De Vinci Code

[Rue]

Let's clear up some myths and misunderstanding repeated by some posters in response to my earlier post.

The Dead Sea Scrolls ar ein fact older than any other surviving Biblical manuscripts by almost one thousand years. Carbon testing has them pegged at being written some time in the third century BCE to 68 CE. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been on display, I myself some them in Ottawa, and they contain glaring inconsistencies with what is later represented as gospels in the New Testament.

As for Constantine, historians estimate he was born on or about February 27, 272 and died on or about May 22, 337, if we use today's calendar which is of course by no means accurate.

Constantine, the Emperor of Rome would have been a follower of polytheism. It was said during the Battle of Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, he had a vision. He supposedly saw an ambigram cross and wording to the effect he would be victorious and this started his interest in Christianity.

The reality was however, he was ruling over a kingdom divided by Sun worshippers (pagans) and fledging Christians and as most politicians do, he needed to find a way to control to potentially feuding factions so he had to come up with a faith based system that could unify them.

During his day Christianity would not ressemble what it is today. For starters it was bitterly divide between Arianism and Quartodecimanism. In fact the only thing it seemed to agree on at that point which would be echoed by Constantine was the belief that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus.

Constantine was only baptized on his death and through most historical reports (Lacantius, Eusebus) he was a pagan who used Christianity as a political tool to rule. Certainly his beliefs and the symbols he left behind in coins and seals indicate his worship of the Sun God and nature.

Now lets talk about these alleged Gospels that one poster thinks is funny to even question.

If one looks at Mathew, Luke, Mark and John two things are obvious. Firstly they are not written by these people. They are in fact manuscripts written by ghost writers commissioned to re-write what they allegedly said.

There are rampant contradictions with these alleged gospels which Christians rely on as the basis to believe Jesus was divine, etc.

The gospels of Mathew and Luke disagree as to when Jesus was born and where he lived. Even the story of the crucifixion in these 4 gospels is not uniform.

What we also know is that Jesus' famous last words " why hast thou forsaken me"

is mistranslated from Hebrew's original meaning, " My God, My God, how thou dost glorify me".

This is but one of thousands of examples of how things were mistranslated as the gospels were re-written.

Let's get even more specific. The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were all considered heretical at one point. They probably were drafted somewhere between 70 an 140 CE but then subject to re-writes in over 3,000 different manuscripts.

The first person to even mention these 4 gospels as being the source to determine Jesus' alleged origins and stories is Irenaeus about 180 CE.

In fact Paul's "gospel" was drafted around 50 CE long before these 4 gospels and interesting with Paul's gospel, he does not mention meeting Christ in person. All his references to Christ are spiritual.

In fact there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. That is what many struggle with to this day to deal with. If you are a Christian you simply accept the 4 gospels.

If you are a historian trying to remain neutral and objective and keep your subjective beliefs out of it, there is no historical evidence.

Since these gospels are written after the fact, they are full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies and at best we can only guess when Jesus was born, where he lived and what he did. Accepting literally what ghost writers commissioned by the Catholic Church to write about him hundreds if years after his death may be an article of faith for Christians but is defective if you are a historian trying to get first hand evidence and not heresay to establish facts.

The fact is the Bible is not a history of actual events. It is in fact the evolutionary writings of commissioned ghost writers reflecting the development of Christian mythology over the ages as spear-headed by the Church.

In that regard it evolved no differently then say the Old Testament where it too was written and rewritten and subject to countless edits by alleged scholars representing the religion.

The Bible is in fact an exercise in submitting writings which then had to be edited and approved and they were edited and approved according to the political agenda of the learned ones (Old Testament) or Church (new testament).

So about this Christian religion and its beliefs and tales of Jesus. Are they original?

Hardly. The poster who wrote paganism borrowed their ideas from Christianity is laughable.

Paganism pre-existed Christianity by thousands of year.

The concept of a son born from God in a cave and performing miracles and sent to earth to save humanity is far from originals. Christians believe it is unique to them but the fact is it is a recycled story.

Egypt has Osiris, Greece, Dionysus, Asia Minor, Attis, Italy, Bacchus, Persia, Mithras, all sons of God born in caves to virgin mothers and destined to perform miracles and save people.

In fact now many Christians argue, o.k., so other people had these same beliefs before we did, but they were all inspired by us. They were precursors to the real truth, the Christian story.

The fact is, humans even before the above Pagan mythology had been making stories up about a son from God.

To pretend the Church did not take the story of Osiris/Dionysus/Atis/Mithras and rewrite it to suit their religion is just not helpful if we are going to be honest and look to the origins of why Christians celebrate their Mass on SUN day or celebrate Christ's birthday on December 25 and so many of the other stories that seem to repeat verbatum what Dionysus or Osiris or Mithras did.

To truly understand the origins of Christianity one must go back to at least Zoreastrianism as a start.

You will also note Islam also depends heavily on a figure similiar to Jesus.

So that is the point.

The point is not that the Da Vinci code is a fiction - the point is the historical debate as to the origins of Jesus, the origins of Christian mythology and symbols, the concept of the trinity and divinity, the use of the cross, and on and on, have been a constant source of questioning among many scholars for centuries.

As much as some of you would like to write off this book as fiction (which it is) the

debate as to the origins of Christianity however, that it touches on, are not fiction and the questioning of whether Jesus actually existed, married, had children, etc.,

are the subject of great debate.

If you are brought up being told a certain version of "truth" all your life, of course anything challenging that will seem "fictitious".

What I am boldly stating is this - even if Jesus was just a human, and much if not all of the religion is myth and plagerized, so what? It changes nothing. The preachings of respecting one's fellow human remain valid. Being peaceful and tolerant and loving are still ideals we should uphold.

The views I mention above by the way are not the views of a Satan worshipper or an anti-Christian. In fact much of the dialogue I have in my own simplistic way tried to raise (because I am not a theologian and am the first to concede am an idiot anyways) was mentioned to me by Jesuits, Anglicans, and other Christians as well, struggling to ask themselves could and can Christianity exist if Jesus is but a mortal. It sounds ridiculous but is it? To them it is not.

All that aside, I say it again, if Christians find the concept of Jesus being divine an article of faith, I respect those beliefs and views and would never put them down and deeply respect them. I am simply presenting the other side of the debate.

[Michael Hardner]

Now lets talk about these alleged Gospels that one poster thinks is funny to even question.

The statement "The New Testament is not gospel." is funny, if you think about it.

The point is not that the Da Vinci code is a fiction - the point is the historical debate as to the origins of Jesus, the origins of Christian mythology and symbols, the concept of the trinity and divinity, the use of the cross, and on and on, have been a constant source of questioning among many scholars for centuries.

Then this...

As much as some of you would like to write off this book as fiction (which it is)

It's fiction, end of story. Yes, there is historical debate about Jesus (I believe a Roman historian also wrote about him) but as you point out, faith has higher hurdles to jump than to sort through all of the minor inconsistencies of the text that evolved through the ages.

The problem is that this DaVinci industry will be believed and not questioned by people who have already made up their minds. Does that sound like a religion ? It does to me. And I'd like to see more reason in this day and age, not new religions.

[August1991]

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.

If the movie is lousy, then it will bomb regardless. Ron Howard has some boring movies to his credit.

Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ was not bad (at least up to the crucifixion) but it did not do well at the box office.

Yes, there is historical debate about Jesus (I believe a Roman historian also wrote about him) but as you point out, faith has higher hurdles to jump than to sort through all of the minor inconsistencies of the text that evolved through the ages.

It was Tacitus who wrote about Christ.

----

rue, in your efforts to discredit the New Testament by pointing out errors in translation and so on, I think you are missing a broader point. The story of Christ as it is told today is an allegory. It is symbolic.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The story of Christ as it is told today is an allegory. It is symbolic.

On the contrary, it is central to the belief system of Christians. With the life, death and ressurection of Christ, it is believed that this also 'proves' the existence of God, making him historically 'actual'.

So, it was and is meant to be taken literally by those who adhere to it's faith.

[Guest Warwick Green]

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."

I found the book tedious and I would expect the movie to be no better. The guys paying $10 for a seat will expect to get a decent drama - but what they will get is second rate Indiana Jones.

[betsy]

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.

Whether it's an exercise of comfort or not....the need to worship had always been with humans. If cavemen from the prehistoric age were found to have been dabbling in some sort of worship....then it could even be possible that this need is innate.

[Rue]

----

rue, in your efforts to discredit the New Testament by pointing out errors in translation and so on, I think you are missing a broader point. The story of Christ as it is told today is an allegory. It is symbolic.

That is precisely the point I was making. Please, make no mistake, I am not discrediting the New Testament. I am debating its true origins and whether we know its original or "true" meaning and whether anyone can call anything "gospel" when it is in fact second hand or in fact revised 3000 times..

It is precisely because I believe it is symbolic and meant to be taken as a series of allegories that I consider it subject to debate.

I think your point would best be reserved for those who accept it verbatum as accurate, and to be taken literally as the truth and feel it can not be questioned.

One last point some of you may find it amusing I question whether the New Testament is gospel so I should explain why.

To a devout Christian of course the New Testament to them is gospel. My point is though the word "gospel" is used inter-changeably with the word "truth" and the word according to what Jesus taught.

The arguement I am respectfully making is that to simply accept the Bible as truth or as the words of Jesus is as a result of you being taught to accept this unconditionally. When Tom Cruise repeats Scientology doctrine people are quick to raise their eye-brows or if a fundamentalist Muslim does it we recoil, but why is it if we question Christian fundamentals, it always seems to be portrayed as Satanistic or an attempt to discredit Christianity? I can say the same about any religion for that matter not just Christianity.

The Da Vinci Code, whether you like it or not is causing "good Christians" to challenge and question and not simply repeat verbatum what has been told to them over and over again by their churches or leades.

The fact that specific tales have been repeated for over 3000 years does not necessarily confer truth to those stories.

While some people accept things as the truth after hearing it repeated over and over, I for one don't and that is why I challenge all religions equally the same way. I just would not feel comfortable from a purely intellectual perspective, accepting their doctrine verbatum.

Today as I was driving to work I heard a representative of the Catholic Church responding to the Da Vinci Code on the radio by saying and I quote" The Catholic Church does not hide things, its not secret, it has never kept anything secret and never will..".

Its comments like that, which people know just doesn't make sense given what we know of the Church's structure and its many inner layers....even the way it picks its Pope, that make people deep down inside want to question the Church.

This book has struck a repressed desire to think freely that many people have stifled for years as a result of their blind obedience to a particular way of thinking.

I also think with due respect, the gospel according to Mel Gibson last year in his movie was bound to set the stafe for a movie such as this one. To simply present the story of Jesus in such simplistic and brutal terms no longer works.

The Church may have been able to control billions over the years with that kind of thought but the reality is today the Church and all organized religions are in decline precisely because in the age of instant news and inter-net telling people myths and tales just does not resonate any longer.

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

The story of Christ as it is told today is an allegory. It is symbolic.

On the contrary, it is central to the belief system of Christians. With the life, death and ressurection of Christ, it is believed that this also 'proves' the existence of God, making him historically 'actual'.

So, it was and is meant to be taken literally by those who adhere to it's faith.

Literally?

I have no doubt that there are many Christians who sincerely believe that Christ miraculously fed 5000 men with two fishes and five loaves of bread. But there is a symbolism in the story that even the most literal-minded can also grasp. Thelonious, you tell me which version is more pertinent to being a Christian.

OTOH, even the most bone-headed, literal-minded Christian fundamentalist knows that Christ did not utter the words "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" if only because everybody knows that Jesus Christ did not speak English.

[BHS]

Up next: Mel Gibson vs Tom Hanks in a no-holds-barred Hollywood smackdown to determine the veracity of the existence of God.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Up next: Mel Gibson vs Tom Hanks in a no-holds-barred Hollywood smackdown to determine the veracity of the existence of God.

(Very funny, BHS, but I am trying to reveal a little cosmic truth here lol)

Literally?

Yes, indeed, literally. Do you find this so odd? The Jews believe that the deed and title to 'the promised land' is in those pages (which, especially the first four books, several Jews wrote 'while on the road' by the way) , as promised by G-d. Muslims take the Koran as the literal word of God. It doesn't hold the same power if it isn't literal. The Holy Sacrament of Communion is based solely on transubstantiation, they just don't use the words "Abra-cadabra".

have no doubt that there are many Christians who sincerely believe that Christ miraculously fed 5000 men with two fishes and five loaves of bread. But there is a symbolism in the story that even the most literal-minded can also grasp. Thelonious, you tell me which version is more pertinent to being a Christian.

Only you can tell me if my opinion matters.

I would say that the message is the most important, but the message and, (as all religious texts) the 'symbolism' (coupled with human falliability) has always demanded a manifestation. "Prove it", everyone demands. So, instead of glorious acts, we see glorious churches. The church has always done better at the collection plate than at 'home plate'. In my view, no one who charges for 'the answer' has got it right. I honestly don't think that a 'one true god' would demand a gilded likeness, nor 'share a bed with Mammon at the will of the electorate'.

if only because everybody knows that Jesus Christ did not speak English.

Indeed, he likely spoke Aramaic. Yiddish wasn't invented until the 12 or 13 century.

[newbie]

Literally?

Round up a few die hard born-again Christians and ask them if everything in the Bible is to be taken as fact. Yes, MANY folks take the black book literally.

[betsy]

Well, the reviews are not so good. It's a dud!

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well, the reviews are not so good. It's a dud!

No surprise there. The book was a dud too. One review I heard this morning suggested after seeing the movie you have to read the book to figure out what is going on.

Yesterday I read two columns by Catholic priests making the same point - that I agree with. That the Church, instead of a lot of bellyaching over Brown's historical distortions, should take this opporunity to promote itself - after a couple of decades where its prestige has been continually eroding. And Opus Dei is doing this. Long considered something sinister, it's now seen to be nothing more than a group of conservative Catholics who want, if you will excuse the expression, to return to that old time religion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

It was Tacitus who wrote about Christ.

It was also Tacitus who wrote about Jews,

"A race prone to superstition, opposed to religion"

[betsy]

Well, the reviews are not so good. It's a dud!

No surprise there. The book was a dud too. One review I heard this morning suggested after seeing the movie you have to read the book to figure out what is going on.

However, inspite of the bad reviews...Access Hollywood featured reports of long line-ups in cinemas all over the world. Of course they were also quick to feature packets of religious protesters...some with extremist (Greece?) demands that the movie ought to be illegal and those who've seen it ought to be jailed, a clever hollywood-style of insinuating, ridiculing and painting all religious people are a bunch of looney tunes.

The book may've been written as for purely entertainment purpose....but Hollywood is more keen to use it as a tool to bash Christianity. It's the biggest religious group (as far as I know) with deeply seated beliefs among its followers that stands in the way of the kind of lifestyle Hollywood is promoting to society.

So there's really a lot to gain to dis-credit and ruin it.

And I agree with one of the posters that this kind of movie does challenge a follower to question his faith....and to end up turning away from it.

Christ Himself had been taunted and tempted to challenge and to turn from His own faith by the devil.

What an apt symbolism, if we look at it that way. Satan is clever indeed.

It makes me really believe that the Anti-Christ is among us...and it's not in the form of one particular human being.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I just listened to a news report on Da Vinci tours in London, visiting the sites in the book. The guide is quick to point out errors - like the non-existent crypt referred to.

One of the tourists was asked about all the errors. She pointed out that it is a work of fiction and is not an historical work and should not be read that way. She said one of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is seeing how many errors you can find.

Well said, lady. You are making a lot more sense than those who go around making the claim that the book is trying to undermine Christianity.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well, the reviews are not so good. It's a dud!

No surprise there. The book was a dud too. One review I heard this morning suggested after seeing the movie you have to read the book to figure out what is going on.

However, inspite of the bad reviews...Access Hollywood featured reports of long line-ups in cinemas all over the world. Of course they were also quick to feature packets of religious protesters...some with extremist (Greece?) demands that the movie ought to be illegal and those who've seen it ought to be jailed, a clever hollywood-style of insinuating, ridiculing and painting all religious people are a bunch of looney tunes.

The book may've been written as for purely entertainment purpose....but Hollywood is more keen to use it as a tool to bash Christianity. It's the biggest religious group (as far as I know) with deeply seated beliefs among its followers that stands in the way of the kind of lifestyle Hollywood is promoting to society.

So there's really a lot to gain to dis-credit and ruin it.

And I agree with one of the posters that this kind of movie does challenge a follower to question his faith....and to end up turning away from it.

Christ Himself had been taunted and tempted to challenge and to turn from His own faith by the devil.

What an apt symbolism, if we look at it that way. Satan is clever indeed.

It makes me really believe that the Anti-Christ is among us...and it's not in the form of one human being.

Christianity is alive and well, as the protests to the movie and book attest, and in no way is diminshed by Brown's second rate book. I am glad that people are protesting, it shows that democracy is flourishing. I dismiss those that want to ban it as just nutty extremists. One of the priests I quoted earlier suggested people should go and watch it with the knowledge that it is exploiting religion to promote an adventure story and not to be taken seriously. I agree with him.

[betsy]

I just listened to a news report on Da Vinci tours in London, visiting the sites in the book. The guide is quick to point out errors - like the non-existent crypt referred to.

One of the tourists was asked about all the errors. She pointed out that it is a work of fiction and is not an historical work and should not be read that way. She said one of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is seeing how many errors you can find.

Well said, lady. You are making a lot more sense than those who go around making the claim that the book is trying to undermine Christianity.

But how many have read the bible completely? I am one of those who have not. I had read a few parts here and there. Can we pinpoint the errors easily?

How many of those like me can harbor doubts...and eventually be swayed? Catching a person at just the right time can cause confusion, doubts, disillusionment etc.. which can lead to questioning and eventually losing faith. If we currently enjoy and live in what we believe is sin, isn't it more tempting to grasp at something that could justify our present way of living?

Most of what I know have been passed on to me through catechism...and by my parents, especially my dad who had made it his habit to read a page off the bible daily.

When the movie The Omen first came out, I went to my father talking about the movie. He explained to me about The Revelation. So the movie had made an impact on me...mind you, I was quite young then too.

But I agree with what you say. This movie can be exploited the other way around too. Gee...but that means putting millions more into these charismatic hollywood moguls' coffers.

[quinton]

What a waste of thinking on an issue that has no relevance to the serious problems facing humankind on planet earth at present.

How will the history of "Jesus" save us from climate change, habitat loss, desertification, overpopulation of humans, depletion of oil and natural gas, species extinctions, corporatization/globalization, Free Trade AKA "Forced Trade" where Canada (a cold climate) is forced to never reduce oil and natural gas exports to the USA, deforestation of Alberta's land to access the tarsands, etc?

It won't.

So stop wasting your energy thinking about this garbage.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I just listened to a news report on Da Vinci tours in London, visiting the sites in the book. The guide is quick to point out errors - like the non-existent crypt referred to.

One of the tourists was asked about all the errors. She pointed out that it is a work of fiction and is not an historical work and should not be read that way. She said one of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is seeing how many errors you can find.

Well said, lady. You are making a lot more sense than those who go around making the claim that the book is trying to undermine Christianity.

But how many have read the bible completely? I am one of those who have not. I had read a few parts here and there. Can we pinpoint the errors easily?

How many of those like me can harbor doubts...and eventually be swayed? Catching a person at just the right time can cause confusion, doubts, disillusionment etc.. which can lead to questioning and eventually losing faith. If we currently enjoy and live in what we believe is sin, isn't it more tempting to grasp at something that could justify our present way of living?

Most of what I know have been passed on to me through catechism...and by my parents, especially my dad who had made it his habit to read a page off the bible daily.

When the movie The Omen first came out, I went to my father talking about the movie. He explained to me about The Revelation. So the movie had made an impact on me...mind you, I was quite young then too.

But I agree with what you say. This movie can be exploited the other way around too. Gee...but that means putting millions more into these charismatic hollywood moguls' coffers.

What difference does it make how many errors you can find? The book is fiction and you don't accept anything in it as gospel, if you will excuse the pun. Only the gullible would read a book that has a mundane plot and dull characters and believe it to be true. Now that people have read the book the Christian denominations are right to say, "now read the New Testament" to get Christianity's spin on events. I don't necessarily accept that what is in the Bible is factual (it is full of allegories for one thing) but the various churches have a right to point out that Brown distorted Christian teaching to advance the plot.

But it seems that there a lot of winners here - Brown, the publisher, the movie producer and the Christain religion which can use all the publicity to get its side of the story to the public. I saw a comment in the paper the other day - "Which book do you believe - that one that says Jesus married and had kids like any normal Jewish lad or the one that says he walked on water?". A real chance here for Christianity to get its message out.

[Canuck E Stan]

What a waste of thinking on an issue that has no relevance to the serious problems facing humankind on planet earth at present.

How will the history of "Jesus" save us from climate change, habitat loss, desertification, overpopulation of humans, depletion of oil and natural gas, species extinctions, corporatization/globalization, Free Trade AKA "Forced Trade" where Canada (a cold climate) is forced to never reduce oil and natural gas exports to the USA, deforestation of Alberta's land to access the tarsands, etc?

It won't.

So stop wasting your energy thinking about this garbage.

Quinton,

No one can become really educated without having pursued some study in which

he took no interest ...

-T.S. Eliot

[Slavik44]

But how many have read the bible completely? I am one of those who have not. I had read a few parts here and there. Can we pinpoint the errors easily?

How many of those like me can harbor doubts...and eventually be swayed? Catching a person at just the right time can cause confusion, doubts, disillusionment etc.. which can lead to questioning and eventually losing faith. If we currently enjoy and live in what we believe is sin, isn't it more tempting to grasp at something that could justify our present way of living?

Most of what I know have been passed on to me through catechism...and by my parents, especially my dad who had made it his habit to read a page off the bible daily.

When the movie The Omen first came out, I went to my father talking about the movie. He explained to me about The Revelation. So the movie had made an impact on me...mind you, I was quite young then too.

But I agree with what you say. This movie can be exploited the other way around too. Gee...but that means putting millions more into these charismatic hollywood moguls' coffers.

Well I pretty well have read the Bible completely, and after reading it yes I belive you can pinpoint the errors fairly easily. I do belive that if your beliefs need to be protected from critical review then they are probabley not worth having in the first place. Why is it that they are so fragile so that a fictional book/movie can shatter them. The fact is most people who belive the bible probabley haven't read the book anymore then those who don't belive the bible. I guess the answer is simplicity, if you don't question your beliefs then I suppose they can remain solid, it is then one less thign to worry about. That being said when you cannot avoid your beliefs being called into question those that have not critically reviewed their beliefs find that they are not wisemen who built their house on a foundation of rock, instead they resemble the foolish man who built his house on the sand. Due to this their beliefs collapse and for good reason, they were not sturdy in the first place. Others will put a missile defense shield around their beliefs plug their ears and make alot of noise so they can continue to live in ignorance, because Ignorance is bliss. So if this movie causes people to loose faith, I do not belive it is the fault of the movie, it is the fault of the faith.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Slavik44,

I do belive that if your beliefs need to be protected from critical review then they are probabley not worth having in the first place

Amen, Brother.

That is why I strive (not always successfully... lol) to post pue truth. That which cannot be logically eroded to untruth. I posted 'The Meaning of Life' elsewhere on this forum, and I don't think it can be successfully argued against.

I wish more people would read it and try, though.

[Rue]

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.

With due respect;

1-Your version that Sunday was chosen because it is in honour of Chist's resurrection is the Church's version. The fact is SUN day is a Pagan holiday and that is why it was used. The version that it honour's resurrection was devised to cover the true reason Sunday was chosen and not Friday night or Saturday morning as some Christian sects still use.

2-Isaiah may not have originally referred to Christ as the son of God - that is open to debate that comes when passages get re-written and then people read what was rewritten not originally written. You can quote all of the accepted gospels as truth as you are doing or as I am doing simply stating they are rewrites and the fact that they are presented as truth doesn't make them truth it simply means that is what the Church wants you to believe is the truth - that is the version of truth they edited and rewrote and wish you to accept without question as part of your faith. If you believe Christ is the son of God then that is what you will see when you read back anything. I am sure to if you see an ink stain it may look like Jesus to you as well. How much is projection from a thought already planted in your mind and that has you conditioned to see it whereever you look, and how much is the actual truth remains subject to debate. I respect your beliefs but I can not simply suspend objective analysis and simply accept your values without more questioning and debate. If they are true as you believe them to be, then the truth as you know it will prevail. The question you must ask however is this-if it is true, why the fear of people asking questions and wanting to try understand the gnostic origins of Christianity? Why the supression of the lost gospels and so many other pieces of work and science?

3-The Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian and were never Christian. They most certainly contradict the New Testament as many scholars have now been able to ascertain this and pin-pint the contradictions and indeed the exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought this out in the open.

4-You claim the apostles referred to Christ as the son of God. Of course they did they were written and edited precisely to say that. That is the point. Interesting you don't mention the countless gospels the Church did not see fit to place in the Bible that referred to Jesus as a mortal. Also interesting to note that all the gospels you would quote to say Christ is the son of God contradict each other as to where he was born, what he said, and what he did and are all versions according to these apostles but not acually written by these apostles.

5.Your reference to the Old Testament saying the Son of God is coming again is but one interperatation that may fit your belief system and orthdox Judaism's belief of what the passage said, but the Old Testament like the New Testament was rewritten. The Old Testatement was re-written by a council of Rabbiahs so again the original version of what may have been written we do not know. So the true original words we do not know and what you quote is a rewritten version. "Messiah" may very well have referred to a more gnostic or pagan like abstract concept of each one of us being able to save ourselves on an individual level and the good of us all prevailing over the evil in us all.

You and the main-stream choose to see and re-write and interperate Messiah as meaning one human. It could have been a more abstract phrase simply meaning each one of us having the potential individually or collectively to prevail over our savage tendencies. That is also part of the debate from the beginning of Zoreastrianism and not just Judaism or Christianity. You see Jesus as that Messiah and that Messiah as being a human so when you read backwords of course you see Messiah as being a human. The fact that fundamental Judaism sees the Messiah as being a human does not necessarily make it so - it just expresses what the conventional or prevailing opinion of that religion has presented.

Your views basically are those of the Conventional Church and while I respect them and your right to deeply believe in them I challenge them as I do any work of literature that has been constantly rewritten. The fact that it has been rewritten and repeated as truth and that you continue to repeat it as truth does not make it true although for you I do not doubt it is absolute truth and so when you repeat it, it has the power to reaffirm what you already see and convince you yet again it is true. That is called auto-suggestion. If you keep repeating something, it becomes second nature in your mind and then becomes unquestionable and just is.

[Rue]

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.

This is a typical example of everything wrong with organized religion. The Church still feels it can control peoples' minds and tell them how to think. How is this different from any cult? How is this different then what the Church has doen for centuries, i.e., repress things that do not suit its agenda? Doesn't this fit right in with the concept that the Church represses that which it fears contradicts its

version of truth? What else does the Church try to repress and why? What next, will they burn people at the stake for seeing the movie? Quere; how does a religion that allegedly preaches tolerance and love so easily issue such edicts? Does this sound loving and tolerant?