Da Vinci Code Questions

[1549]

Two questions for devout Christians: Did the book offend you? Will you see the movie?

I loved the book. What is fact and what is Dan Brown's hypothesis is uncertain, but Brown is correct that many gospels are not in today's bible. Anyone who turns on a tv has seen that the Mary Magdalene gospel was actually found recently. Brown never implicates the church in the book's murders, and says that the clergy are peaceful believers in their faith. Even the extremist opus dei bishop admits to being mislead by 'the teacher' (I won't completely spoil it for those of you who haven't yet read the novel).

So the only time he really goes out on a limb is when he says that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God. His reasoning behind the creation of that myth is very logical. Though it is impossible to know whether or not such claims are factual.

I was taught in school that Constantine converted Rome to Christianity only for fiscal purposes, so it would not surprise me if the texts of the Bible were doctored to make the new state religion more like the old. No matter what, to believe in God you have to have faith in what you can not see. If Jesus was not God's son, that does not change.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've read the book. I thought it was fascinating fiction, but it was just that - fiction. And the whole Gnostic gospels, secret knowledge, etc. etc. is the oldest Christian heresy on the books. It's just been repackaged to make it seem more modern and/or relevant.

 

[Hobbit]

As far as the gnostic gospels are concerned, let me put things in perspective. If a historian wrote a book in the early 1900s about how Benjamin Franklin started a secret shadow agency that tracked the true history of this country which tells about how Martha Washington actually wrote the Declaration of Independance but the male Continental Congress kept her contributions secret in a huge cover up, it would be only slightly more credible than the gnostic gospels.

Now, if a mediocre fiction writer wrote a gripping murder mystery about a conspiracy to keep that book under wraps and included a forward about how all that stuff about Martha Washington is 100% true, how many people do you think would believe it? The Da Vinci Code is a well thought out, decently written book of fiction that gained popularity because of the theories it poses about the Christian church, and enough gullible people got a hold of it and started believing it that they convinced others to believe it, too. I'm not offended by the book so much as I'm annoyed by people gullible enough to think it's all true.

 

[manu1959]

loved the book....will see the movie....love the idea of a female influence in the teachings of chritianity.....chatholic church puts forth the virgin mary as a "'saint" they should be thrilled....oh ya a whore would be bad....

 

[1549]

I sometimes wonder where history's coolest secrets can be found...

Within the Vatican or within the U.S. government?

What would be more shocking: finding out Jesus has a bloodline or discovering the Chicago mob actually killed JFK.

What would be really crazy is if it was all intertwined: Jesus has a bloodline that leads to George Washington who through a secret affair created a lineage leading to Carl Lewis who also had got a woman knocked up in Germany leading to the birth of a mob hit-man who killed kennedy and later had a daughter that married back into the bloodline of Jesus. In doing so she accidentally completed a crazy circle of history.

Imagine that.

 

[Hobbit]

As far as the gnostic gospels are concerned, let me put things in perspective. If a historian wrote a book in the early 1900s about how Benjamin Franklin started a secret shadow agency that tracked the true history of this country which tells about how Martha Washington actually wrote the Declaration of Independance but the male Continental Congress kept her contributions secret in a huge cover up, it would be only slightly more credible than the gnostic gospels.

Now, if a mediocre fiction writer wrote a gripping murder mystery about a conspiracy to keep that book under wraps and included a forward about how all that stuff about Martha Washington is 100% true, how many people do you think would believe it? The Da Vinci Code is a well thought out, decently written book of fiction that gained popularity because of the theories it poses about the Christian church, and enough gullible people got a hold of it and started believing it that they convinced others to believe it, too. I'm not offended by the book so much as I'm annoyed by people gullible enough to think it's all true.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it was a good book. Honestly, i have never seen the big deal about it. If someones faith is threatened by a Book of Fiction, well then their faith really isnt that strong to begin with.

And I also think those who object to Christ being married are misdirecting their energy. The scriptures are completely silent of Christ status as a single or as a married man. The fact is it doesnt matter. Him being single or married doesnt change the Atonement or the reality of the resurrection one iota. And I think good arguments could be made for both.

However, i think the challenge comes to some who seem to think sex is evil for some reason and that the idea that Christ might have done it with a wife is just wrong. Sex isnt evil. Its a beautiful and sacred thing. But I can understand why some who think otherwise would find it such a bad idea.

I think the bigger dangers comes from the suggestion that Christ wasnt divine. But then since most of Hollywood portrays something similar I am not really sure how this movie differs from most of them.

Regardless, I think there are alot of Christians too busy protesting to notice that Hollywood has just given them the perfect opportunity to talk about their faith. People are going to be talking about this movie and regardless how one feels about the information portrayed, discuss the truth and the truth will always overshadow fiction anyday. People could come to Christ because of it all.

 

[Powerman]

I've read the book. I thought it was fascinating fiction, but it was just that - fiction. And the whole Gnostic gospels, secret knowledge, etc. etc. is the oldest Christian heresy on the books. It's just been repackaged to make it seem more modern and/or relevant.

Certainly it's a fiction book and movie...which is why anyone who gets bent out of shape over it needs a reality check.

But how can you assume that the gnostic gospels are heresy? What knowledge do you have that proves they are inferior to the gospels included in your bible?

Sounds like a foolish statement to make so definitively.

 

[KarlMarx]

Certainly it's a fiction book and movie...which is why anyone who gets bent out of shape over it needs a reality check.

But how can you assume that the gnostic gospels are heresy? What knowledge do you have that proves they are inferior to the gospels included in your bible?

Sounds like a foolish statement to make so definitively.

That statement betrays how little your know about Christianity and, if you profess to be a Christian, you own faith. Gnosticism is not a bunch of harmless teachings, it attacks Christ and God as we Christians know Him.

We assume Gnosticism is heresy because it is heresy. The Christian doctrine was finalized at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. They also declared that Gnosticism was heresy.

They're the ones that came up with the the Nicene Creed, the Christian "Mission Statement" if you'd like to think of it. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe in what the Nicene Creed states, i.e. God in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), Christ is the Son of God made flesh, was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day, rose to heaven and sits at the right had of God, will come again to judge both the living and the dead.... etc. If you run a Google search on "Nicene Creed" you can get the substance.

Now for the heresies of the early church. There were two big ones, that I know of, Gnosticism and Arianism, but, there were many others, e.g., Docetism, Montanism, etc.

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/#_Toc502048253

The Gnostics believed in two equally powerful Gods, one evil and one good (in contradiction to Christ's teachings). Some viewed Christ as human (again, in contradiction to Christ's teachings.

The Gnostics taught that salvation came through secret knowledge, rather than faith in God (in contradiction to Christ's teachings), that Christ didn't actually physically die on the cross but was a spirit all along, and in some ways, not really the Son of God (in contradiction, once again, to Christ's teachings)....

They also taught physical things are evil and all spiritual things are good. So, it didn't matter what you did with your body, so some Gnostics became ascetics and other indulged themselves in degeneracy... well... I you don't have to guess that was in contradiction to Christ's teachings, either.

Gee, this sounds like the DaVinci code.

Anyway, these heresies had become quite a problem and, in 325, the Emperor Constantine, decided to call a meeting to discuss and solidify church doctrine. That was the Council of Nicaea...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This stuff is attempting to further transform catholic religion into The Mystery Babylon form of Trinitarianism

I - Isis
H - Horus
S - Semiramis

 

[Nienna]

That statement betrays how little your know about Christianity and, if you profess to be a Christian, you own faith. Gnosticism is not a bunch of harmless teachings, it attacks Christ and God as we Christians know Him.

We assume Gnosticism is heresy because it is heresy. The Christian doctrine was finalized at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. They also declared that Gnosticism was heresy.

They're the ones that came up with the the Nicene Creed, the Christian "Mission Statement" if you'd like to think of it. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe in what the Nicene Creed states, i.e. God in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), Christ is the Son of God made flesh, was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day, rose to heaven and sits at the right had of God, will come again to judge both the living and the dead.... etc. If you run a Google search on "Nicene Creed" you can get the substance.

Now for the heresies of the early church. There were two big ones, that I know of, Gnosticism and Arianism, but, there were many others, e.g., Docetism, Montanism, etc.

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/heresy/#_Toc502048253

The Gnostics believed in two equally powerful Gods, one evil and one good (in contradiction to Christ's teachings). Some viewed Christ as human (again, in contradiction to Christ's teachings.

The Gnostics taught that salvation came through secret knowledge, rather than faith in God (in contradiction to Christ's teachings), that Christ didn't actually physically die on the cross but was a spirit all along, and in some ways, not really the Son of God (in contradiction, once again, to Christ's teachings)....

They also taught physical things are evil and all spiritual things are good. So, it didn't matter what you did with your body, so some Gnostics became ascetics and other indulged themselves in degeneracy... well... I you don't have to guess that was in contradiction to Christ's teachings, either.

Gee, this sounds like the DaVinci code.

Anyway, these heresies had become quite a problem and, in 325, the Emperor Constantine, decided to call a meeting to discuss and solidify church doctrine. That was the Council of Nicaea...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Excellent, Karl!

Only one thing I would disagree with... Christian doctrine wasn't finalized in 325; it was finalized when Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Council only met to organize and codify, to separate the false doctrine floating around from what Jesus taught while alive, and his disciples witnessed. The criterion for whether a "gospel" was false or true was whether or not it contradicted what was known to be true about the Lord.

 

[KarlMarx]

Excellent, Karl!

Only one thing I would disagree with... Christian doctrine wasn't finalized in 325; it was finalized when Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Council only met to organize and codify, to separate the false doctrine floating around from what Jesus taught while alive, and his disciples witnessed. The criterion for whether a "gospel" was false or true was whether or not it contradicted what was known to be true about the Lord.

Thanks.

Yes, I agree, Christ's work was finalized when He ascended into Heaven, but at that moment, the Church's work had just begun.

I meant that the Church did not have their act together until the council of Nicaea when they decided to put down, in black and white, that which passed for Christian doctrine and that which did not.

There is an entire history about the early Church, St. Athanatheis, St. Ambrose and the rest. How they fought Arianism and other heresies. A fellow by the name Eusebius, who was a contemporary of Constantine, wrote a work on the early Church that describes the events leading up to the Council of Nicaea.

P.S. Who says the Internet isn't a great thing? You can read the whole of Eusebius' history online at (among many places at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm)...

P.P.S. It also turns out that many classic works are available, for free, online. All you need do is point your browser to those sites and read. I prefer a book or a CD, but... just as an experiment, I looked for some.....

Herodotus - Histories http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html

Dante - Divine Comedy http://www.italianstudies.org/comedy/index.htm

Homer - The Iliad http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joelja/iliad.html

Homer - The Odyssey http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joelja/odyssey.html

Machiavelli - The Prince http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm

Hamilton, Jay, Madison - The Federalist Papers http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

Gibbon - Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home.html

 

[Powerman]

That statement betrays how little your know about Christianity and, if you profess to be a Christian, you own faith. Gnosticism is not a bunch of harmless teachings, it attacks Christ and God as we Christians know Him.

I'm not Christian

We assume Gnosticism is heresy because it is heresy. The Christian doctrine was finalized at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. They also declared that Gnosticism was heresy.

You do realize of course that there is a 0% chance you can be sure that they were correct when they declared these gospels heresy.

They're the ones that came up with the the Nicene Creed, the Christian "Mission Statement" if you'd like to think of it. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe in what the Nicene Creed states, i.e. God in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), Christ is the Son of God made flesh, was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day, rose to heaven and sits at the right had of God, will come again to judge both the living and the dead.... etc. If you run a Google search on "Nicene Creed" you can get the substance.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my life. I know all about the Nicene creed.

But once again, how does this prove that they were right when they came up with this? There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that they made the correct choices.

And furthermore not all Christians believe what the Nicene creed says. Many don't believe in the trinity. YOU might not consider them Christians but in the same tolken they probably don't consider you one either and probably think you're a blaspheming douchebag who is going to hell.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not Christian



You do realize of course that there is a 0% chance you can be sure that they were correct when they declared these gospels heresy.



I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my life. I know all about the Nicene creed.

But once again, how does this prove that they were right when they came up with this? There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that they made the correct choices.

And furthermore not all Christians believe what the Nicene creed says. Many don't believe in the trinity. YOU might not consider them Christians but in the same tolken they probably don't consider you one either and probably think you're a blaspheming douchebag who is going to hell.

Nah ...we reserve THAT for blaspheming douchebag nonbelievers.

 

[LOki]

Also worth noting, Emperor Constantine was a sun worshiper--the consequence of which, thanks to the council of Nicea, is the Christian's sabbath being Sunday, when God told them explicitly that Saturday was holy.

Secret gnostic message for Sunday-school Christians: HAVE FUN BURNING IN HELL, HERETIC!

 

[Gunny]

Also worth noting, Emperor Constantine was a sun worshiper--the consequence of which, thanks to the council of Nicea, is the Christian's sabbath being Sunday, when God told them explicitly that Saturday was holy.

Secret gnostic message for Sunday-school Christians: HAVE FUN BURNING IN HELL, HERETIC!

\

Where does God say explicitly that Saturday is Holy? The Bible says God rested on the seventh day; which, is generally given as the Sabbath. God's law is "Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy."

No specific day of the week is mentioned that I am aware of. We don't even know what increment of time constitutes a "day" to God.

 

[jillian]

Nah ...we reserve THAT for blaspheming douchebag nonbelievers.

Can a non-believer blasheme?

I actually heard something interesting this morning and I don't know if it's true or not. A woman who just authored a book on this subject said one couldn't blaspheme back in the days of Constantine because there wasn't yet any set "rules". I don't know if that's true. Thought maybe some of you might know.

 

[KarlMarx]

I'm not Christian



You do realize of course that there is a 0% chance you can be sure that they were correct when they declared these gospels heresy.



I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my life. I know all about the Nicene creed.

But once again, how does this prove that they were right when they came up with this? There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that they made the correct choices.

And furthermore not all Christians believe what the Nicene creed says. Many don't believe in the trinity. YOU might not consider them Christians but in the same tolken they probably don't consider you one either and probably think you're a blaspheming douchebag who is going to hell.

You confuse faith with science, which requires proof. You also confuse the Church with a democracy where people have a voice. In the Church, there is no such process, nor is there supposed to be one. The Church is supposed to defend the faith from heresy and practice Orthodoxy. If someone doesn't like the doctrine of the Church, on matters such as the Virgin Birth, Christ's divinity, the Holy Trinity and so forth, then they are no longer part of the Church.

If you allow people to believe whatever they please, you then get a situation like the Universalist Unitarians or the Church of England. In fact, isn't the Church of England ready to split over the issue of gay ministers?

It's called "faith" for a reason. If you require proof, then it's not faith.

I was responding to your question, "How can one say that Gnosticism is heresy?"

And, just because a group of people who claim to be Christian don't believe in the Trinity, doesn't mean they're Christian. As I said, the Nicene Creed lists the beliefs of Christians. If you don't subscribe to all of them, no, you're not a Christian, you're a member of "The Church of The A La Carte or of the Chinese Menu", not Christianity. Christianity isn't Burger King, you can't always have it your way.

I think the blaspheming douchebags are those who claim to be Christians and readily fall for tripe like the DaVinci Code. Of course, the Vatican already weighed in on the subject and declared the DaVinci Code blasphemous and dangerous to those in the faith.

 

[Gunny]

Can a non-believer blasheme?

I actually heard something interesting this morning and I don't know if it's true or not. A woman who just authored a book on this subject said one couldn't blaspheme back in the days of Constantine because there wasn't yet any set "rules". I don't know if that's true. Thought maybe some of you might know.

It's relative. A nonbeliever would not consider his/her actions blasphemous. A believer will consider the nonbeliever's blasphemous actions blasphemous.

The comment was made in jest. I believe what I believe, and in that is included that nonbelievers will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I do not seriously condemn people to Hell. They do that themselves and pointing it out serves no purpose to a conversation except to incite.

I try to be respectful of nonbelievers rights to "name their own poison." It's you libs I don't give a break.

 

[Gunny]

You confuse faith with science, which requires proof. You also confuse the Church with a democracy where people have a voice. In the Church, there is no such process, nor is there supposed to be one. The Church is supposed to defend the faith from heresy and practice Orthodoxy. If someone doesn't like the doctrine of the Church, on matters such as the Virgin Birth, Christ's divinity, the Holy Trinity and so forth, then they are no longer part of the Church.

If you allow people to believe whatever they please, you then get a situation like the Universalist Unitarians or the Church of England. In fact, isn't the Church of England ready to split over the issue of gay ministers?

It's called "faith" for a reason. If you require proof, then it's not faith.

I was responding to your question, "How can one say that Gnosticism is heresy?"

And, just because a group of people who claim to be Christian don't believe in the Trinity, doesn't mean they're Christian. As I said, the Nicene Creed lists the beliefs of Christians. If you don't subscribe to all of them, no, you're not a Christian, you're a member of "The Church of The A La Carte or of the Chinese Menu", not Christianity. Christianity isn't Burger King, you can't always have it your way.

I think the blaspheming douchebags are those who claim to be Christians and readily fall for tripe like the DaVinci Code. Of course, the Vatican already weighed in on the subject and declared the DaVinci Code blasphemous and dangerous to those in the faith.

We could debate this:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I am a Christian, and I don't follow the Catholic Church.

I also did not see mention of the Trinity as a separate entity in the Nicene Creed.