[lpkmckenna]

The Catholic Church's #2 doctrinal officer opens his mouth and shoves his foot in it:

The latest broadside came from Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year.

Amato, addressing a Catholic conference in Rome, called the book "stridently anti-Christian .. full of calumnies, offences and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospels and the Church."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28042006/...-official.html

In his address to the group, Amato said Christians should be more willing "to reject lies and gratuitous defamation."

He said that if "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

He added: "Instead, if they are directed against the Church and Christians, they remain unpunished."

Amato suggested that Catholics around the world should launch organized protests against the "The Da Vinci Code" film just as some had done in 1988 to protest against Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ."

"Justly provoked a world uprising?" Is he saying that events like the fire-bombing of embassies by ultraconservative Muslims are justified? And should be emulated by Catholics?

Regardless, boycotts and protests over books and movies are a complete waste of time. I'm sure there are more worthwhile causes in the world for Catholics to dedicate themselves to.

[Chuckit]

The Koran, the Holocaust and the Catholic Church are three completely different categories of things…

[abe]

Still haven't gotten involved in any of this Da Vinci Code stuff. May just allow it to pass me by, completely.

Usually when I have nothing to say about a topic I just stay away. But it's becoming the thing to do to just show up and crap in a thread where you have no knowledge, no interest and no comic relief to add.

So, I'm in fashion!

[gradient]

Am I nuts or isn't the DaVinci Code supposed to be a work of fiction!!??? But by all means, may the firebombing of art galleries and writers colonies across the globe begin.

[Helmling]

The Catholic church should be holding up Christians' response to the Da Vinci Code as a model for the Muslim world to emulate.

"See, this is way worse than a cartoon and we're not blowing anything up!"

[Millennium]

He said that if "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

Entirely possible; in the current climate it seems likely. But since when is this a good thing? Mainstream Christianity is finally starting to obtain a mature outlook on fiction concerning itself, and the Pope wants to roll that back?

Just Letting Go of one's ego concerning satire and fiction is one of the simplest things in the world, but that doesn't mean it's easy. In fact, it may be one of the hardest things in the world, despite its simplicity. But when a religion or a race or anything like that finally manages to achieve this for most of its followers, this is a cause for celebration, not for alarm.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by gradient

Am I nuts or isn't the DaVinci Code supposed to be a work of fiction!!??? But by all means, may the firebombing of art galleries and writers colonies across the globe begin.

Far too many people think it's the truth. And the Catholic Church has no idea how to convince people otherwise. THAT is the problem.

The Church should publish an easy to read text that explains Jesus, His life, and the importance He can play in their lives.

The Vatican has tried to hold a monopoly on the truth from it's church members for far far too long.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Far too many people think it's the truth. And the Catholic Church has no idea how to convince people otherwise. THAT is the problem.

Well, you could point to the fact that the words "A NOVEL" are written in big block letters on the front cover of every copy of the book.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Well, you could point to the fact that the words "A NOVEL" are written in big block letters on the front cover of every copy of the book.

I have no problems with the book of fiction/novel called "The DaVinci Code" other than it's prose is bad and the basic structure of the chapters is overly dramatic. Dan Brown created quite the conspiracy story.

I have a problem with the way people are trying to claim this is a book of fact and that it "really makes you think". It "really makes me think" that Dan Brown has written a novel that idiots are taking as fact is what it "makes me think".

EDIT: Sorry, I kind of avoided your point. See, you had a great piece of advice for the Vatican, and they will probably ignore it.

[BRussell]

To be fair, the Da Vinci Code does make pretenses to be factual on some matters. I believe it says in the front of the book that the descriptions of art and secret societies are factual (they are not). It's also based on an even crappier piece of alleged non-fiction (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the people who sued him in the UK and lost).

The problem for literalist forms of Christianity is that if you start to wonder about these things, and you start investigating the historical life of Jesus and the history of the early church, you certainly don't find the Da Vinci Code/Holy Blood Holy Grail, but you also don't find the Word of God either. You find lots of other gospels from early forms of Christianity that were suppressed, you find gospels that weren't written by who people think they were written by, you find often-substantial alterations, and many other things that don't fit with a Biblical-literalist perspective.

That's no threat to theologically liberal Christianity - and even strengthens it because it affirms a non-literalist approach - but it does threaten conservative/literalist forms of Christianity like the Catholic church and American conservative Protestantism.

[FeLiZeCaT]

That Bastard Brown will rot in Hell!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BRussell

To be fair, the Da Vinci Code does make pretenses to be factual on some matters. I believe it says in the front of the book that the descriptions of art and secret societies are factual (they are not). It's also based on an even crappier piece of alleged non-fiction (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the people who sued him in the UK and lost).

The problem for literalist forms of Christianity is that if you start to wonder about these things, and you start investigating the historical life of Jesus and the history of the early church, you certainly don't find the Da Vinci Code/Holy Blood Holy Grail, but you also don't find the Word of God either. You find lots of other gospels from early forms of Christianity that were suppressed, you find gospels that weren't written by who people think they were written by, you find often-substantial alterations, and many other things that don't fit with a Biblical-literalist perspective.

That's no threat to theologically liberal Christianity - and even strengthens it because it affirms a non-literalist approach - but it does threaten conservative/literalist forms of Christianity like the Catholic church and American conservative Protestantism.

Well said. What I tell my students about it is that I'm glad for the novel's success because it at least makes people think critically about the church's early history. I'm constantly amazed at how little many Catholics know about their own church's history. I'm a non-Christian and yet I know worlds more about the Bible and the history of Christianity than my Catholic wife (no offense, honey!).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by BRussell

To be fair, the Da Vinci Code does make pretenses to be factual on some matters. I believe it says in the front of the book that the descriptions of art and secret societies are factual (they are not).

This is my biggest problem with the book. Actually, my biggest dislike of the book is the writing style, but the preface statement that all of his facts are 100% accurate is FAR from true.

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's also based on an even crappier piece of alleged non-fiction (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the people who sued him in the UK and lost).

The problem for literalist forms of Christianity is that if you start to wonder about these things, and you start investigating the historical life of Jesus and the history of the early church, you certainly don't find the Da Vinci Code/Holy Blood Holy Grail, but you also don't find the Word of God either.

"Literalist forms of Christianity"?!? You mean you don't believe Jesus was God's only son?

Originally Posted by BRussell

You find lots of other gospels from early forms of Christianity that were suppressed, you find gospels that weren't written by who people think they were written by, you find often-substantial alterations, and many other things that don't fit with a Biblical-literalist perspective.

You sound like someone who has no idea how the books of the Bible were decided upon and put together.

Originally Posted by BRussell

That's no threat to theologically liberal Christianity - and even strengthens it because it affirms a non-literalist approach - but it does threaten conservative/literalist forms of Christianity like the Catholic church and American conservative Protestantism.

The "liberal/conservative" thing is bunk. I'll agree it is damaging towards the Catholic Church, but so much of their teachings are extra-biblical already and not based upon ANY texts from Jesus' teaching.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm a non-Christian and yet I know worlds more about the Bible and the history of Christianity than my Catholic wife (no offense, honey!).

That, is the root of the problem.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

This is my biggest problem with the book. Actually, my biggest dislike of the book is the writing style, but the preface statement that all of his facts are 100% accurate is FAR from true.

There are a lot of errors. He even mixed up left brain and right brain.

"Literalist forms of Christianity"?!? You mean you don't believe Jesus was God's only son?

Literalist as in the Bible is the infallible Word of God rather than the word of men. But no I don't believe Jesus was God's only son in any literal sense, and I don't believe Jesus ever claimed such a thing. What does it even mean to believe in that literally? Does God have genetic material? How can he have offspring?

You sound like someone who has no idea how the books of the Bible were decided upon and put together.

If you have anything of substance to add rather than just vague insults, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then...

The "liberal/conservative" thing is bunk. I'll agree it is damaging towards the Catholic Church, but so much of their teachings are extra-biblical already and not based upon ANY texts from Jesus' teaching.

Perhaps liberal-conservative aren't quite the right terms, but there are millions of non-literalist Christians in the US, who are not creationists, who do not believe the Bible was written by God, who don't buy the politics of so many of the evangelicals and fundamentalists, and who appreciate the humanistic message of their religion without ignoring the changes in knowledge and understanding that have occurred in the past several millennia.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Well said. What I tell my students about it is that I'm glad for the novel's success because it at least makes people think critically about the church's early history. I'm constantly amazed at how little many Catholics know about their own church's history. I'm a non-Christian and yet I know worlds more about the Bible and the history of Christianity than my Catholic wife (no offense, honey!).

Yeah, and I doubt it's only Catholics. What do you teach?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah, and I doubt it's only Catholics. What do you teach?

I teach English. I have a few students who have picked the Da Vinci Code for reading assignments over the last few years, and many more who have asked me what I think about it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Literalist as in the Bible is the infallible Word of God rather than the word of men. But no I don't believe Jesus was God's only son in any literal sense, and I don't believe Jesus ever claimed such a thing. What does it even mean to believe in that literally? Does God have genetic material? How can he have offspring?

Matthew 7:21 Matthew 12:50 He calls Him "my Father". Not "our Father".

Originally Posted by BRussell

If you have anything of substance to add rather than just vague insults, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then...

It wasn't an insult. Simply an observation. "Until then..." what?

Originally Posted by BRussell

Perhaps liberal-conservative aren't quite the right terms, but there are millions of non-literalist Christians in the US, who are not creationists, who do not believe the Bible was written by God, who don't buy the politics of so many of the evangelicals and fundamentalists, and who appreciate the humanistic message of their religion without ignoring the changes in knowledge and understanding that have occurred in the past several millennia.

Millions?!?! I'd say hundreds. Perhaps thousands. But just because there are more than a few doesn't mean they are right.

"Humanistic"?!? Religion has very little to do with humanism and everything to do with God.

What do you base your "Christianity" on if you do not believe that Jesus was God's only son and that Jesus gave Himself up as a sacrifice for man's sins in an expression of pure love? I mean, that is "literally" what the Bible says.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader

The Church should publish an easy to read text that explains Jesus, His life, and the importance He can play in their lives.

That was hilarious!

Besides, the church supposedly has such a book: the Catechism.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

That was hilarious!

Besides, the church supposedly has such a book: the Catechism.

The Catechism isn't that easy to read, even though it's meant to be accessible. The general layman would put it down after reading a page out of boredom.

The problem with the Da Vinci Code is not that it's a novel. It's that it claims to be based upon factual evidence, and that many people believe it. And these 'facts' are so overwhelmingly false it's ludicrous.

Oh and to BRussel, if one looks at ancient canons of scripture, you can see how early our current canon was formed. The vast majority of Christians in the late first to the early second century would have accepted the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Letters, the other epistles, and the entire Septuagint (including the deuterocanonical books). Most would have accepted the Gospel of John and Revelations (however some refused it because many Gnostics used them). The vast majority of the so called 'gnostic' gospels were not Christian in origin, but by eclectic gnostic sects that derived many ideas from the Christian faith. We must differentiate between the Gnostics and the Christians. 'catholic' Christians (the predecessors of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Oriental churches) ALWAYS rejected the gnostics and their scriptures.

I know this may be offensive to many, but perhaps an apt analogy for the Gnostics would be the Mormons (I'm not saying they are gnostic, but merely their approach is similar). They compose their own scriptures, theology and dogma and derive many ideas from the Christian tradition.

[Chuckit]

How do you have any idea what the "vast majority of Christians" would have done at that time? Heck, you won't even count all Christians as Christians. Basically, you're telling us, "All the Christians who were just like modern mainstream Christians believed in the same stuff modern mainstream Christians believe in." I can believe this is true only because it's tautological.

As it happens, there are quite a few texts from back then that certainly had significant support and later fell out of favor, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Matthew 7:21 Matthew 12:50 He calls Him "my Father". Not "our Father".

That's not a very good example - I use the phrase "my father" rather than "our father" even though I have a sister. In the Gospels, Jesus never uses the phrase "Son of God" to refer to himself, but repeatedly refers to himself as the "Son of Man" (sounds pretty humanistic to men). Other evidence suggests to me that Jesus presented himself as a Jewish teacher, not God, and the divine stuff - not to mention the trinitarian stuff - came later as his followers tried to beef up his credentials. I could be wrong. Perhaps Jesus went around claiming his divinity to everyone and the gospels watered down his language. I don't find that plausible, but who knows for sure? I'm perfectly comfortable with uncertainty on the matter, and using common sense and logic to arrive at what I see as the most probable conclusions.

It wasn't an insult. Simply an observation. "Until then..." what?

Uh-huh. "You're ugly!" "Why do you insult me?" "It's not an insult, just an observation." You simply made a statement that I don't know what I'm talking about without providing any specific reasons for your statement that I can address. If you'd like to be specific about where I'm wrong, then I can tell you where I agree or disagree with you, but until then, I won't say anything further about that issue.

Millions?!?! I'd say hundreds. Perhaps thousands. But just because there are more than a few doesn't mean they are right.

In my one little town in my one little state, I bet I personally know hundreds of Christians who fit the criteria I mentioned - who aren't Biblical literalists, aren't creationists, and aren't politically conservative. There might even be one or two sneaking around in your church. Many of them have much more theologically conservative beliefs than me, to be sure, but by the criteria I gave, my guess is that 1/3 or so of US Christians fit: Tens of millions, given that there are 200 million or so Christians in the US. Not the majority, but being in the majority doesn't mean you're right either.

"Humanistic"?!? Religion has very little to do with humanism and everything to do with God.

What do you base your "Christianity" on if you do not believe that Jesus was God's only son and that Jesus gave Himself up as a sacrifice for man's sins in an expression of pure love? I mean, that is "literally" what the Bible says.

My own view is that the basic message of Christianity is that God was replaced by a man, a man with a humanistic message that's impossible to miss if you listen to Jesus' true voice and strip away the stuff that was added by those who came later. The symbolism of the cruel, senseless murder by a faceless and oppressive government is entirely humanistic, IMO. The idea that there is a human-like God that could have a "son" makes no sense to me, nor does the "died for our sins" theology of the cross, except in the humanistic sense I mentioned above (that governments shouldn't oppress and murder people).

And again, I'm not sure why you're trying to make an argument to me about what the Bible "literally" says, given that I've said several times that I'm not a literalist. I believe that we can make reasonable guesses, but that we don't know for sure what historically happened thousands of years ago, and in any case, I also believe that what they believed thousands of years ago shouldn't determine our beliefs today. Is that really so crazy?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Oh and to BRussel, if one looks at ancient canons of scripture, you can see how early our current canon was formed. The vast majority of Christians in the late first to the early second century would have accepted the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Letters, the other epistles, and the entire Septuagint (including the deuterocanonical books). Most would have accepted the Gospel of John and Revelations (however some refused it because many Gnostics used them). The vast majority of the so called 'gnostic' gospels were not Christian in origin, but by eclectic gnostic sects that derived many ideas from the Christian faith. We must differentiate between the Gnostics and the Christians. 'catholic' Christians (the predecessors of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Oriental churches) ALWAYS rejected the gnostics and their scriptures.

I agree with everything you say here. The reason I brought up the existence of extra-canonical gospels (and the other issues) was not to say that they're truer or more factual, but to challenge the notion that the Bible was "written by God," as some people seem to think. And I do think it's easy to envision a counterfactual world in which, say, Thomas was in the canon rather than John. Or that they settled on one of the gospels rather than four. Or that some of the gospels were very different - the last part of Mark, for example. It's why literalism doesn't make any sense to me.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by BRussell

My own view is that the basic message of Christianity is that God was replaced by a man, a man with a humanistic message that's impossible to miss if you listen to Jesus' true voice and strip away the stuff that was added by those who came later. The symbolism of the cruel, senseless murder by a faceless and oppressive government is entirely humanistic, IMO. The idea that there is a human-like God that could have a "son" makes no sense to me, nor does the "died for our sins" theology of the cross, except in the humanistic sense I mentioned above (that governments shouldn't oppress and murder people).

I'll ignore all of your other soap-box rants to address that fact that you avoided the most important question I asked. How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore the fact that Jesus was a pure sinless sacrifice? God's Son? What do you base the fact that you call yourself a "Christian" on? Your understanding? How convenient.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I agree with everything you say here. The reason I brought up the existence of extra-canonical gospels (and the other issues) was not to say that they're truer or more factual, but to challenge the notion that the Bible was "written by God," as some people seem to think. And I do think it's easy to envision a counterfactual world in which, say, Thomas was in the canon rather than John. Or that they settled on one of the gospels rather than four. Or that some of the gospels were very different - the last part of Mark, for example. It's why literalism doesn't make any sense to me.

Fundamentalist Christians do not believe that the Bible was "written by God". They believe it was inspired by God, written by men.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How do you have any idea what the "vast majority of Christians" would have done at that time? Heck, you won't even count all Christians as Christians. Basically, you're telling us, "All the Christians who were just like modern mainstream Christians believed in the same stuff modern mainstream Christians believe in." I can believe this is true only because it's tautological.

As it happens, there are quite a few texts from back then that certainly had significant support and later fell out of favor, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound.

No you are misunderstanding me. All I'm saying is that the Canon of New Testament was established fairly early. By the 1st century, all of the New Testament which we have today had been written down. Various texts were associated with different schools of Christianity, but there was a general pattern. The 4 Gospels were accepted by most Christians. Marcion is an exception who only accepted the Gospel of St Luke. We have canons of scripture from St Athanasius, Origen, St Irenaeus which generally agree with one another (most of the disputes were about the epistles).

Texts such as the "Shepherd of Hermas" were not generally regarded as part of scripture itself, even though they may have been used as readings in Church services (just like the Church fathers used to be read at Church). The Shepherd of Hermas was not a gnostic work.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I agree with everything you say here. The reason I brought up the existence of extra-canonical gospels (and the other issues) was not to say that they're truer or more factual, but to challenge the notion that the Bible was "written by God," as some people seem to think. And I do think it's easy to envision a counterfactual world in which, say, Thomas was in the canon rather than John. Or that they settled on one of the gospels rather than four. Or that some of the gospels were very different - the last part of Mark, for example. It's why literalism doesn't make any sense to me.

This is the fundamental flaw of Protestant Christianity. They fail to recognise that our scripture arose out of a tradition which developed with the Church. The scriptures just didn't appear from the middle of nowhere. It is because the scriptures arose out of a tradition that they must be interpreted in light of tradition. Biblical literalism is a movement that is unjustifiable. Why don't those creationists follow the example of Origen and become eunuchs as it is writ?

It must be stressed that there were canons that used the gnostic gospels. But these were not Christian canons. They originated from the communities that lived parallel to the Christian communities, drew inspiration from them, and even contained many Christian apostates and pseudo-Christians. The Church of the Apostles constantly condemend these canons and for the heresies that they contained. One must recognise that our canon only had any authority because of the authority of the Apostles which was transmitted through tradition. And it was out of this authority that we have the Bible today. If we reject the authority of tradition and subscribe to 'sola scriptura', we must ask ourselves - whose 'scriptura' are we placing our trust in? The canon of 'scriptura' can thereby be modelled according to our faith, and indeed this is exactly what happened with Maritn Luther.

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by undotwa

The problem with the Da Vinci Code is not that it's a novel. It's that it claims to be based upon factual evidence, and that many people believe it. And these 'facts' are so overwhelmingly false it's ludicrous.

Okay- everyone keeps claiming the "facts" are not true. Prove it. What are some statements Brown claims to be facts which are not?

I personally think many Christian are upset because someone is pointing out that the history of their faith may be different from what they believe it to be. I hate to break it to you (the Christians of topic) but many of the symbols and traditions of your faith are not exclusive to your faith: gif giving, Christmas in winter, resurection, the divine made flesh, etc. These were all present in more primitive religions.

[ironknee]

the da vinci code has the perfect balance of "fact" and fiction...and that makes it a great mystery like the JFK thing, area 51 et el, atlantis, big foot, jersey devil, bible code, etc...

btw here is my da visual da vinci code nsfw it gets to the point.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Miniryu

Okay- everyone keeps claiming the "facts" are not true. Prove it. What are some statements Brown claims to be facts which are not?

With pleasure. *See the bottom of this post. I want to address your other statements first.

Originally Posted by Miniryu

I personally think many Christian are upset because someone is pointing out that the history of their faith may be different from what they believe it to be.

No, the problem we have is; Brown claims his book is something to make you think based upon his "facts", which he gets wrong.

Originally Posted by Miniryu

I hate to break it to you (the Christians of topic) but many of the symbols and traditions of your faith are not exclusive to your faith: gif giving, Christmas in winter, resurection, the divine made flesh, etc. These were all present in more primitive religions.

No one is denying this. It is a strawman on your part to bring it up.







* All too easy. Here you go.
From: http://web.archive.org/web/200502041...VinciCode.html

p. 309 ~ "The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact
derived from Jehovah …."

Brown has it backwards. YHWH is the older word (from the time when Hebrew was written
without vowels). "Jehovah" is a Latinized word.

p. 21 ~ The big glass pyramid at the Louvre in Paris "at President Mitterand's explicit
demand, had been constructed of exactly 666 panes of glass."

Is that accurate? Someone should tell the people at the Louvre, because their website says
that the Louvre's Pyramid, designed by I.M. Pei, has 673 diamond-shaped panes of glass.

p. 125 ~ "During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an
astounding five million women."

That's pretty astounding, all right. Dr. Brian A. Pavlac of King's College states that a more
accurate figure is in the neighborhood of 50,000 – 200,000, and that most victims were
hanged rather than burned, and they weren't all women.

p. 139 ~ Brown states that the "most obvious and frightening image" consists of the angel
Uriel "making a cutting gesture with his hand – as if slicing the neck of the invisible head
gripped by Mary's claw-like hand."

I don't think Leonardo would appreciate having his rendition of Mary's hand described as
"claw-like." The angel is simply pointing Jesus toward John the Baptist, so as to foreshadow
the time when Jesus would go to John to be baptized. Motifs like this (in which a future
event is "pre-figured") are not particularly rare in Renaissance art.

p. 139 ~ Brown states that Leonardo painted a second version of the picture "in which
everyone was arranged in a more orthodox manner."

Compare the pictures. About the only difference is the introduction of John's reed-cross, and
the position of the angel's hand, and the removal of the angel's robe, so as to show wings.
The arrangement is basically the same.

p. 206 ~ "After all, previous Priory Grand Masters had also been distinguished public
figures with artistic souls. Proof of that fact had been uncovered years ago in Paris'
Bibliotheque Nationale in papers that became known as Les Dossiers Secrets."

In an interview with ABC News, Dan Brown was asked: "Is there any documented proof
outside the secret documents discovered in France in 1966 that a society known as the
Priory of Sion exists or had existed at some point during history?" Brown's response: "Even
the Dossiers Secrets are not proof the order existed (although they do offer an intriguing
glimpse at possible lines of investigation)." How can both statements be true?

p. 231 ~ Teabing states, "His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the
land."

In a very general sense that is true, inasmuch as thousands of people talked about Jesus
during His ministry. But as far as written records of His life are concerned, there are not very
many extant first-century works about Jesus.

p. 231 ~ Teabing states, "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan
Roman emperor Constantine the Great."

Is that accurate? Constantine did instruct Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to produce 50
Bibles for use in his new capital, Constantinople. But there is no evidence that Constantine
took an active role in the selection of books or of manuscripts.

p. 233 ~ Teabing states that the decision at Nicea was "A relatively close vote."

Is 300-to-3 your definition of "relatively close"?

p. 233 ~ Teabing states, "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church
and state."

Dan Brown spent a lot of time doing research for his book; yet he has apparently not grasped
that the words "Christ" and "Messiah" mean the same thing ("Anointed One").

p. 234 ~ Teabing states "The word heretic derives from that moment in history" (in the
time of Constantine, in the early fourth century).

It's pretty amazing, then, that New Testament authors, in the first century, were able to refer
to "heresies" (Second Peter 2:1) and "a man that is a heretic" (Titus 3:10), and that the
second-century bishop Irenaeus was able to write a thick book entitled "Against Heresies."

p. 236 ~ Teabing says, "Oddly, Da Vinci appears to have forgotten to paint the Cup of
Christ." This is strange, because on the same page Brown mentions that in The Last
Supper, "everyone at the table had a glass of wine, including Christ."

A wine-glass is plainly in view on the table in front of Christ. This may seem odd to people
who are used to thinking of the Holy Grail as a chalice, but the New Testament uses the
everyday word for "cup" when describing the cup Christ used at the Last Supper; there is no
Bible-based reason to expect it to be a chalice.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Matthew 7:21 Matthew 12:50 He calls Him "my Father". Not "our Father".

He also said he is a son of God, and, I thought that it was a no-no to take scriptures out of context…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

"Literalist forms of Christianity"?!? You mean you don't believe Jesus was God's only son?

Wasn't it YOU who said this to me:

Obviously you read the Bible as a literal document.

Yup... you're a literalist. BORING!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I'll ignore all of your other soap-box rants to address that fact that you avoided the most important question I asked. How can you call yourself a Christian if you ignore the fact that Jesus was a pure sinless sacrifice? God's Son? What do you base the fact that you call yourself a "Christian" on? Your understanding? How convenient.

There is plenty in the bible to suggest that Jesus' message was that of a mystic…that we are all one with God. Are you a literalist? Can't you see that the message of the bible isn't necessarily what the Catholic church says it is? You DO realize that it is they that are responsible for assembling the scriptures that THEY approved of and re-writing and editing it, right? THIS is the origin of the bible as we know it.

Many theologians have pointed out the the emphasis on Jesus being the ONLY son of God was exaggerated by the Church, whom had real political power in those days and used it to transform the teachings of Jesus into the religion about Jesus.

I'm not saying that this view is the right one, or that there is even a right view at all. What I am getting at is that your view of who Jesus was and what the bible is supposed to tell us is just that. YOUR view. It is only the opinion of you and those who agree with you. Opinion and nothing more. How can you say the BRussell is wrong in his view? Just because you say so? Because those at your church say so? In matters of the bible there is NOTHING to go on BUT opinion.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by smacintush

There is plenty in the bible to suggest that Jesus' message was that of a mystic…that we are all one with God. Are you a literalist? Can't you see that the message of the bible isn't necessarily what the Catholic church says it is? You DO realize that it is they that are responsible for assembling the scriptures that THEY approved of and re-writing and editing it, right? THIS is the origin of the bible as we know it.

Many theologians have pointed out the the emphasis on Jesus being the ONLY son of God was exaggerated by the Church, whom had real political power in those days and used it to transform the teachings of Jesus into the religion about Jesus.

I'm not saying that this view is the right one, or that there is even a right view at all. What I am getting at is that your view of who Jesus was and what the bible is supposed to tell us is just that. YOUR view. It is only the opinion of you and those who agree with you. Opinion and nothing more. How can you say the BRussell is wrong in his view? Just because you say so? Because those at your church say so?

I don't think you realise that the canons of scripture were formulated before the church had political power, in the second century AD. It's not something invented by Constantine (another claim spurted by Dan Brown, again incompatible with the historical record).

In matters of the bible there is NOTHING to go on BUT opinion.

That's why we have tradition, otherwise Christianity descends into subjectivism.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Well, you could point to the fact that the words "A NOVEL" are written in big block letters on the front cover of every copy of the book.

Some people want to believe regardless. Esp if it backs up their ideals. So that doesn't matter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush

He also said he is a son of God, and, I thought that it was a no-no to take scriptures out of context…

He also gave the answer "I am" when asked if he was the son of God.

"I AM" is known to be what God calls himself. They knew this.

Jesus loved to play on words.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Kevin

He also gave the answer "I am" when asked if he was the son of God.

"I AM" is known to be what God calls himself. They knew this.

Jesus loved to play on words.

The Gospel of John and St Paul are very explicit about Jesus Christ's divinity.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Wasn't it YOU who said this to me:

Again, you don't quite get what BRussell and I are talking about. Nice troll work though.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

He also said he is a son of God, and, I thought that it was a no-no to take scriptures out of context…

Who's taking them out of context? You?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

There is plenty in the bible to suggest that Jesus' message was that of a mystic…that we are all one with God. Are you a literalist? Can't you see that the message of the bible isn't necessarily what the Catholic church says it is?

I literally believe that Jesus was God's only son and that Jesus gave Himself up as a pure sacrifice for man's sins in an expression of pure love and that only by accepting that sacrifice for my sins and repenting can I be reunited with God.

Do you read what I write at all? I disagree with the Catholic Church more than I agree with them. I am NOT a member of the Catholic Church and never will be.

Originally Posted by smacintush

You DO realize that it is they that are responsible for assembling the scriptures that THEY approved of and re-writing and editing it, right? THIS is the origin of the bible as we know it.

False. FUD. You're like Dan Brown now. Without the best seller books and the money of course.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by undotwa

The Gospel of John and St Paul are very explicit about Jesus Christ's divinity.

Gospel of St. Paul? You mean the Epistles written by Paul right?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some people want to believe regardless. Esp if it backs up their ideals. So that doesn't matter.

And there lies the problem. People want to have something to attack the Bible. The amazing part is they take something so horrible flawed to do so.

It would be like attacking an elephant with a gun that didn't have a barrel, stock, firing pin, trigger, or even a trigger guard. And then trying to use bullets without any gun powder. When that elephant offers you no harm and only wishes you good will.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I don't think you realise that the canons of scripture were formulated before the church had political power, in the second century AD. It's not something invented by Constantine (another claim spurted by Dan Brown, again incompatible with the historical record).

Well, I wasn't extremely clear.

The Catholic Church decided which books were to be in the new testament in the late 300's under Pope Damasus. The 27 books of the new testament and the the approved list of books of the old testament were promulgated by the 3rd council of Carthage in 397, and then again by the 6th council of Carthage in 419. When this took place the church DID have power. Not the kind of power that they would gain later but still, power enough to give to the world a book which would be the basis for Christianity.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, you don't quite get what BRussell and I are talking about. Nice troll work though.

Again you are being hypocritical. Nice dodge though.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Who's taking them out of context? You?

Do you read your own posts or do you just randomly mash keys and hit submit?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I disagree with the Catholic Church more than I agree with them. I am NOT a member of the Catholic Church and never will be.

Well, we agree on that then!

False. FUD. You're like Dan Brown now. Without the best seller books and the money of course.

So you are comparing me to someone who lies for monetary gain?

At times I may be mistaken about things (not often…) but everything I write in reference to religion is the result of my own personal search for answers, not to create a controversy that sells books.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

False. FUD. You're like Dan Brown now. Without the best seller books and the money of course.

Who do you reckon established the canon if not the Church councils?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by smacintush

He also said he is a son of God, and, I thought that it was a no-no to take scriptures out of context…

Name me the reference in the Bible where Jesus called Himself "a son of God." It doesn't exist. I just double-checked.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Gospel of St. Paul? You mean the Epistles written by Paul right?

I didn't say "Gospel of St Paul" I said 'St Paul'. Read: "Gospel of John and St Paul". "Gospel" is in the singular. For me to be referring to a mythical gospel of St Paul as well as John, I would have had to put "gospel" in the plural, "Gospels of John and St Paul". Yes, my language is a little bit ambiguous but it is obvious what I'm talking about!

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, I wasn't extremely clear.

The Catholic Church decided which books were to be in the new testament in the late 300's under Pope Damasus. The 27 books of the new testament and the the approved list of books of the old testament were promulgated by the 3rd council of Carthage in 397, and then again by the 6th council of Carthage in 419. When this took place the church DID have power. Not the kind of power that they would gain later but still, power enough to give to the world a book which would be the basis for Christianity.

The canon of scripture is much older than 300s. St Irenaeus gave us a list of books very similar (it could even be identical) in the 2nd century. The Catholic Church in the 300s was simply reaffirming the traditional canon of scriptures.