The Da Vinci Code Lie Exposed

Originally posted by Odoacer
The short answer is that Dan Brown's version of the life of Christ is not in accordance with the Gospel accounts which are the basis for Christianity. So it follows that if the Gospel accounts can't be trusted, the foundation of Christianity is on shaky ground. But that sort of thing has been going on from the beginning. I like the story about Voltaire. He w ...[text shortened]... nes in museums. Some time after his death, his home came into use by the Geneva Bible Society.

I am sure that christian religion will end sooner or later as an obscure cult with few followers ... and I hope the same for the other religions too !

Originally posted by Odoacer
The short answer is that Dan Brown's version of the life of Christ is not in accordance with the Gospel accounts which are the basis for Christianity. So it follows that if the Gospel accounts can't be trusted, the foundation of Christianity is on shaky ground. But that sort of thing has been going on from the beginning. I like the story about Voltaire. He w ...[text shortened]... nes in museums. Some time after his death, his home came into use by the Geneva Bible Society.

Doesn't answer my question. Every narrative has gaps; every author leaves stuff out. Jesus might have got married (impossibly to prove the contrary); what interests me is whether it would make any difference to Christian beliefs. Educate me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Doesn't answer my question. Every narrative has gaps; every author leaves stuff out. Jesus might have got married (impossibly to prove the contrary); what interests me is whether it would make any difference to Christian beliefs. Educate me.

1. The inherent divinity of Jesus Christ would be shattered if it were determined he was married with children (not entirely sure why, however).

2. The infallibility of God is tied to the infallibility of the Bible in the minds of many people.

3. A further thesis of the Davinci Code is that Mary Magdelene, as the wife of Jesus, was charged with carrying and establishing the Christian church after his death. Obviously the concept of a woman performing such actions is intolerable to some.

-JC

Most of The Da Vinci Code is likely simple fictional embellishment. But regardless, the "humanizing" and "sexualizing" of Christ -- which as far as the silver screen goes, was already done nearly 20 years ago with Martin Scorceses's excellent picture "The Last Temptation of Christ" -- is toxic to fundamentalist Christian belief because this belief relies crucially on Christ's differentiation from humanity. Without this differentiation, humanity cannot aspire to anything real, since humanity is so mired in illusion and limitation.

There is some truth to that, as we humans have demonstrated over and over for thousands of years our general inability to treat each other humanely. But the problem as I see it lies in this need to condemn human nature at its core. That is, the body, sexuality, procreation, are assumed to be flawed, stained, and thus impossible for a manifestation of God (Jesus) to truly embrace.

But is regarding our essential humanity as flawed, tainted, truly the way out? Has it "worked" up to now? Or is it possible that there is a profound healing in the very idea that Jesus was human in all ways? Would it not then be possible to truly forgive our human limitations, and to stop feeling that insidious guilt so often connected to human impulses?

After all, if Jesus was fully human, in all ways, and still attained to the highest spiritual state, then would that not open up the possibility for all to realize their highest spiritual potential, regardless of how many times they'd yielded to temptation? Regardless of how deeply they'd stumbled?

I'm reminded of Rumi --

"come, come, yet again come,
wanderer, idolator, worshipper of fire,
even if you have broken your vows a thousand times,
ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, come, yet again come."

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Doesn't answer my question. Every narrative has gaps; every author leaves stuff out. Jesus might have got married (impossibly to prove the contrary); what interests me is whether it would make any difference to Christian beliefs. Educate me.

The implication is that the Bible is inaccuarate and flawed. Once you reach that conclusion you can take and leave what you want from the Bible. Once this happens you are free to create your own religious beliefs that run contrary to scripture. If it is an unreliable text then placing ones faith in it is counterintuitive. From a Christian perspective God and his word are one. Christ himself is said to have been God's word incarnate in the first chapter of John. Christ then went around quoting prophies from the Old Testament saying that he was the fulfillment of God's word. To sum up, the faith is the word. I believe it was Nero who recognized this and promptly tried to destroy every Bible he could lay his hands on so as to annhilate the religion of Christianity.

Also, if one makes Christ out to be nothing more than human, then he could not be God in the flesh. If he is not God in the flesh, then he has no power over sin and death. If he has no power over sin and death then the Christian faith is in vain. Paul said something similiar in this regard.

Originally posted by whodey
The implication is that the Bible is inaccuarate and flawed. Once you reach that conclusion you can take and leave what you want from the Bible. Once this happens you are free to create your own religious beliefs that run contrary to scripture.

The irony here is that people do just that; the difference being they refuse to admit it, instead insisting their personal faith is Truth to All.

That a book written by Man may contain errors, despite being inspired by God, will somehow crush a religion's faith?

Just how fragile is Christian fundamentalism, anyway?

-JC

Originally posted by whodey
Also, if one makes Christ out to be nothing more than human, then he could not be God in the flesh. If he is not God in the flesh, then he has no power over sin and death. If he has no power over sin and death then the Christian faith is in vain. Paul said something similiar in this regard.

Unless being 'nothing more than human' is simply being God made manifest in the flesh. Perhaps we all have power over sin and death (though not in the way you construe it), achievable via cultivating the sort of spiritual sensitivity or awareness that Jesus had.

Originally posted by bbarr
Unless being 'nothing more than human' is simply being God made manifest in the flesh. Perhaps we all have power over sin and death (though not in the way you construe it), achievable via cultivating the sort of spiritual sensitivity or awareness that Jesus had.

Very nice.

-JC

Originally posted by bbarr
Unless being 'nothing more than human' is simply being God made manifest in the flesh. Perhaps we all have power over sin and death (though not in the way you construe it), achievable via cultivating the sort of spiritual sensitivity or awareness that Jesus had.

This is an interesting teaching and you are welcome to it. I prefer, howver, to subject myself to the teachings of the Bible that I deem to be the inspired word of God that contradict this teaching. As a mortal who has a fallen nature I am prone to skewed thinking and reasoning. I recognize this truth and am wary of it. This is why I need God's word. As far are having the power over sin and death, I have no such delusions of grandure. By thinking this I would deceiving myself. By myself I am nothing and know nothing.

Originally posted by bbarr
Unless being 'nothing more than human' is simply being God made manifest in the flesh. Perhaps we all have power over sin and death (though not in the way you construe it), achievable via cultivating the sort of spiritual sensitivity or awareness that Jesus had.

Sure: He was so "spiritually sensitive" and 'aware' that He taught others to rely on the word of God, not themselves. He taught that rejection of the gift of God (salvation) would posit the one so rejecting in the Lake of Fire. Was this the spirituality you were suggesting we should cultivate?

Originally posted by Churlant
The irony here is that people do just that; the difference being they refuse to admit it, instead insisting their personal faith is Truth to All.

That a book written by Man may contain errors, despite being inspired by God, will somehow crush a religion's faith?

Just how fragile is Christian fundamentalism, anyway?

-JC

If I were God and attempting to convey a message to my creation, would I let that message become corrupted or would I find a way to convey that message uncorrupted? If I allowed this message to be corrupted, what would I be accomplishing? Would I then not be attempting to confuse and lead astray my creation? If scripture is not corrupted would these truths then be Truths to All or just to some? As I study the truths presented, I make no assumptions that I know all the truths or understand all the truths. This is where prayer and fellowship with God enter the picture. It is a never ending process that builds upon itself and my relationship with my creator.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I think this is a very interresting e-mail that I have received this morning and is only actually intended for Christians, but if you are not one, then still read it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________


DR. JAMES KENNEDY AND OTHER AUTHORITIES WANT ALL CHRISTIANS TO KNOW THE TRUTH. I THOUGHT YOU ...[text shortened]... nd let's expose this lie for what it is because the hour is late and much later than we think.

Sweet Jesus, it's only a story dude...

Dan Brown said himself that the book was fiction. I'm a devout Christian and I read the book. It was a good fictional story. Fictional is the key word.

Originally posted by whodey
Their are many that think what they see at the movies or on TV, if presented realistically enough, will be interpreted by many to be reality.

I believe this post is the actual Webster's definition of the word "irony".

Originally posted by whodey
If I were God and attempting to convey a message to my creation, would I let that message become corrupted or would I find a way to convey that message uncorrupted? If I allowed this message to be corrupted, what would I be accomplishing? Would I then not be attempting to confuse and lead astray my creation? If scripture is not corrupted would these truths then be Truths to All or just to some?

Some very good questions. The answers might be very uncomfortable, so you don't really attempt to answer them. You let faith wash them away. This is unfortunate.

-JC