|
Post by OldGit on Feb 3, 2005 0:49:19 GMT 1
There's an investigation into Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" tomorrow night. I'm working, but hope to get it taped as I found the book really intriguing. Anyone else find it challenge their perspective on the "Big" question? It certainly offers a lot of plausible arguments and alternatives to traditional religious views. I was staggered by the number of women killed and persecuted by the "Inquisition" years - almost on a par with the Nazis "Final Solution".
For those who haven't read the book, its well worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 3, 2005 1:12:11 GMT 1
it is supposed to be a really great book, very well written etc but i have not read it myself so won't comment fully until I have.
This is food for thought though.
Breaking The Da Vinci Code
So the divine Jesus and infallible Word emerged out of a fourth-century power-play? Get real.
By Collin Hansen | posted 11/07/2003
Perhaps you've heard of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. This fictional thriller has captured the coveted number one sales ranking at Amazon.com, camped out for 32 weeks on the New York Times Best-Seller List, and inspired a one-hour ABC News special. Along the way, it has sparked debates about the legitimacy of Western and Christian history.
While the ABC News feature focused on Brown's fascination with an alleged marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, The Da Vinci Code contains many more (equally dubious) claims about Christianity's historic origins and theological development. The central claim Brown's novel makes about Christianity is that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, argues Brown, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican" or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both of them novelties that had never before existed among Christians.
Watershed at Nicea Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.
Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.
In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."
In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios.
The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.
In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons.
The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.
"Fax from Heaven"? With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ.
Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat. Brown correctly points out that "the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." Indeed, the Bible's composition and consolidation may appear a bit too human for the comfort of some Christians. But Brown overlooks the fact that the human process of canonization had progressed for centuries before Nicea, resulting in a nearly complete canon of Scripture before Nicea or even Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 313.
Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments.
Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon.
By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church—a good sign, they felt, that such books were inspired Scripture. The results speak for themselves: the books of today's Bible have allowed Christianity to spread, flourish, and endure worldwide.
Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudohistorical claims of a modern novel can't make it false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 9:05:09 GMT 1
Which takes longer to read, The Da Vinci Code or TBH's post? Christianity is based on a belief - whether or not you believe that Jesus (who we know definately existed) was the sun of God. I am looking forward to the documentary tonight, should be another one of C4's excellent productions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 9:05:52 GMT 1
It is a good NOVEL though!
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Feb 3, 2005 10:00:41 GMT 1
If The Bible's all it'a cracked up to be - how come there's no mention of dinosaurs... ?
The Da Vinci Code and The Bible - both great works of fiction.... IMHO
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Feb 3, 2005 10:56:15 GMT 1
Throb - recommend you give the book a glancing blow, its well written and pacey. Brown himself is a proclaimed Christian, here is his answer to the question
ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress
BTW, is your Collin Hansen a relative of Alan?
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Feb 3, 2005 10:57:29 GMT 1
Im taking todays view from the Sun on the Da Vinci Code "Its a load of old tosh"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 11:04:09 GMT 1
lol some great posts on this thread already, I won't comment other than to say I'm not a believer in God.
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on Feb 3, 2005 11:36:20 GMT 1
lol some great posts on this thread already, I won't comment other than to say I'm not a believer in God. me niether.... but like someone said, its down to belief.
|
|
|
Post by Mr T on Feb 3, 2005 12:07:36 GMT 1
think this could be a long thread
i'll do exactly the same as ant me thinks
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Feb 3, 2005 13:15:51 GMT 1
religion is mental!!!
Big bloke in the sky that can control everything and be everywhere at the same time. He then sends his son down for a virgin birth, who then buggers about a bit, annoys the romans and then naffs off around easter time.
A big flood comes and some bloke called Noah build a boat big enough for 2 of every animal so they don't drown, and the only flaw in that is that the fish get the run of the planet?
Moses wonders off up a mountain and comes back with a big stone list of rules after speaking to god? and nobody questions what he had been doing up there in the first place? he then parts the red sea and all the jews escape, only to be lost in the desert for lots of years, so what was the point of that then?
Adam and eve? so the entire human race in inbred, and where exactly did the snake come from and how come they can't talk any more?
How can jesus, the holy ghost and god all be one and the same?
why is it ok to eat meat on friday now, but it wasn't back then?
how come paul daniels can saw women in half and he is not considered a god?
ITS ALL MAD!!!
|
|
|
Post by faginy on Feb 3, 2005 13:26:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Feb 3, 2005 13:26:53 GMT 1
religion is mental!!! how come paul daniels can saw women in half and he is not considered a god? The question of the ages Although to some he is Pete
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 3, 2005 13:53:36 GMT 1
If The Bible's all it'a cracked up to be - how come there's no mention of dinosaurs... ? The Da Vinci Code and The Bible - both great works of fiction.... IMHO Ah but they are. You're obviously not reading it properlY www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.aspFor the Da Vinci Code book visit freelancetheology.typepad.com - there's a big article on there. Thing is, though, if Dan Brown had written a novel about the holocaust and taken such liberties with the 'evidence' he'd have been made into a hate figure. Seems it's OK to take apart religion with selective use of historical accounts and/or misquoting dubious stuff and/or make stuff up to deliberately cast aspersions on someone else's belief. BTW for all those litcrit guys out there,it's not that good a novel. David Brin writes good novels. Read and compare.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Feb 3, 2005 13:58:27 GMT 1
how come all these miracles and stuff happened in a relatively short period of time, but bog all has happened since then?
Has god just given up on us? decided we've ****ed this planet beyond repair and decided to start again somewhere else?
If the pope is his representative on earth how come he's picked some doddery old bloke who obviously went senile a long time ago? obviously he would pick some virile young bloke thats built like a brick s**t house, like Vin Deisel or something?
how come you can't have sex until you married? would explain the high divorce rate at least!!!
and when is jesus coming back, because I want a word with him!!!
|
|
|
Post by Ratcliffesghost on Feb 3, 2005 14:04:56 GMT 1
If The Bible's all it'a cracked up to be - how come there's no mention of dinosaurs... ? Its a good book, but he dies Before you know who slates me - I am honestly reading the bible at the moment - and so much of it is out and out tosh - I've asked 5 devout christians for their view on the meaning of a specific passage recently and got 5 different answers. Then again, ambiguity always give someone who wants to believe a chance. The bit I read yesterday went on about "the kingdom of Israel being home to people who are circumcised, but their ears and heart are not" I definately prefer Cleesey and "Blessed are the Cheesemakers"
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Feb 3, 2005 14:09:54 GMT 1
At least the life of brian makes sense!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 14:23:48 GMT 1
selective use of historical accounts and/or misquoting dubious stuff and/or make stuff up to deliberately cast aspersions on someone else's belief. A damn fine definition of religion itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 14:25:02 GMT 1
Spot on Gaz
|
|
|
Post by JAMO on Feb 3, 2005 14:29:33 GMT 1
...of course it is.
The greatest illusion trick of the modern age.
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 3, 2005 14:31:08 GMT 1
A damn fine definition of religion itself. good point but if you've got it in for a religion (or anything) because you think they made stuff up, don't make up stuff yourself....
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 3, 2005 14:44:46 GMT 1
I've asked 5 devout christians for their view on the meaning of a specific passage recently and got 5 different answers. Then again, ambiguity always give someone who wants to believe a chance. which passage? and yes it does all depend on belief. I gues it depends on manyt hings, including past experiences of Church, christians, or anyone holding a religious belief, or the political systems that bring them forward I dislike christendom, I have a very harsh view of people who abuse power, and think religious groups should be able to influence politics via their democratic voice without dictating terms. There is much hypocrisy within organised religion, it is there and blatant for all to see. But for all man's failings it does not mean original truth and meaning can be dismissed. Just like I don't shun democracy because Hitler won an election. And Carter, next time you are free I will show you where I believe there are dinosaurs in the bible. www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Feb 3, 2005 14:52:00 GMT 1
Noah probably forgot to put them on the ark
|
|
|
Post by Trex on Feb 3, 2005 14:56:10 GMT 1
www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/behemoth.aspHow big is a lotus plant? I thought dinasaurs were huge creatures. 'Behold Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength is in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beast play. Under the lotus plant he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus tree covers him the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mough. Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?' -Job 40:15-24
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 14:56:33 GMT 1
This thread has had me in stitches
|
|
|
Post by Rod on Feb 3, 2005 14:57:09 GMT 1
Noah probably forgot to put them on the ark Please don't ridicule something just because you don't believe in it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2005 14:57:46 GMT 1
"There are basically three animals that have been put forward as candidates for Behemoth which we will consider in this paper: the elephant, the hippopotamus, and some type of dinosaur." What a start to an essay.
|
|
|
Post by mr1972 on Feb 3, 2005 15:09:09 GMT 1
Not a bad book typical holiday fodder .... Will probably be a massive film with Tom Hanks picking up an oscar..
If you want to read more into it than there is, that's your choice.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Feb 3, 2005 15:11:22 GMT 1
Noah probably forgot to put them on the ark www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.aspAnd Trex hits upon a very interesting point, aside from the use of language between different cultures to denote different things There are dragons, large creatures, in every society, in every place, from ancient greeks to aboriginies, from red indians to the Incas, from cavemen to Inuits If dinosaurs died out before mankind then why does every race of humans, seperated by geography and language, in almost all known history and timezones, all have remarkably similar mythology relating to big beasts on earth? and when people discover pictures why is it that most fo the mythical creatures look similar? just a question, food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Feb 3, 2005 15:15:23 GMT 1
no offence intended. I ridicule everything anyway, don't believe that anything should be taboo or be above ridicule.
Just because it happens to be a major religion doesn't mean that it shouldn't be open to the same amount of ridicule as anything else
|
|