Post Number: 218
|Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 2:48 am: || |
I started this thread becaused I amused myself when I had read the book ÑThe Da Vinci Codeî by Dan Brown, arriving at the conclusion that the SDA church should be happy and give praise to Dan Brown for he promotes one of the fundamentals "truths" of their church. of course, this is only an irony of life, to have Dan Brown on SDA side.
The book capitalize on the fact that the RCC church used the christian faith for political purposes, and cast doubt on the fundamental belief of christianity, the deity of Jesus. In the same argument is introduced the idea of changing the Sabbath. Read below a significant dialogue from the book
In Constantine's day, Rome's official religion was sun worshipóthe cult of Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sunóand Constantine was its head priest. Unfortunately for him, a growing religious turmoil was gripping Rome. Three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Christ's followers had multiplied exponentially. Christians and pagans began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two. Constantine decided something had to be done. In 325 A.D., he decided to unify Rome under a single religion. Christianity."
Sophie was surprised. "Why would a pagan emperor choose Christianity as the official religion?"
Teabing chuckled. "Constantine was a very good businessman. He could see that Christianity was on the rise, and he simply backed the winning horse. Historians still marvel at the brilliance with which Constantine converted the sun-worshipping pagans to Christianity. By fusing pagan symbols, dates, and rituals into the growing Christian tradition, he created a kind of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties."
"Transmogrification," Langdon said. "The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritualóthe miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating"ówere taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions."
Teabing groaned. "Don't get a symbologist started on Christian icons. Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithrasócalled the Son of God and the Light of the Worldówas born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."
"What do you mean?"
"Originally," Langdon said, "Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan's veneration day of the sun." He paused, grinning. "To this day, most churchgoers attend services on Sunday morning with no idea that they are there on account of the pagan sun god's weekly tributeóSunday."
Sophie's head was spinning. "And all of this relates to the Grail?"
"Indeed," Teabing said. "Stay with me. During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea."
Sophie had heard of it only insofar as its being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.
"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted uponóthe date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."
"I don't follow. His divinity?"
"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."
"Not the Son of God?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."
"Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"
"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. "Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channelóthe Roman Catholic Church."
Remember that the SDA pioneers also believed that the Trinity is a Roman Catholic Church invention, not a christian belief. They are not far from Dan Brown philosophy of history, a conspirational view. Both SDA church and Dan Brown promote historical fiction, and both are responsible for many who lost their faith in the Bible. Let's pray for all people affected deeply by these attacks.
Post Number: 3998
|Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 9:40 pm: || |
I agree, Jackob. Richard and I spent the weekend with Dale and Carolyn Ratzlaff, and we attended (for the first time) Mark Martin's church in Phoenix. He preached his first of two sermons on the DaVinci code.
He presented a great deal of historic evidence and dates that clearly show that Dan Brown not only made up his book but ignored and contradicted actual historical and archeological evidence that is well-known. While Brown states that the NT canon was established at the council of Nicea in 325, in reality all 27 books of the NT plus two more that were later dropped because their authoriship could not be established were already an accepted unit by 170 AD. In the 1700's an ancient document was uncovered (I forget the name of it) that was ascertained to be an original copy of an original 170 AD document. It listed the 27 books (plus the two). It also listed accepted writings that were devotional but not considered canonic, and it further listed a series of books that were NOT acceptable but were heretical. These books were well-known and established long before Constantine.
Further, the canon was not on the list of items discussed at the council of Nicea.
Et cetera. It was very good.
Post Number: 220
|Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 9:52 pm: || |
It's about Muratori Canon. I watched also Mark Matin's sermon online, broadband. I'll come back alter with more information.
Post Number: 4005
|Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 11:22 pm: || |
Thanks, Jackob. Muratori Canon is right! Thanks for the forthcoming added information...
Post Number: 106
|Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:29 am: || |
I went to www.calvaryphx.com and listened to his sermon on the DaVinvi Code. Interesting church history. Am looking forward to next week. Peggy
Post Number: 2196
|Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:00 pm: || |
I just can't understand all the hullabloo over the Da Vence Code. It says right on the jacket cover 'fiction'. So I just don't get how come folks are taking it as fact. However, my National Sunday Law book by Jan Marcussian is passed off as fact. It too should say 'fiction' on the jacket. My type of movie experiences lean more towards Larry the cable Guy, Health Inspector.
Post Number: 223
|Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 3:24 pm: || |
Someone must read the book to udnerstand the real power behind it, to get the feeling. It's all in the context. If the same informations will be presented in another context, these will not have the influence like they have being included in The Da Vinci Code.
Dan Brownís primarily attack is directed against the way we know, against the way we arrive at the knowledge of what is truth and what is false. Reading his book will influence the reader to question the christianity, the Bible, everything. Not because Dan Brown presents scientific proofs which are so clear that, comparing to them, the christian proofs appear weak.
But how the book is such a succes, and convinced many that almost everything about christianity is wrong? Iíll come back with other examples, now I have time just for one.
Letís suppose someone said ÑHitler was a very bad manî How do we know that Hitler was not a good man? We have proofs: movies, books, records of the killing of jews, pictures. We have acces to the past by the records and only through the records.
Suppose Hitler won the war, and in time conquered all the world. He will be the winner. How will the records about his life, his accomplishments will look like? Will he be presented as a bad or as a good man, as a killer or as a saviour, as a benefactor or destroyer? Itís obvious, Hitler will be the hero, and all who today are the heroes will be demonized. Why? Because the winner writes the history. If Hitler will be the winner, he will be a hero.
Well, this is the way Dan Brown speaks about christianity. By christianity he means Roman Catholic Church, the historical winner. The RCC promotes the deity of Jesus, the RCC is the winner, and the winner writes the history. And we know about the Donation of Constantine and many other forgeries of the church, we know about Inquisition, persecutions. We know how much the winner respects the truths of science, remember ÑE pur si muoveî of Galileo Galilei. We know that the winner is not to be trusted in speaking the truth.So, why we must accept what this church is teaching, namely, that Jesus is God? This is the way Dan Brown presents his case.
Now, suppose for a second that Judaism had succeded in eliminating all the believers in Jesus. There will be no more person to believe and maintain that Christ is God. All the christian books who present Jesus as God were burned. The judaism, which negates His divinity is the winner. What will you know about Jesus? That he was a human as like all are, and nothing more. He was crucified, but never rised from the dead. No Eastern, of course. And we have today the belief in the deity of Jesus because the judaism failed to exterminate all christians.
How all of this sounds? That Jesus being divine is only what the RCC church says, which has no credibility because the church persecuted, tortured, fabricated so called proofs to justificate her selfish practices. The deity of Christ is also a lie, and so onÖÖÖ.
This is one an single example of creating doubts in Dan Brownís book. Iíll come back later to present my response to the idea that we cannot know the historical reality because the history is written by the winners, who write all that suits their selfish purposes.
Post Number: 4009
|Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 5:48 pm: || |
Jackob, thank you for doing this overview of the DaVinci Code. It is very interesting and insightful.
Post Number: 452
|Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:09 pm: || |
I've received e-mails from both SDA's and Messianic Jews using the exact quote that Jakob started this thread with. The 'pitch' is that the early Christian church was very Jewish, kept the Sabbath and the festivals. Then, this was all changed by the bad 'ol Catholic Church and Emperor Constatine.
It never fails to amaze me how some folks will fall for the most outrageous, revisionist historical claims without checking the sources!
Post Number: 225
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 6:43 am: || |
The idea that history is written by the winner party automatically places the historical truth on the side of the looser party. This method of arriving at truth is totally unreliable because if for some reason the actual winner become the looser, his history of truth becomes automatically the true story. What today is a lie, tomorrow may be the truth, and so on.
If today gnostic christianity will be in the place of RCC, with a dominant position, according to Dan Brown, all that gnostic christians teach about Jesus, namely that He is only human, was married with Mary Mag. and He had children is nothing but a fake. Why? "Because history is written by the winners" Sad irony! The whole method is self-refuting.
Post Number: 1698
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:07 pm: || |
I am glad it is God who chooses the winners!
Post Number: 51
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:45 pm: || |
My view of the idea that "history is written by the winners" is not that this implies that losers are automatically right instead, but that we can't necessarily assume that the winning party is telling the whole truth. They may not have even known the whole truth, they may have had their own agenda. No side ever tells the 'whole' truth, simply because as human beings we are always biased in the direction of our own opinions and limited in how much we CAN know about any given situation. So the way I approach any subject is to try to find as much opinion from ALL sides of the discussion in hopes of eventually making an informed decision for myself. Which, incidentally may very well still be biased in the direction of my own opinion for the reason I just mentioned.
I have to admit, I am always a little suspicious if a person (or group) insists that their view is totally right, and the other side is totally wrong. This usually is not the case in the real world. Life is complex, human beings are complex, and most situations are just not that cut-and-dried.
I have read lots of books that purport to present 'the other side' (whether regarding religion, politics or any other controversial and emotion-laden issues) and I find them all very interesting for that reason--because I at least get to hear someone else's point of view. These alternative views don't necessarily always convince me of anything, other than what I already knew--that people can have widely varying opinions on any number of subjects.
When I read The DaVinci Code, I had already encountered most of the ideas contained in it. I enjoyed it as a novel, and I do remember feeling that at least some of the criticisms aimed at the Roman Catholic Church were justified, but that doesn't mean that I condemn the church as a whole or Dan Brown for writing it. I really think that no believing Christian would be swayed by the ideas it presents, and any other people who read it are probably just people who are looking for 'a good read', or people who are already looking for anything at all to dissuade them of Christianity anyway. If indeed that's what they're looking for, they'll find it, one way or another. I don't think that one book will make the difference. In any case, I think that the truth eventually will always stand up to criticism or a variant viewpoint. Am I just being too trusting or 'Pollyanna-ish'??
All in all, I am just not a big fan of censureship so it's hard for me to condemn any book. I just don't read it if I really, really disapprove of or dislike the subject matter.
However, all the talk that is swirling around these days has made me want to go back and re-read the book, just so that I can be informed. I really don't remember much about it except the general plot outline.
Anyway that's my opinion, for what it's worth.
Post Number: 8
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 7:29 pm: || |
Hi everyone, Go to http://www.whitehorseinn.org/previous_programs.htm and in their previous programs section they have an audio message about the Da vinci code refuting the hypothesis that history is always written by the winners. It is just an idea that Dan Brown throws out that has no real historical basis. It is worth a listen if you have questions or doubts. I haven't read the book or seen the movie and I don't plan too because of its heritical nature but to each their own....Rick
Post Number: 1699
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:06 pm: || |
That was an excellent interview with the Lutheran scholar Dr. Paul Maier. As usual the White Horse Inn is one of the best Christian radio shows that there is.
Post Number: 227
|Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:09 pm: || |
Personally I will be suspicious if the Bible will not claim that she is totally right. In my view, any book who is claiming to be the Word of God must also claim to be entirely trustworthy. If the book does not make this claim, my supposition will be that the God who wanted to say something to me by it is not entirely trustworthy.
In the game of life, usually we take decision without being sure we know the truth with 100% certainty. But in the game of life and death, in things pertaining to our future and eternal destiny, I need 100% assurance that what I hear or read is the true message of God to me.
Post Number: 224
|Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:03 pm: || |
I enjoyed Mark Martin's teaching, thanks for posting it Peggy.
Joyce, you make some good points. Life, people and issues are certainly complex, and trying to put things in simplistic boxes is not always helpful. I have also read "Angels and Demons," and some of the criticisms of the Catholic Church certainly are valid, though Brown is wrong in equating that church with the views of all Christians.
As far as the Da Vinci Code is concerned, I don't see how it, or any other of the rather silly criticisms of Christianity, would shake the faith of someone who has a genuine relationship with God. If someone has been walking with Christ and experiencing his presence and guidance and care for years, then the discovery of some extra ancient manuscripts is not really going to make me not believe the Bible - I don't think.
Just my view,
Post Number: 231
|Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 3:10 pm: || |
You saw one of the reasons the book has success. Part of the criticism of the Catholic Church is valid. And because of this valid, people will tend to distrust everything the catholic church believes, including the deity of Jesus.
What's amazing is how people can buy such totally unsupported historical claims, like the fact that the deity of Jesus was voted and almost half of those presents voted against it. There are no historical proofs for this, the only proof is against this thesis. Perhaps it can be contested, but it's a proof and Dan Brown has no historical proof. Without a backup Dan Brown asks us to believe without proof! And this is in a age which condemns the blind faith, and pretends empirical proofs at every
This is reason why, in this confrontation, I choose the Bible, because the Bible has a backup which the other gnostic gospel have not.
Post Number: 55
|Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 4:12 pm: || |
Well, now, aren't there church documents of those historical conclaves where a lot of the doctrine was hammered out? Nicea, and others? Like which writings were accepted into the canon? The beliefs about Jesus? I think it's rather naive to think that doctrine wasn't determined back in those days in the same way that it was determined by the early Adventist church, or any other religion that has ever been formed. Early followers of the religion discuss, argue, vote, decide.... I think if the religion is to be considered to have any validity at all, it needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny and challenge and study. Of course, whatever a person chooses to believe about the Bible, or any other scripture is a personal matter. But I see no reason to dismiss any historical evidence, simply because I personally have not laid eyes or hands on it.
I think this is the reason so many people have such a great interest in newly discovered documents or evidence---they want to explore all possibilities, that's all.
My opinion only,
Post Number: 4033
|Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:10 pm: || |
You have a point, Joyceóthe problem with Dan Brown's book is that he makes statements, for example, of decisions and votes made at the Council of Nicea which did not happen at the Council of Nicea. For example, the NT canon was acknowledged and in place long before the Council of Niceaóover 150 years earlieróyet Brown states that the canon was voted on at that Council. It was not, nor was it on the list of items discussed at the meeting.
Since the book is billed as historical fiction, one expects that certain "historic facts" stated in the book must be trueóthings like dates that generally are true in historical fiction. But many of Brown's claims of historical accuracy are just plain fabrications. That, I believe, is the problem Jackob is addressing regarding this book.
Post Number: 233
|Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:36 pm: || |
Yes, Colleen, Dan Brown fabricated historical events which people believe are historical accurate. And he presented these things without evidence. But because the people believe in the conspiracy of the christianity, they will give credit to these without proofs.
Post Number: 126
|Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 6:09 am: || |
In Sunday school yesterday our teacher heard a fox-poll about people's belief in the Bible. It went like this....
30% believe the Bible is the Word of God
48% believe it is inspired but not 100% applicable
22% believe it is a bunch of fables
It sounds like hot-LUKEWARM-cold to me!! Therein lies the danger of the Da Vinci Code. Mixing truth and error till you just can't tell which is which!
Post Number: 4067
|Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 8:13 pm: || |
So true, Bb.
Post Number: 4074
|Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 6:34 pm: || |
This past Sunday our pastor preached the first of two sermons dealing with the claims and assumptions of the DaVinci Code. It was detailed and excellent. You can listen here:
Post Number: 395
|Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:24 am: || |
As I was reading an article about the DaVinci Code it occured to me that this movie is much like "National Treasure" with Nicolas Cage. I love that movie and have seen it several times. My 14yo daughter also loves to watch it with me. The important part is that we know there was no national treasure and that it is all in fun. What are your opinions on this approach to the DaVinci Code? Just acknowledge it for what it is a work of fiction with some facts intertwained in and make sure you talk about it with anyone who is interested about how the fiction is there. What a great opportunity for a Bible study.