So thanks to this co-mingling of religions we now have ...
Santa Claus, Sinter Klaus, Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle (Assorted places)
Don't forget Papa Noel or Grandfather Frost or Befana... 

While the urge to talk about the Civil War is killing me being a direct descendant of a Southern General and having many on both sides ... I'll reframe.
Refrain.   
BUT, you should start a thread about your family history; it sounds fascinating.  There seem to be many history buffs on this board.   


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 02, 2007, 10:47:26 PM
While the urge to talk about the Civil War is killing me being a direct descendant of a Southern General and having many on both sides ... I'll reframe.

A topic for another day, then!!  In my own defense, I will say that I am a sixth generation Texan (my ancestors were the ORIGINAL wetbacks, they swam across the Sabine river INTO Mexico!), and all my ancestors on both sides fought for the South.  Still, I think they fought in a bad cause.

You may begin the thread on this  topic at the time and place of your choosing.


Draw! :teddyr:


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: CheezeFlixz on September 02, 2007, 11:23:17 PM
You may begin the thread on this  topic at the time and place of your choosing.
Draw! :teddyr:

Perhaps one day, I can only effectively annoy people in one subject at a time.

Quote
Gnostic gospels are generally either selfish and vindictive in their motivations, or else out of character with the Jesus that was written about by those who actually knew Him, which none of the Gnostic authors did.

Seeing that when they were first written and who wrote them is often not known or debated then that statement can not be made with 100% certainty. It can only be an hypothesis only.

Quote
You will get no argument from me there.

Thank God.


Sorry couldn't pass that up.

Quote
As far as evolution and the Genesis creation narrative go, I honestly have no idea how to fully reconcile the two.

That's a better answer than most of the stuff I heard from people. If you don't know, admit it instead of coming up with some bazaar story to explain away.


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: Hammock Rider on September 04, 2007, 03:10:41 PM
Hey Indiana,
 Not to get off-topic but I am a fan of paleontology. I gave you a karma for discovering that mosasaur. Fossils ROCK!(See what I did there?)


Title: Re: My Issues with THE DA VINCI CODE
Post by: indianasmith on September 04, 2007, 10:31:26 PM
Thanks Hammock!