Adversus Da Vinci, Pt. 1
Jesus Christ: The God-Man
We began discussing The Da Vinci Code with an eye on St. Peter's instruction to "Simply proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts, and always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15).
What is the reason for our hope? Our faith in Jesus Christ, knowing that His death and resurrection has saved us and set us free. This is the Truth, about which Jesus said, "If you make My word your home, you will indeed be My disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32). What is He saying? That we need to live according to the Truth in order to be free! So what is the Truth that we need to know? Later in the Gospel of John, Jesus tells us point blank: "I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Christ Himself is the Truth that we need to know!
But Dan Brown has a different notion: in his book, he has his character, Leigh Teabing, say, "Constantine's Bible has been their truth for ages. Nobody is more indoctrinated than the indoctrinator...[A]lmost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false" (ch 55. p. 235 in the Hardcover version published by Doubleday, emphasis in the original).
This is what The Da Vinci Code teaches is the truth about Christ:
In fact, the Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine, who had converted about 12 to 13 years earlier. But Constantine wasn't a theologian, he was a king, who wanted peace in his Empire. In AD 313, he issued the Edict of Milan which made Christianity a legal religion. (Contrary to Brown's assertion, Constantine never made Christianity the "official" religion of the Roman Empire. That was done nearly a century later by a guy named Theodosius. All Constantine did was make it illegal to continue persecuting Christians.) Now that Christianity was legal, and the leaders of the Church no longer had to fear for their lives on a daily basis, they were better able to spread the Gospel throughout the land. Unfortunately, some people had a distorted version of Christianity--in particular, one priest from Egypt, named Arius. Arius taught that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that God made Jesus and gave Him divine power, making Him something of a demi-god or a secondary god, as opposed to the One True God. Unfortunately, Arius was a pretty clever and convincing fellow, and a good large portion of the Church listened to him. However, there were those who still clung to the faith of the Apostles and contended with Arius.
Enter Constantine, who wanted an end to the infighting, so in AD 325, he gets all the Bishops together to hash out the issue. But remember, unlike what Brown says, the question of Jesus divinity was not "Was Jesus God or just human?" but "In what way was Jesus God?" Everyone at that Council believed that Jesus was divine!
Most of the Bishops that were at the Council actually agreed with Arius' teaching--and in fact, again, contrary to what Brown says, even Constantine leaned in favour of the Arian position! But Constantine recognised that he had no authority to make a pronouncement, and left that to the Bishops. For a while they wrangled over metaphysics and philosophical theories, until finally the simple question was proposed, "What did the Apostles believe? What did they teach?" When that question became the basis of the discussion, the answer was arrived at very quickly. About this decision, Dan Brown claims that the vote was "a relatively close one". In my mind, at a council of 220 Bishops, a close vote might look something like 115-105, or 120-110. To be generous, I'd even toss out 130-90.
But what Dan Brown describes as "a relatively close vote" was 218-2 in favour of the Apostles' teaching--That Jesus Christ really was God! This was the Teaching of the Apostles, and their successors! Don't believe me? Here are some quotations from the Early Church Fathers, all of which were written before the Council of Nicaea (The quotations are in chronological order. The dates are with the citations of the documents. I've bolded particularly poignant ones):
Now here's the thing: had Jesus just been human, even a really great human like The Da Vinci Code says, His death would have only been worth the death of a human. One for one!
On the other hand, had Jesus been only God, and not truly human, but only "dressed up like one" as some cultish religions, like the Gnostics, teach, He would not have had the right to pay that debt on our behalf. To really represent humanity, the payer of the debt must himself be human.
So Jesus, who is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God" in the words of the Nicaean Creed, became a Man "for us men and for our salvation," so that, as a Man, He could represent humanity, and as God, His death would be of infinite worth--because God is an infinite God. His sacrifice is worth enough to pay the debt of sin for everyone, from Adam and Eve to the very last people to live on earth!
That's the Truth that sets us free, if we choose to live in it! That's the truth that Dan Brown seeks to subvert and destroy in his novel!
That's the Gospel. Don't let anyone rob you of it!
God bless!
We began discussing The Da Vinci Code with an eye on St. Peter's instruction to "Simply proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts, and always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15).
What is the reason for our hope? Our faith in Jesus Christ, knowing that His death and resurrection has saved us and set us free. This is the Truth, about which Jesus said, "If you make My word your home, you will indeed be My disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32). What is He saying? That we need to live according to the Truth in order to be free! So what is the Truth that we need to know? Later in the Gospel of John, Jesus tells us point blank: "I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Christ Himself is the Truth that we need to know!
But Dan Brown has a different notion: in his book, he has his character, Leigh Teabing, say, "Constantine's Bible has been their truth for ages. Nobody is more indoctrinated than the indoctrinator...[A]lmost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false" (ch 55. p. 235 in the Hardcover version published by Doubleday, emphasis in the original).
This is what The Da Vinci Code teaches is the truth about Christ:
"Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions, and founded new philosophies. As a descendant of the lines of King Solomon and King David, Jesus possessed a rightful claim to the throne of the King of the Jews. Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land" (Teabing, p. 231).Sounds pretty impressive. Brown really gives Jesus a lot of credit! Calling Him the King of the Jews, the Messiah, and a great human prophet who inspires millions! But the key is that Brown claims Jesus was only a human being. He goes on to describe the Council of Nicaea in AD 325:
"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon--the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of the sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."But is this actually the historic truth? Dan Brown wants us to believe that it is. After all, on his so-called "Fact" page, he says that the descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate. Well, the Council of Nicaea was recorded--documented--and he "describes" the Council here. Well, if his "facts" are indeed facts, then this should be an accurate description of the Council.
"I don't follow. His divinity?" [Sophie Neveu, the main female character, says.]
"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 that 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 through the established sacred channel--the Roman Catholic Church."
Sophie glanced at Langdon [the main male character], and he gave her a soft nod of concurrence.
"It was all about power," Teabing continued. "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power"(p. 233).
In fact, the Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine, who had converted about 12 to 13 years earlier. But Constantine wasn't a theologian, he was a king, who wanted peace in his Empire. In AD 313, he issued the Edict of Milan which made Christianity a legal religion. (Contrary to Brown's assertion, Constantine never made Christianity the "official" religion of the Roman Empire. That was done nearly a century later by a guy named Theodosius. All Constantine did was make it illegal to continue persecuting Christians.) Now that Christianity was legal, and the leaders of the Church no longer had to fear for their lives on a daily basis, they were better able to spread the Gospel throughout the land. Unfortunately, some people had a distorted version of Christianity--in particular, one priest from Egypt, named Arius. Arius taught that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that God made Jesus and gave Him divine power, making Him something of a demi-god or a secondary god, as opposed to the One True God. Unfortunately, Arius was a pretty clever and convincing fellow, and a good large portion of the Church listened to him. However, there were those who still clung to the faith of the Apostles and contended with Arius.
Enter Constantine, who wanted an end to the infighting, so in AD 325, he gets all the Bishops together to hash out the issue. But remember, unlike what Brown says, the question of Jesus divinity was not "Was Jesus God or just human?" but "In what way was Jesus God?" Everyone at that Council believed that Jesus was divine!
Most of the Bishops that were at the Council actually agreed with Arius' teaching--and in fact, again, contrary to what Brown says, even Constantine leaned in favour of the Arian position! But Constantine recognised that he had no authority to make a pronouncement, and left that to the Bishops. For a while they wrangled over metaphysics and philosophical theories, until finally the simple question was proposed, "What did the Apostles believe? What did they teach?" When that question became the basis of the discussion, the answer was arrived at very quickly. About this decision, Dan Brown claims that the vote was "a relatively close one". In my mind, at a council of 220 Bishops, a close vote might look something like 115-105, or 120-110. To be generous, I'd even toss out 130-90.
But what Dan Brown describes as "a relatively close vote" was 218-2 in favour of the Apostles' teaching--That Jesus Christ really was God! This was the Teaching of the Apostles, and their successors! Don't believe me? Here are some quotations from the Early Church Fathers, all of which were written before the Council of Nicaea (The quotations are in chronological order. The dates are with the citations of the documents. I've bolded particularly poignant ones):
Ignatius of AntiochSo why is it important for us to actually believe that Jesus was both completely God and completely human? Because otherwise, He could not have saved us. Through sin, humanity put themselves in debt to God. The payment of that debt is death--and not just physical death, but eternal death: separation from God in Hell. That's what we deserve. But obviously, that's a debt that we can't pay. So God, out of Gracious Love for us, chose to pay that debt for us, through Jesus Christ.
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia... predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides
"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
Tatian the Syrian
"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
Melito of Sardis
"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai's The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth..." (Adversus Haereses 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord... may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).
Clement of Alexandria
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning--for he was in God--and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).
"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).
Tertullian
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6-7 [A.D. 210]).
"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus of Rome
"Only [God's] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).
Novatian
"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, 'And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?' [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, 'And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,' except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, 'And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;' but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit]..." (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal.... And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Arnobius
"'Well, then,' some raging, angry, and excited man will say, 'is that Christ your God?' 'God indeed,' we shall answer, 'and God of the hidden powers'" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).
Lactantius
"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).
"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son--which assertion has driven many into the greatest error...[thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal.... [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28-29). (This list was compiled by the great people at Catholic Answers: Click here for the whole article.)
Now here's the thing: had Jesus just been human, even a really great human like The Da Vinci Code says, His death would have only been worth the death of a human. One for one!
On the other hand, had Jesus been only God, and not truly human, but only "dressed up like one" as some cultish religions, like the Gnostics, teach, He would not have had the right to pay that debt on our behalf. To really represent humanity, the payer of the debt must himself be human.
So Jesus, who is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God" in the words of the Nicaean Creed, became a Man "for us men and for our salvation," so that, as a Man, He could represent humanity, and as God, His death would be of infinite worth--because God is an infinite God. His sacrifice is worth enough to pay the debt of sin for everyone, from Adam and Eve to the very last people to live on earth!
That's the Truth that sets us free, if we choose to live in it! That's the truth that Dan Brown seeks to subvert and destroy in his novel!
That's the Gospel. Don't let anyone rob you of it!
God bless!
Labels: Apologetics, Da Vinci Code, Jesus, St. Andrew's
posted by Gregory at 11:00 a.m.
6 Comments:
Beautiful.
Hello Gregory,
You will not initially agree with everything I reveal, but be a little patient with my long-winded presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.
Peace...
Here is the key to understanding what the Vatican and Papacy truly fear...
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...
Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...
There's much more to the story of the Vatican's recent machinations than meets the eye. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have now been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. These recent controversies are spurring people to reevaluate the Vatican/Papacy and the religions that Rome spawned, at the worst possible time for them.
Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?
The DaVinci Code novel and movie are no more inaccurate as literal versions of history than the New Testament. The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. In other words, none of these stories represent the literal truth. This is the common and pivotal fact of all such narratives about ancient Hebrew and Christian history. Debating whether the DaVinci Code, Gnostic texts, or the Bible are accurate history is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth by directing your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.
There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else. It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. The Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.
If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, Quran, DaVinci Code, and other related sources. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!
It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity. This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican's long-term deceptions.
Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful. When you combine proof that the New Testament Gospels are not wholly literal with proof that these texts were heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity, you are left with only one possible conclusion. The Vatican has long lied to everyone about the central tenets and history of Christianity. This revelation also proves they are not the Creator’s representatives but Her long-time opponents. The recent hoopla over the Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code demonstrates they are still desperately trying to deceive the world and obfuscate their true nature and activities.
It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth?
Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)
Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
Here is Wisdom!!
Revelations from the Apocalypse
Thanks Eric.
Seven Star Hand, I don't know who you are, but that was just weird. And long. And didn't make much sense. Excuse me while I dissect it.
Seven Star Hand said...
Hello Gregory,
You will not initially agree with everything I reveal,
Initially? I'd say my disagreement will go beyond "initially". Pretty much anyone who has to start a conversation by telling me I won't agree with them, is probably right. Guess that makes me "narrow-minded" right? About as narrow-minded as the guy who refuses to accept that 2+2=5.
but be a little patient
Here's me, being patient.
with my long-winded presentation
Indeed. You make me look brief.
of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say.
A long time? How's that? Are you saying you've waited a while to post something on my blog (1.5 years is "a long time"?) Do we know each other, and you've waited less than 26 years to say something to me? Or is a long time simply your way of saying that you have a short attention span?
I promise to amaze and enlighten.
I doubt it. Don't make promises that you can't keep.
Peace...
Indeed.
Here is the key to understanding what the Vatican and Papacy truly fear...
I wasn't aware they feared anything. Except spiders, maybe. Those are just creepy.
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...
How nice. You talk like a fortune cookie, and then warn us that if we mock you for doing so, it just proves that you're right. Are you actually going to say anything, though? That remains to be seen.
Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...
The guy who just said "profundity knocks" is now talking about a "hot potato"? Potatoes don't have bones.
There's much more to the story of the Vatican's recent machinations than meets the eye.
"Recent Machinations." Nice. Was this post an experiment to see how many clichés you could string together in one post? Really, anyone who comes here, especially one with a clever-ish name like Seven Star Hand (be a cool name for a band), I try to respect and give the benefit of the doubt. But when somebody comes here and goes on conspiracy-theory about my faith, with no argument but just a bunch of pseudo-intelligent clichés, it's a bit of a challenge to read with a straight face.
It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se,
Really? 'Cause I thought it was for sure hack literature and really old news that got our knickers all in a twist. Amazing.
but the fact that people have now been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear.
Gasp! Not seek the truth! Wouldn't want that at all!
And you, appear, in an age of deception? Just who do you think you are, SSH? Jesus? More like Anti-Jesus...Anti-Christ! Where do you get off?
These recent controversies are spurring people to reevaluate the Vatican/Papacy and the religions that Rome spawned, at the worst possible time for them.
Yes, people are "reevaluating" Catholicism and all of Christianity. Okay. I hope so. Because if they are truly seeking the truth about Catholicism, Christ, and all of it, then I pray that God brings them to the Truth, as He has brought me. In this day and age, I'd say "reevaluating" is too generous a term, since most people in this culture haven't even evaluated, and could scarcely be described as doing anything nearly so intellectual as evaluating, now. Pity. We could take the scrutiny.
Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?
Remember, "My Sheep know My voice..."?
The DaVinci Code novel and movie are no more inaccurate as literal versions of history than the New Testament.
Riiiight. For that sentence alone, I should have just deleted you and not cared. See how patient I am?
The primary sub-plot involved purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts.
"Symbology" is neither a discipline, technique, nor even a word. If you were who you implied that you were, you'd know that. But instead you ramble on with this pseudo-gnosis and shadowy sophistry, and expect us to be like Sophie Neveu in the DVC: stand there all novel and say, "What? I had no idea! Amazing!"
In other words, none of these stories represent the literal truth.
And just on what do you base that claim? You say a whole lot--well, let me rephrase. You use a whole lot of words to say precisely nothing new, and offer no evidence to prove even that much.
This is the common and pivotal fact of all such narratives about ancient Hebrew and Christian history.
Is it now?
Debating whether the DaVinci Code, Gnostic texts, or the Bible are accurate history is a purposeful ploy designed to hide the truth by directing your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.
Fantastically, you make that statement without any evidence, nor do you ever, in this post, tell us precisely what is the "heart of the matter".
There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions.
And that is...?
It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else.
Still waiting...
It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations.
I'm sorry? The Hebrews and Essenes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, were targets of "Rome's Ire" and there's that lovely phrase again, "evil machinations"? Do you know what you're talking about?
The Vatican and its secret society cohorts
Secret society cohorts. Nice touch.
don’t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them.
Hey! There's that funny fake word again! Symbology.
You talk as though we don't realise that there are symbolic (not "symbological") meanings and terms in Scripture, but rather, that we take everything hyper-literalistically. You know nothing about biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, or how we understand what parts of the Bible. As such, nothing you are saying relates in any way to "The Vatican" or to the Catholic faith (or to much of any other branch of Christianity, for that matter).
Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it.
So, the code decodes itself? Some code. And there's that word again.
This is what they most fear you will discover.
Yes, what the Vatican most fears is that people will be able to read the Bible. That's why they grant indulgences for people who read the Bible. You've got us.
If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history,
The Bible presents accurate history, though perhaps not precise history. Come on, we learn the difference between those terms in grade 9 science. The Bible's history is selected and ordered for maximum theological impact, not for straight-forward fact reporting. Not really a surprise.
there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk.
Come again? If the Bible stated the truth, we wouldn't need faith? That makes absolutely no sense.
It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory.
Well, at least you used the right word, this time. And no one, anywhere, contests that point. But the point remains, what's your point?
The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls,
Amazing, the Old Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Hebrew writings, are "awash with Hebrew symbolism"! Get out! I thought it was awash with Chinese symbolism! Thank you so much for clearing that up!
Gnostic texts,
Gnosticism is neither Jewish nor Christian, but a parasitic religion that adopts their lingos (and the lingo of other major religions of the time) to advance their own teaching. Is it any wonder that it would utilise similar symbolism--though infusing those symbols with radically different meanings!
biblical apocrypha,
Not certain which apocrypha you're referring to. But again, since the Bible was written by Jews, Hebrew symbolism is hardly surprising.
Quran,
Muslims adopted wholesale Jewish and Christian texts, and the Qu'ran is a "reinterpretation" of our histories.
DaVinci Code,
Now here you're just being asinine. You've equated "The Da Vinci Code" with the holy texts of the Three Great Monotheistic Religions, and then made an erroneous statement, that this novel of trashy fiction somehow intricately uses, or "is awash with" ancient Hebrew symbolism? Dan Brown wouldn't recognise ancient Hebrew symbolism if he had written DVC at the time of the Ancient Hebrews!
and other related sources.
Handy. If Da Vinci Code is related to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, not to mention the Qu'ran, what else could possibly qualify as "other related sources"? You're almost saying that all of Western literature is "awash with Hebrew symbolism and allegory."
All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason:
They have? Proof?
The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity.
So, their symbology (again, a term that Dan Brown seems to have made up), is "widely evidenced", which is a inanely fancy way of saying "quite clear", but this "quite clear symbology" was completely missed by the very people who were closest to the writing of those manuscripts. But you understand what the authors and their disciples have missed and failed to pass on for generations. Fascinating.
How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries?
Would that you would finally answer that question!
To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!
And again, you fail to say anything.
It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the literal truth.
It's beyond amazing that you have talked this long, and wasted my time, and haven't said a blessed thing!
Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions.
Amazing! Do you think that might have been done on purpose by Jesus? Could it be that His miracles (which were literal deeds) had at the same time symbolic overtones that acted as signs to His true divinity? Gosh! Could God be that powerful and thorough? No! It's easier for you to believe that the miracles that had these symbolic overtones weren't actually real, but just symbolic. And this is supposed to "amaze and enlighten" us, as you promised.
Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity.
Is it? Actually, no. In fact, the truth is that Christianity hasn't deceived anyone, but that Jesus chose to reflect the history of Israel in His actions as one more demonstration that He is who He said He is!
This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code.
You know, to present something "with dramatic effect", it should be, I don't know, "dramatic"? If this is the "secret knowledge" of all these sects, maybe they don't want you blabbing it everywhere. And, since pretty much any liberal scholar of any religious group tries to sell this bullcrap anyway, it's not so "secret" after all.
None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth.
You know personally what the authors intended to present?
This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican's long-term deceptions.
Well, now that we know, we all feel better, realising that we aren't free from our sin after all, but are lost, confused souls with just the metaphors to guide us. Thanks. I'm shocked and amazed alright. Amazed that anyone would be so foolish to trade in the hope of heaven for this tripe.
Moreover, the following Washington Post article (The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful.
Yes, the Washington Post. Thank you for citing such an academic tome of scholarship to make your point. For your next trick, you'll tell me how TIME magazine has shown that Jesus wasn't a real historical figure, but that He was, nonetheless, married to Mary Magdalene, in a feat of pure doublespeak unrivalled by anything but the DVC itself!
When you combine proof that the New Testament Gospels are not wholly literal with proof that these texts were heavily reworked in the early years of Christianity, you are left with only one possible conclusion.
Yes, I suppose you would be. However, your "evidence" is flimsy at best, and nonexistent at worst. Hence, your conclusions are entirely fallacious.
The Vatican has long lied to everyone about the central tenets and history of Christianity. This revelation also proves they are not the Creator’s representatives but Her long-time opponents.
God's a "her" now. Funny, I've met Jesus, both inside and outside of the Catholic Church. Got to know Him a lot better within, but even without, we were pretty tight. And that knowledge, which far surpasses any "secret" that you have, lets me know the Truth. Remember, again, "My sheep hear My voice"?
The recent hoopla over the Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code demonstrates they are still desperately trying to deceive the world and obfuscate their true nature and activities.
Interestingly, the media and the world made the "hoopla", and the Church just yawned and said, been there, done that. Come back to us when you have something worthwhile to say.
It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else.
Oookay.
As further proof
Considering you haven't offered any proof, that's a pretty silly statement.
of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia.
I understood the "symbolic significance" of your name as soon as I saw it: You are claiming to be Jesus, who holds the seven stars which are the seven churches of the Apocalypse in His hand. And now you claim not only to be Jesus, but to have been warning us for millenia about the very Church that You allegedly founded. Either you're having a lot of fun with this, or you are seriously mentally disturbed--or worse.
What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth?
Hey, if you don't know, there's no good telling you.
Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)
Huh?
Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
Here is Wisdom!!
Wisdom would have been to ignore and delete your post. But I'm still learning, I guess.
Don't come back.
For the record, the Washington Post article discusses the work of a former evangelical Fundamentalist, not a Catholic, and if that's the article and faith that SSH is attributing to "The Vatican", he is incredibly off the mark. Like that former Fundamentalist, I too left Evangelicalism for something with more meat, and came here, to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Furthermore, the other two links take you to some "scholar's" look at the symbology of the Bible, particularly Revelation, or "The Apocalypse". He shows that Revelation's popular interpretation by evangelical Christians is bogus, but attempts to interpose their interpretations onto Christianity as a whole, Judaism, and Islam.
While the Dispensational interpretation common currently among Evangelicals is rather off the mark theologically, it is not the viewpoint of the majority of scholarship in the history of the Church.
That SSH links to this site to bolster his point only shows us his overwhelming ignorance of the Catholic Church and of Christianity as a whole.
I'm sorry I wasted my time on this, but I felt it should be done.
God bless
Gregory
Bart Ehrman, when asked, calls himself an "agnostic". There are several NT experts who would be better references as to the foundation of the Christian Faith and the preservation of Scripture. One that comes to mind immediately is Paul Meier.
The problem with SSH's comments is that unfortunately many uninformed people are pretending to know what they are talking about, and that's a shame. Oh for the days when people had an even basic understanding of the contents of Scripture!
But what do I know, I'm merely a person who has devoted my life to studying the history of the Christian faith and tries to do so with humility and with reverence for the Truth.
Peace,
Actually, the problem with SSH's comments is that in his profile, under the Occupation heading, he entered "Messiah."
Beyond that, his biggest problem is an asinine writing style and a gullability when it comes to faddish pseudo-scholarship.
Anonymous, who are you. You kind of sound like my buddy Chris, but he usually leaves his name...
Paul Maier's a pretty great guy. I've actually emailed him personally with questions, and he's very prompt about answering them immediately.
God bless
Post a Comment
<< Home