De Vinci Code

[Black Dog]

Re: DaVinci Code vs. the Bible. What kind of world do we live in where people take pains to point out that the book that posits a guy did not actually die and come back to life is the fictional one? Criminey.

[betsy]

To me, that theory of Jesus getting married does not surprise me at all. Lots of years back I had speculated a "what if..." scenario. Of course my imagination did not extend that far involving bloodlines....but I had wondered if there was some sort of romance between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. That's the romantic in me.

I have not read the book....and I don't think I will. As for the movie, I'll just wait for the dvd release...if I get the inclination to watch it. I'm more interested in seeing the remake of "The Omen."

[Guest Warwick Green]

To me, that theory of Jesus getting married does not surprise me at all. Lots of years back I had speculated a "what if..." scenario. Of course my imagination did not extend that far involving bloodlines....but I had wondered if there was some sort of romance between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. That's the romantic in me.

I have not read the book....and I don't think I will. As for the movie, I'll just wait for the dvd release...if I get the inclination to watch it. I'm more interested in seeing the remake of "The Omen."

I think if it could ever be proved that Jesus did get hitched to Mary M it would attract more people to Christianity. It would give Jesus a more human look. Having to deal with marital problems and taking the kids over to Galilee for the day, etc etc. Today we have too much of a picture of an aloof, brooding Jesus, spending too much time by himself and wandering around the wilderness. Like a Jewish Hamlet.

[August1991]

Constantine ordered the Bible re-written to win over the Romans of his day. He had a political problem and to control the majority of Pagans he needed to use a belief system they could identify with. So the Church commissioned writers to re-write passages incorporating Pagan concepts such as the day of worship being SUN day and Christ's birth being celebrated on a Pagan holiday.

The whole concept of Jesus being the son of God is far from original. It was plagerized directly from Dionysus, and the Egyptian Sun God religions and other similiar religions.

The Bible whether its the new testament or old testament is the result of ghost writers submitting passages which were then reviewed and edited and screened before being placed in the Bible.

It was a massive political exercise to put in the Bible a belief system the Church and Constantine could use to control people.

One only need look at the Dead Sea Scrolls to see how far off the Bible went from the original early Christian beliefs....

Let me stop you there. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written about 2000 years ago and are copies of older texts now considered part of the Old Testament. The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they confirm generally the previous Old Testament texts copied and re-copied over the past 2000 years.

Your theory of Constantine being the great Christian proselytizer is interesting, but no more than a theory. It is usually Saul turned Paul, writer of much of the New Testament, who gets that claim to fame.

Paul was not one of the original 12 Apostles and of the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) only Matthew and John were Apostles. None of the Gospels were written by them, but written later based on reports.

----

The modern city of Jerusalem is not in the same place as Jerusalem at the time of Christ. The impressive walls of "modern" Jerusalem date from the Crusades (about 1200 years after Christ). The stations of the Cross are marked in the streets of Old Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims but these are purely modern inventions. The Garden of Gethsemane however is still a park, and the Dead Sea is still salty.

There is a Chapel in Bethlehem supposedly on the site of the manger where Christ was born. The Chapel is of Crusader construction, built over 1000 years after Christ's birth.

I mention all this because when I was in Israel and I saw western pilgrims reverently visit these sites, I realized that they truly believed they were seeing the precise places where the events in Christ's life unfolded. Not only are they mistaken, I thought, but they are also missing the great symbolism in the story of Christianity. In a sense, you rue too are missing this.

For a Christian, does it matter whether Paul or Constantine adapted the story? Does it matter whether Jesus was put on the cross here or there?

Since I lived for several years in the Middle East and had the chance to travel around Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, I must note that the Bible oddly comes alive when one can see the geography. (As a historical text, the Bible is a bit like having only a Quebec high school textbook as a history of North America.)

It is clear that within a century or two of its inception, Christianity was already on the way to being an impressive force. It changes one's perspective to see churches (or their remains) that predate the crusades, and talk to Christians whose ancestors were never heathens. I recall seeing the remains of one such church (obviously not marked) in Saudi Arabia.

----

IMV, Christianity shares with Buddhism and Greek philosophy the advantage of having a good but imperfectly recorded past. Christians can argue about the meaning of Christ because we don't know the precise words Christ spoke or even the events in his life (or the exact place they occurred).

Muslims unfortunately have the burden of a Mahomet who dutifully wrote the words down, claiming them to be the words of God. Arabic vocabulary, grammar, style have become immutable. Classical Arabic is the word of God. (The closest in English is the King James Version of the Bible.)

So, to finish this long, rambling post, I'll repeat that I probably won't go to see Ron Howard's version of Dan Brown's story.

On the other hand, if Akiva Goldsman decides to write a screenplay based on Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and Ron Howard decides to make a movie with it, I'll be first in line. I somehow doubt Goldsman and Howard would do such a thing. (They clearly don't fear questioning Christianity this way.)

In other words, why are Muslims unable to consider the story of Mahomet, and have an open debate about its meaning? Why are Muslims unable to let non-Muslims present Islam, and then consider the presentation on its merits? (I don't think Goldsman is a practicing Christian. I'm not certain about Howard and Brown.)

IOW, why are there no similar films questioning the life of Mahomet?

[ClearWest]

Constantine ordered the Bible re-written to win over the Romans of his day. He had a political problem and to control the majority of Pagans he needed to use a belief system they could identify with. So the Church commissioned writers to re-write passages incorporating Pagan concepts such as the day of worship being SUN day and Christ's birth being celebrated on a Pagan holiday.

The Sabbath was changed to Sunday in honour of Christ's resurrection. This practice went back far before Constantine came into the picture. The tradition started with Christ's apostles. (See Acts 20:7)

The whole concept of Jesus being the son of God is far from original. It was plagerized directly from Dionysus, and the Egyptian Sun God religions and other similiar religions.

Not only did Christ's apostles refer to Christ as the Son of God, but so did the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah, and reference was also made in Psalms (also in the Old Testament). If you're claiming that Christianity is just a repackaged version of Greek Paganism, then I would suggest that it may be the other way around. The true ways of the gospel were perverted and became paganism. The fact that Christ would be born of a virgin was probably known by prophets throughout history--and when the prophecy reached the wrong people it became legend, and later mythology.

The Bible whether its the new testament or old testament is the result of ghost writers submitting passages which were then reviewed and edited and screened before being placed in the Bible.

It was a massive political exercise to put in the Bible a belief system the Church and Constantine could use to control people.

Not true at all. Constantine was around in 272-337 ad. The earliest dated Christian records are the Dead Sea Scrolls--which date back to before 100 ad. Don't tell me Constantine changed those as a political exercise. They've been left untouched for several centuries.

One only need look at the Dead Sea Scrolls to see how far off the Bible went from the original early Christian beliefs.

I don't see what differences you're talking about. The dead sea scrolls contained copies of books from Isaiah and even Mark.

Most of the passages depicting Jesus as having said he was divine and the son of God were written long after the fact using the Pagan concept of the son of God.

Well the Old Testament refers to the coming of a Son of God--Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that's another story. But according to the prophets who believed in the God of Israel, a Son of God is coming. If you believe them, then it must be happening some time. I believe that that Son of God is indeed Jesus Christ. Anyone who doubts this, all you have to do is some research, study, and prayer.

Yes Christians believe as a matter of faith Christ is divine and if he wasn't? No big deal. It doesn't change much. I personally believe the divinity piece is a minor, insignifigant piece blown completely out of perportion by the Church as a way to

consecrate power over its believers. Will it ruin Christianity? No. Many modern Christians have been asking the questions and formulating the answers for a Christian religion with a mortal Jesus.

The divinity of Christ is a testament to the Love of God. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That's pretty important to me.

[Wilber]

Christ married a hooker! Why hasn't the Vatican declared a Fatwa against this guy?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Christ married a hooker! Why hasn't the Vatican declared a Fatwa against this guy?

Odd thing about sex. It's okay to give it way but just don't charge for it.

[Rue]

I always have found it odd to think that someone like Jesus, who by all accounts was a normal member of jewish society until his later years would have not married.

Point is that he wans't normal.

Your response misses the point. You are projecting your own belief system as to what is normal or not normal on to the situation thousands of years later to rationalize the theory that an ordained rabbia and practicing Jew would not have been married.

[Rue]

Interesting how modern Christians try revise History to suit their arguements. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are a lot older then 2000 years and in fact do contain many discrepancies with the NEW Testament.

The "theory" about Constantine is not "theory" but something most historians have been able to document and in fact the incorporation of Pagan ideology and symbols by Constantine is not only blatant but highly obvious.

You can continue pretending Pagan beliefs and ideologies were not adopted by Constantine but you are out of touch with what most historians now accept.

As for the New Testament being gospel, I appreciate you Christians want to accept it verbatum as the word of God and do not consider it capable of being challenged because that is what your Church has taught or conditioned you to believe but with due respect to many we do not accept the Bible verbatum as having been written by any of the disciples precisely because it is a fact the Church commissioned hundreds of ghost writers to re-write the Bible.

Of course I can understand why certain Christians would feel threatened if the Bible is in fact just a book written by men and that Jesus may not have been born from divine sperm but everyday human variety sperm. I can see why you will go out of your way to deny history, deny Constantine's role, ignore the blaring contradictions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of other pieces of literature-I appreciate all that.

The point is it just may be there is another opinion other then your standard knee jerk Jesus is divine and he was not married one.

Also to ignore all the Pagan symbols and the fact that Christianity promulgates a version of creation that gives no credence to women and nature and attempts to portray the sexual act as evil is something I am quite happy to distance myself from.

As for the Da Vinci code being proven to be fiction, the author stated from day one it was fiction. The theories of Jesus not being divine however have been around since the Christian religion aberated into what it is today. Its not a Zionist conspiracy either. Many progressive Christian scholars have researched and speculated as to the role the Catholic Church has played in creating and promulgating a religion that may be based on fiction.

Some people see miracles and articles of unquestioned faith, others see man made stories created for political reasons.

[Rue]

One last thing. Christians like to argue that since Jews referred to a Messiah coming it somehow proves Christ was divine and the Messiah.

The fact is there were always 3 streams of thought; i-those who believed the Messiah already came, ii-those who believed he will come, and then iii-after his death, those who believe Jesus was the Messiah. All the literature that suggests people believed Jesus was the Messiah, while he was alive is written hundreds and thousands of years after his death by writers commissioned by the Catholic Church.

In fact there is strong arguement to be made that the sermons Jesus actually preached have been rewritten to suit the Jesus is Messiah theory.

Revising what people said after the fact to suit a theory is typical human nature.

I personally believe Jesus may have stated he was A son of God not THE ONE AND ONLY son of God and that Christian writers after the fact have twisted what he said to suit their dogma.

Jesus's attempt to personify God through the analogy that he or you or I are children of God would be compatible with holistic beliefs he would have picked up in India suggesting all life is inter-connected and it would also be consistent with

certain mystical Jewish traditions.

Spin it all you want the fact that Jews believe a Messiah is still to come means nothing to the debate. It proves nothing.

In fact many scholars now say the concept "Messiah" or "Saviour" is not Jesus or a particular human being or an angel, but the potential in each and every human to do positive things and make the planet a better place.

For that matter many ultra-Orthodox Jews used to believe Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah but he is now dead so they are in a state of active revision.

I make no apology stating in my opinion the Messiah, Divinity, Gospel, are all man written, man created concepts as to what they think God is and what they think Jesus is. Its subjective beliefs with no basis other that personal belief.

Excuse me if I treat ALL religions consistently the same and do not consider Christianity special and the one true version to follow.

Excuse me if I find it audacious that Christians believe Jesus was the only son of God and had a monopoly on showing people how to evolve and grow spiritually.

Excuse me if I believe the central principle of Christianity, divinity is defective, flawed, illogical, elitist, closed-minded and in fact is nothing more then an attempt to personify an abstract concept that would otherwise scare people.

I myself do not need the flesh of a human figure to make it easier to understand God. I would understand however why others would and I respect their beliefs and their right to believe in them but I will debate them vigorously. There are other ways to approach the topic of existence - there is no one way to understand existence.

[Michael Hardner]

Rue:

If you want to buld another Christian-based church then go ahead. In the meantime, there's even less evidence for the ideas in that DaVinci book than for the original texts.

This was very funny by the way:

As for the New Testament being gospel...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

IOW, why are there no similar films questioning the life of Mahomet?

Well, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Mohammed, so there would be no 'lead role'. Secondly, Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal word of God, so any 'examination' of, or questioning of, would be blasphemy (like the Satanic Verses)Perhaps Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber could pen "Muhammed Christ, Superstar".

If it were to be presented as 'factual', then there would most likely be, at best, limited appeal. Funding would probably only be available from the National Film Board of Canada.

Again, back to the first point above, how appealing would the movie billing be if the marquee read : "The life and times of Mohammed the Prophet...starring 'nobody' as Mohammed".

[Black Dog]

If you want to buld another Christian-based church then go ahead. In the meantime, there's even less evidence for the ideas in that DaVinci book than for the original texts.

Is that a valid comparison to make between two works of fiction?

[Michael Hardner]

Is that a valid comparison to make between two works of fiction?

Sure. What's more realistic - Dune or The Hotel New Hampshire ? Seriously.

[Black Dog]

Sure. What's more realistic - Dune or The Hotel New Hampshire ? Seriously.

You didn't say "realistic": you said " there's even less evidence for the ideas in that DaVinci book than for the original texts." In other words there's more emprical support for the New Testament than the DaVinci Code, which is just odd. As for which one is more realistic, I'll take whichever one doe snot contain the guy ascending to the heavens on a beam of light, Alex.

[Michael Hardner]

You didn't say "realistic": you said " there's even less evidence for the ideas in that DaVinci book than for the original texts." In other words there's more emprical support for the New Testament than the DaVinci Code, which is just odd.

I'll stand by that one. There's some historical evidence that Jesus existed, and we have the gospels (they ARE gospel) for whatever they're worth. That conspiracy book really just tarted it all up into a conspiracy theory didn't it ? No fun.

As for which one is more realistic, I'll take whichever one doe snot contain the guy ascending to the heavens on a beam of light, Alex.

Yes, but the older story is a 'classic'. Jesus is cooler than Fonzie, and you need to accept this.

[Black Dog]

I'll stand by that one. There's some historical evidence that Jesus existed, and we have the gospels (they ARE gospel) for whatever they're worth. That conspiracy book really just tarted it all up into a conspiracy theory didn't it ? No fun.

Meh. What seals the deal for me in favour of the Code is this: the film adaptation has Audrey Tautou. Rrrrawwwr!!

[betsy]

One last thing. Christians like to argue that since Jews referred to a Messiah coming it somehow proves Christ was divine and the Messiah.

The fact is there were always 3 streams of thought; i-those who believed the Messiah already came, ii-those who believed he will come, and then iii-after his death, those who believe Jesus was the Messiah. All the literature that suggests people believed Jesus was the Messiah, while he was alive is written hundreds and thousands of years after his death by writers commissioned by the Catholic Church.

In fact there is strong arguement to be made that the sermons Jesus actually preached have been rewritten to suit the Jesus is Messiah theory.

Revising what people said after the fact to suit a theory is typical human nature.

I personally believe Jesus may have stated he was A son of God not THE ONE AND ONLY son of God and that Christian writers after the fact have twisted what he said to suit their dogma.

Jesus's attempt to personify God through the analogy that he or you or I are children of God would be compatible with holistic beliefs he would have picked up in India suggesting all life is inter-connected and it would also be consistent with

certain mystical Jewish traditions.

Spin it all you want the fact that Jews believe a Messiah is still to come means nothing to the debate. It proves nothing.

In fact many scholars now say the concept "Messiah" or "Saviour" is not Jesus or a particular human being or an angel, but the potential in each and every human to do positive things and make the planet a better place.

For that matter many ultra-Orthodox Jews used to believe Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah but he is now dead so they are in a state of active revision.

I make no apology stating in my opinion the Messiah, Divinity, Gospel, are all man written, man created concepts as to what they think God is and what they think Jesus is. Its subjective beliefs with no basis other that personal belief.

Excuse me if I treat ALL religions consistently the same and do not consider Christianity special and the one true version to follow.

Excuse me if I find it audacious that Christians believe Jesus was the only son of God and had a monopoly on showing people how to evolve and grow spiritually.

Excuse me if I believe the central principle of Christianity, divinity is defective, flawed, illogical, elitist, closed-minded and in fact is nothing more then an attempt to personify an abstract concept that would otherwise scare people.

I myself do not need the flesh of a human figure to make it easier to understand God. I would understand however why others would and I respect their beliefs and their right to believe in them but I will debate them vigorously. There are other ways to approach the topic of existence - there is no one way to understand existence.

A lot of people who thinks the way you do actually needs a human figure to make it through the rough edges of life: they rely on their therapist, or psychoanalyst, etc..,

[kilkee]

Last Sunday, one of my sons was advised by a priest at mass that they are not to see this Da Vinci movie.

I wonder what the punishment might be for disobeying such an order. Could it be excommunication?

I had no intention of going to see this movie but because of this order, I am now very interested.

[newbie]

Last Sunday, one of my sons was advised by a priest at mass that they are not to see this Da Vinci movie.

Most of the evangelicals are saying the same thing. In fact, a guest on Jim Bakker's show said that the Da Vinci Code (the book) was more harmful than Katrina. And people are buying this??

[Rue]

A lot of people who thinks the way you do actually needs a human figure to make it through the rough edges of life: they rely on their therapist, or psychoanalyst, etc..,

Excellent point and precisely for that reason although I debate this topic with great zeal do not mistake the fact that I deeply respect any Christian's right to believe Jesus is divine and worship God through Jesus just as I would a patient's need to use a therapist or the average every day human's need to have heroes.

In my line of thought, I would question all religions equally in the sense that I question whether most if not all of what religion is- is an exercise of comfort - it allows us to suspend having to be logical when trying to cope with that which seems beyond our understanding.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Most of the evangelicals are saying the same thing. In fact, a guest on Jim Bakker's show said that the Da Vinci Code (the book) was more harmful than Katrina. And people are buying this??

Not if you live in New Orleans.

[Michael Hardner]

Last Sunday, one of my sons was advised by a priest at mass that they are not to see this Da Vinci movie.

I wonder what the punishment might be for disobeying such an order. Could it be excommunication?

I had no intention of going to see this movie but because of this order, I am now very interested.

Are you saying he forbid people to see the movie ? I severely doubt that. How was such a thing worded ?

"I forbid you to see this film" ?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Last Sunday, one of my sons was advised by a priest at mass that they are not to see this Da Vinci movie.

I wonder what the punishment might be for disobeying such an order. Could it be excommunication?

I had no intention of going to see this movie but because of this order, I am now very interested.

Are you saying he forbid people to see the movie ? I severely doubt that. How was such a thing worded ?

"I forbid you to see this film" ?

If the movie is as preposterous and as boring as the book I suggest that the good father advise his flock to see the movie. Nobody will believe it as being historically accurate.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. I have two points in response:

French TV coverage on the Cannes premiere this morning painted the film as a qualified disaster. Those with low expectations said it was standard fare, but many others had negative things to say. It was even said that the audience heckled the film.

A friend of mine who visited the Soviet Union opined - "If they really want religion to die over there, they should give it complete freedom, as in the west."