Get over it everyone it is a work of fiction and so is the Da Vinci Code.

I enjoyed Dan Brown's book (read it in just over 2 days!) and am looking forward to seeing the movie.

You wrote:
| "People aren’t stupid. The idea the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity may
| have embellished events ... [is] entirely feasible. Short of having a time machine, the
| church can’t really refute them anymore than Brown can prove them."

People aren't always stupid, but our ignorance of history allows us to be deceived.

There are documents written much earlier than the 4th c. Emperor Constantine that speak of the divinity of Jesus.
These documents (not the church) clearly refute Dan Brown's claim that Constantine elevated Jesus to the status of God
(eg. John's gospel of Jesus written somewhere between 60-90AD claims that Jesus is God)
This doesn't prove that John is right about Jesus - but it does refute Dan Brown's claims about Constantine.

Does it matter? John claims to reveal the divine mystery that Jesus is God, and that Jesus can give us life.
Other details might not be important - but I think that detail is.

Can we refute Dan Brown without a time machine? Yes.
Can the church prove Jesus is God? You decide for yourself.
But can I suggest giving more weight to 1st century Jewish texts (the New Testament) than to a 21st century American novelist?

The bible is not a time machine, but it is a pretty good time capsule.

Where did Mark get the idea that Christians need other people to believe in their version of the truth? Sure there are mysteries in the Christian faith, like trying to get your head around the Trinity - 3 people in 1 God. But, there are both historical facts and unprovable tenets of faith that Christians believe in and although they would like others to share that faith, there is no need for strength in numbers to justify it.

The reaction of Christians to the Da Vinci Code has been pretty tame in my opinion. Some have dismissed it as nonesense, which it is. Some have argued that it is insulting, which it is as well. There have been no riots, no violence, just believers a little sorry that their God has been sent-up in this way.

As to Mark's argument: "Trouble is, Dan Brown has offered a plausible alternative to the official line on Jesus", better go and do some homework, Mark. You have been reading far too much Dan Brown. First get back to the non-fiction section of the library if you want to write something plausible.

And the bit about the initial followers of Jesus being led by a woman is surprisingly true. The eleven apostles, after the death of Jesus, were all together for fear of the Jewish authorities. The only leadership they had, until the day of Pentecost, was actually Mary, the mother of Jesus. While there is no "sacred feminine" Mary is certainly a stand-out female figure in the Church. The only created being that didn't sin was a woman, and Mary is venerated as the Mother of God.

It is fascinating that debate about the Da Vinci Code is merely the church trying to argue its work of fiction against another.

What annoys me about the Da Vinci Code is that it is marketed as a work of fiction based on truth. "Seek the truth" is a part of the commerical. I agree with what the Historian wrote regarding its "truth".

A lot of the Da Vinci Code involved half truths distorted. E.g. Constantine's "conversion" was politically expedient- true. Constantine was the first to say that Jesus is God- false. Jesus showed a lot more honour and respect to women than a lot of other people of his day, and the Bible expresses the equality of men and women- true. The Church was originally a Matriarchy, embracing the "Divine Feminine"- false.

The Da Vinci Code makes claims which stand against a 2000 year old tradition. When the leaders of that tradition stand up to defend themselves, they're told to sit down, and be more tolerant- its just a novel after all. Yet people all over the world will probably buy into some of Dan's underlying claims without looking any further.

When the Passion of the Christ was released, did atheists have the right to stand against the claims of the movie? Yes. So too does the Church have the right to refute the claims of the Da Vinci Code.

Back to the article- you seem to imply there is no such thing as literal truth (and quote St. Thomas of Aquinas to back it up). I respect your right to hold that opinion, but I must ask, are you absolutely sure about that? If so, on what do you base your confidence that this is true?

This incredibly stupid book/film is totally un-Biblical, totally un-Christian, totally garbage. Though the author did spell the name of Jesus correctly :-)
And Mark, poor Mark is a totally confused 'believer?' If he isn't a believer then he should mind his own business and write about those things he does know a little about.
Yet having said that this lying grossly inncorrect tome is no worse than the false lying garbage that comes out of the traditional,so-called, christian churches. None of this garbage either from this book or main-stream churches will have any effect on real Christianity at all. numbat

Both stories.

The Davinci Code has more truth in it than the bible does.

If god wrote the bible, or jesus did, i would listen and respect it.

Mere mortals wrote it, just like Dan Brown.

good article by mark in courier-mail 18.5.2006

what does it matter if jesus did marry Mary Magdalene?

Mark,

Don't believe everything you read :)

I'm just glad that christians aren't calling on us all to burn American flags and Tom Hanks DVD's, boycott all American movies and don't go to theatres that play it, as well as demonstrating outside of the French embassy because a theatre there had a showing....

i always liked the comment by bruce dickinson from Iron Maiden that their record company estimated the value of the free (mostly negative) publicity they recieved on their 'number of the beast tour' in the early 80's to be around 40 million US. no one in america had really heard of them before christian groups started to picket their concerts and there was a direct correlation between the rising number of picketers and ticket sales.

one would think that the church had a stake in the royaltys of the movie they are doing such a good job of promoting it.

“As Joseph Ratzinger put it prior to assuming the pontiff, we “are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognise anything as definitive”.”

He should know (about dictatorships), the Church of Rome is not recognised for either its “democratic” principles or practices.

“Trouble is, Dan Brown has offered a plausible alternative to the official line on Jesus.”

Exactly, “plausibility” is the last thing some fanatical ‘believers’ would have us “sceptics” be allowed to consider, question, view, read or debate.

Any religiously motivated individual is at liberty to ignore the “Da Vinci Code” both book and film, however they are have no authority, moral, ethical or physical to dictate to the rest of us what we will decide about it.

While everyone is trying to crack the Da vinci code which consists of millions of years of data to sort through.

The latest release of the pentagon, 9/11 conspiracies has been released.

Unfortunately this still does not put to rest conspiracies theories relating to the crash site and what exactly crashed into the pentagon.

And this is only a few years worth of data to sort through.

Our friend writes:-

"The Da Vinci Code challenges Christians (and the rest of us) to let go of literalism, words and even sacred scripture in order to find the mysterious essence of the truth".

Elevates the book far behond its worth - it was a good read; it tweaked up a conspiracy story that has been around for years - sold a lot of books - thats it.

I dont know too many Christians now who are investing energy in discrediting the book - apart from the spooks from Opus Dei - and we know that they're nutbags - and thier history in Chile gives some credence to the carry on by the mad monk

The book and the film have little interest to myself, unfortunately fickle minds might believe it is more than fiction as the author himself claims. Skeptics of Christ love the conflict as it endeavours to discredit the teachings and claims of Christ. I know of whole Churches who are educating themselves by attending the Movie tonight, so they can expose its fiction and falacies.

The famous British scientist and philosopher, Karl Popper, expressed the view that a scientific theory could never be proved true, but it could be proved false. Science proceeds by falsification. There is clearly enough evidence that the content (and hence theory) of the Da Vinci Code is riddled with errors of fact and history. It is clearly false and has no basis as any serious proposition. To argue otherwise is to make it, like the psuedo science of Marxism, untestable.

Treat it as a complete work of fiction and then work out how you personally feel about appropriatness of the plot line

Well Mark
I can recall a time when it was illegal for churches to get involved in politics.

However times have changed and here you are on a this botter.

You now have family first rubbing it with Howard and Costelo and representing all the Churches .

Went Down to see Steve Fielding being a man of the cloth to finally get some church voices on the cruel Live Export trade a few weeks ago.

Now your a man of the cloth so I am sure you will agree cruelty to animals is more gods work than anyboys.Of course being Gods work it falls under the umbrella of Churches.

Steves not sure about having a policy on Animal Welfare.

Wonder what god is thinking.

How say You?

The Da Vinci movie is out, and the critics hate it. :) Let's see what the rest of the world's response will be.

I held back from reading The Da Vinci Code for a long time because it arrived amidst yet another flurry of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. But, when I did read it, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Historical accuracy aside, it was a great adventure and very entertaining. I also have tickets to go and see the movie next week.

My only gripe with the book is actually a gripe with people's reactions to the book. It is a work of fiction - no more and no less. But many people who have read it and not bothered to do any background reading are now self-proclaimed experts in all issues of theology. They are also 'experts' in Opus Dei. The trouble is that Dan Brown only brought a selection of aspects of the organisation to light - those aspects that would help demonise its members in the context of his story. Full credit to him for that - it takes an excellent author to remodel a religious institution to suit his literary needs, and Brown did a good job of it.

But what about the members who joined Opus Dei to bring themselves closer to God? They are now viewed as fruit loops too, for being part of a 'nutty' organisation. The truth is that they can be perfectly rational, moral, community-minded people. Brown doesn't deny this but, because he doesn't highlight this fact, many of his readers are happy to assume the worst.

The Da Vinci Code is a great book, and the sensation it has caused makes it an important part of the 21st Century literary canon. It is a pity (for me, anyway) that the conspiracy theories have soured the moment for many Catholics who have read and loved the novel.

I've been reading with great interest the press releases from Vatican spokesmen calling for a boycott of the movie. A common complaint has been that Jesus married the Magdalene and fathered children that survive today.

What is the Church afraid of? Well let's see, that Jesus while being God incarnate was also a man. A human man, born of woman. That he wanted to father children and experience life on earth like the rest of us mortals.

If this were a possible truth, then the celibacy of the priesthood is a denial of the humanity of a man. That it is an attempt of the Church to set themselves apart from the rest of the flock and be God like when Jesus himself never behaved like a God.

If the premise of the Da Vinci Code was believed to have a shred of truth to it, then the foundation of the Catholic Church, the power structure, that binds it together would have been built on a foundation of lies and therefore would be in danger of crumbling beneath the feet of the Priests and Bishops who would rather protect pedophiles than admit to being human.

Thanks,Mark.
I found your comments helpful, confirming my growing awareness that God can never be captured and imprisoned within our human words.
Sydney Carter wrote some memorable words back in the 1960's .

Catch the bird of heaven.
put him in a cage of gold,
look again tomorrow
and he will be gone

This is not ar argumnet for neglecting the journey of faith. It is, however, a reason for holding our faith with some humility and a warning against that sort of dogmatism that needs to fight those who express ideas that are different from our own.

It is only a work of fiction (the, er, Da Vinci Code I mean).

What is the fuss?

Methinks the church doth protest too much.

Many anti-Christian "skeptics" seem to be saying:
Don't test the bible, don't test the DVC – they're just ideas.

Many "blind-faith" Christians seem to be saying be skeptical:
Test DVC, test the Bible – some ideas are false, some are true, ask questions, evaluate.

Christians are producing evidence that the DVC theories are wrong and suggesting that you take a second-look at the bible instead.
Sure, you can take offense when a Christian friend tells you the bible is true. But don't be surprised – it's what Christians believe isn't it?

You might like the ideas in the DVC, but if you mistakenly drive through red lights often enough...

Oh Patty Jr Satanic Feminist.....if Satan is the father of lies (Yeshua).....does this make you the daughter of lies? You seem to find it difficult to accept that some can live without sex etc. You seem to want to cast all others, perhaps, in your own image.

Francis an ad hominen attack does not constitute debate. Why are you so defensive that you need to personally attack others?

Can you not not perceive the irony in Patty's moniker?

Back to the debate; to be fair to both the bible and the DVC both should carry warnings that they are works of imagination.

In the case of the Da Vinci Code, I think it is interesting, both protagonists see the debate to be truth verses fiction. It is really a debate between two fictions: Both the Da Vinci Code and The Bible effectively set their fictions against known histories to introduce the delusion of accuracy. Brown (in real life) admits to the smoke and mirrors. The Christian Church does not.

I would take it Brown would admit that the Merovingian dynasty commenced in the early fifth century and the so called keystone refers to a missing corner stone in the Jewish Temple. The Merovingian so-called divine bloodline legend involves a second (dual) impregnation of the dynasty’s pregnant founding mother by a representation of Neptune, while she was swimming.

My family built Rosslyn (Roslin) Chapel. My g-g-g-great father lived in Rosslyn (not the Chapel), as late as 1830s. While having minor links to the Merovingians, the primary Rosslyn Sinclair line is from the Viking King Rollo. His descendants invaded Normandy in 911 and later the England in 1066.

Sinclair (Saint Clair) links to the Masons and Templars are true. One interesting thing is Oliver Cromwell would not allow General Monk to destroy the Chapel, but our family castle was nearly levelled. Possibly, Masonic links, so the Chapel remained. There were underground templar/masonic links deeper than the Catholic-Potestant conflict... true.

On the other hand, the Christian Church would no longer walk on the water, if popular interest is heightened in the Council of Nicea, where The Bible was complied, as a “selected” works of gospels. The many gospels were written by Jesus sects, before Constantine and not by the named disciples.

And three hundred years before then, several Messianic characters went about their missions. Moreover, compromises had to be made by the Jews to meld with the gentile Romans. The Church must avoid attention in these areas, otherwise it does not exit.

Given that Jesus was a direct descendent of King David, in the Jewish law of the time he was expected to produce an heir to this line. There are many references to this. Why is it then postulated that Jesus was not married?
Be wary of the bible interperations of Jewish law. Re the trial of Jesus. The Sanhedrim court did NOT meet at night, nor on a Sabbath, and did not condone unanimous verdicts. Three strikes and you start to worry.

john-tassie,
Jesus was crucified on Thursday morning, and died on thursday evening, was buried early friday; as he rose on the third period of daylight after his death i.e. Friday day 1, Saturday day 2, resurrected first light Sunday morning day 3. He said he would rise on the third day.

Where are your many references to the fact that Jesus was to produce an heir? Could we please have them? It is nothing more than postulative nonsence. If such were the case then Matthew would have said something about it, as he followed the Davidic line. Kings in Israel were not strictly heireditary Monarchs. Jesus had family links with David of the tribe of Judah but he was not the eldest or only son in the line of David. In fact Zecharias called in many young men of David's line to see who would be a suiter for Mary. Zecharias chose Joseph because he already had two elder sons. A baby in that setting would not cause suspicion of being the natural king and heir.

Quote, "Given that Jesus was a direct descendent of King David, in the Jewish law of the time he was expected to produce an heir to this line. There are many references to this."

Oliver....CRAP!

Francis,
You are a looser. Rather than just expressing you emotions I suggest you educate yourself in debate and defence of truth. Do not waste the capacity of 700 words where you could defend your position with anger. I suggest you evaluate your life and relationship to the God who loves and forgives his opponents.

What I love about true Christians is that these "based on truth" kind of stories (DVC) are like flies on their back. I like the quiet confidence as opposed to the hysterical carry on of those who don't really believe that the Teachings will stand up to the onslaught.

They (true Christians) casually break a twig off an old spotted gum and swoosh - no flies on old mate's back. Intrinsic truth should not be swayed by extrinsic half-truths. Pssst - Delusion -who said that? Have to think about that. Nevertheless, I think we know certain truths. The Bible can reasure us of those truths. It is when we ignore them that things fall apart. I can see that and I am a lowly Pagan.

For instance, I once read an account of an incident during Hitler's reign. A Nazi car was driving along a street. A Jewish family was walking along it. The car stopped and called the family over. The Nazi officers asked them to clean their car's windscreen. The mother told her daughter to go and sit on some steps nearby and look the other way. She started to clean it with the edge of he blouse. The Nazi officer approached the little girl and ordered her to help her mother. The mother protested. The officer ordered the little girl to remove her panties, dip them in the cold snow and use them to clean the cars windscreen. Nazi then ordered the child to put the freezing undies back on and drove away.

Now hold that feeling. Repulsion, sadness, disgust - your sense of justice offended. You can talk till your blue in the face about divine mystery and all that, and people are doing more good than harm by doing so, however, can someone tell me what it is that causes people like those Nazis to be so unkind? To turn from those feelings? To not do unto others. (Golden Rule)

Continued Fight DEm Back are too like Dem (oops tangent - sorry).

Can someone tell me why some third world Dad who has never been exposed to religion still retains those feelings? Can someone tell me why some punk rocker who rejects religion has those feelings? Alchemist - any suggestions.

Can someone tell me why FDB has turned from some of those feelings - especially to posters who want Dem to be more PC in relation to the mentally ill. Darp, Max, Spot, Zog, Mis Anthrope - any suggestions.
Oh that's right FDB just call them names, refuse outright to respect calls to be fair to the mentally ill and tell them to F off. Check it out guys you think the right are hard these mob clearly hate diversity of opinion. See I'm Famous and G'day Boys and Girls.

Boaz is wrong by the by I am not really a Pastor. Just in case some of you mistook, like BD apparently has, my lowly opinions for Holiness. (E. Maculata)

Philo, Yes Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, the same non priestly family tree as King David. The scriptures also describe Jesus as a “Nazarene”. This does not mean from the town of Nazareth but is derived from the Hebrew “Nazrie ha-brit” meaning keepers of the Covenant, a term used to describe the Essene community at Qumran. Narareth is not mentioned in the old testament, the Talmud or in Josephus and only became a place of pilgrimage from the 6th century AD. (see Ahmed Osmar The House of the Messiah Ch 5 pages 30 – 32)

Modern Arabic for Christian is Nasrani from the same source. Therefore, as his father Joseph, Jesus himself and his brother James were also Nazarenes that is of the Essene community, look to the Essene community rules of dynastic wedlock. Re references requested, read Barbara Thierings books on the Essene community or the summary in Ch 3 of Laurence Gardiner's book Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

Francis,

I responded to you on the DVC Forum site. Suggest you look. I have tried to estend you more than you extended me.

Philo & J-T,

I understand the need for the House of David lineage. But would not virgin birth challenge this claim? Jesus would not have Joseph's DNA. Just the same, it would not be unusal for hundreds/thousands of people to have blue blood given enough generations. It is highly plausible Jesus "was" of the House of David.

Is there any need for virgin birth, rather than original sin?

p.s.The Mongol Khans' genes haveleft a huge genetic footprint.

Oliver, virgin birth can happen, but child must be identical to the mother, ie a female. The male DNA in a virgin birth would be the mother’s father.
One explanation of the virgin birth mystery is that of a loose misleading translation. Note that neither Mark or John mention the virgin birth. The semetic word almah that has been translated into Latin as virgo actually means a young woman. In Latin virgo or virgin means unmarried, and virgo intacta means without sexual experience. Translating almah to virgo intacta is wrong, as virgo intacta in Hebrew is bethulah.
From the dead sea scrolls, the Jewish rules for dynastic wedlock were not the normal marital marriage form. The dynastic couples led a celibate lifestyle for most of their lives. Three months after a betrothal ceremony, a “first marriage” was anointed in the messianic tradition, to begin the espousal in the month of September. Physical relations were allowed only in the first half of December to ensure any resultant messianic birth occurred in the atonement month of September. After conception, a second marriage, with anointing, was performed to legalise the wedlock. Note the bride was regarded as almah until completion of this second marriage to be celebrated after three months pregnancy in March (ie allowing for miscarriages).
For Joseph and Mary, these rules were broken, as Jesus was born in March 7 BC. Physical relations must therefore have taken place in June 8 BC at the time of their initial betrothal. So Mary not only conceived as almah but gave birth as almah before her second marriage ceremony, that is a virgin conceived and bore a son. The Abiathar priest, known dynastically to the Essenes as the “Angel of the Lord”, overrode this embarrassing disregarding of the dynastic wedlock rules and advised Joseph to go ahead with the second marriage. This is the called the Annunciation but is really the sanctioning of an anomaly, a dispensation.
In 2001, in PNAS Vol 98 page 13460, the mitochondrial DNA of Luke the Evangelist was sequenced from a tooth from the skeleton in his Padua sarcophagus.

" In fact Zecharias called in many young men of David's line to see who would be a suiter for Mary. Zecharias chose Joseph because he already had two elder sons. A baby in that setting would not cause suspicion of being the natural king and heir. "

Sorry, can I have some historical references for that please? Thanks

YngNLuvnIt,
From the writings of James in 'Protevangelion'. James with Jesus lived in the same household and under the care of Mary. Though Joseph has no genetic input in Jesus parentage he gave him his name and was registered as his father. According to the Gospel, James and Joses was considered Jesus brothers. James was able to walk with them in their journey to Bethlehem so must have been at about 8 years old and was present at the birth of Jesus. It was James that went to find Salome as a midwife to assist Mary at the birth. [I could speculate that Salome was James mother, as she is called a sister of Mary in other places. Note, Mary was an only child of Anna and Joachim.]

The family line of Joseph actually had a curse applied upon them that was probably known at Temple which would make it even less likely if Jesus was raised by Joseph that a king would emerge from his family. This may have been known and part of the plan of Zecharias to hide Jesus.

It was Zecharias who sought a plan for Mary's life whose life was dedicated to the service God in the Temple. It was he who recognised the precedence of Isaiah 9 and determined she fulfill her role as a virgin that would bring forth a child. She was artifically impregnated with the sperm of young men in the line of David by a Temple official well known to Mary. This was often used by the Essene community to have children and was done so as not to violate her vow of chastity; 'to abstain from sexual relationship with a man'. According to the Gospel account Joseph had no sexual relationship with Mary till the child was born, and Salome vouched that was the case at the birth of Jesus

john-tassie,
I know for some time that the existence of a village of Nazareth existed was under scrutiny. However only recently verification of such a place has been uncovered by archeologists. I've been trying to find the article among my magazines to post its reference.

However look up this site: http://www.bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm

From a philosophical angle one might ask why Mark complained about too much scientific thinking these days, when it was Aristotelian scientific reasoning presented to French monk Peter Abelard by travelling Muslim scholars around the First Millenium, that lifted our barbarian ancestors out of Dark age Christianity.

Renaamed by Abelard - Sic et Non, or the search for enquiry, it was later taken up by St Thomas Aquinas, but although the church was unsure about it, and still having faith dominate today, as well as not telling the tale about the gallant Peter Abelard. For to be sure as always the Christian church does not like too much questioning.

However, reason can be abused as the older Charles Darwin
warned when his friend Herbert Spencer turned Darwin's survival of the species into survival of the fittest, turning it back into a faith, and from which came the classic Social Darwinism, and from which historians say, came Nazism, Fascism, and also the worst aspects of Marxism.

It is here we find the crux of the matter, the difference between faith and reason, or having the commonsense for moderation in all things, as Aristotle tells us.

And in good Western history books you find in special dark-faced print, Darwin's warning that survival of the fittest only applied to the animal kingdom, for God for obvious reasons had allowed humankind the special gift of reason, which over the thousands of years of progress, through God's gift of reason must become more understandably intellectul as well as more compassionate to make for a better world.

Also remember that without reason, as Socrates would say, we might progress with the feet, but never sensibly with the mind.

What we are on about, Mark, is that reason and science go together possibly in all truth as a test for faith

Bushbred:

Sic et Non. Yes and No. My understanding is Abelard was concerned about Aristotelian dialogues, wherein, the conveying of knowledge centred on conversions. The master would instruct, and, the Learner, through a series of questions, led to the “truth”. If you have a copy of Conjectures and Refutations to hand, Popper provides a (clever, self-referencing) dialogue between Theaetetus and Socrates. But, perhaps, it is Popper himself, whose is playing Master.

I feel the point made by Abelard, in a Greek philosophical sense, is one cannot be led to (absolute) truth. Similarly, Michael Polanyi says people make a commitment to a conceived truth, perhaps, ratified at some future “indeterminate” (Polanyi) time. Herein, such a determination does not propose the same finality (for truth), as would a Greek dialogue.

My own view is an extension of Lakatos. I feel, we should hold multiple propositions, and assign values to those propositions. Thus, one should not have a “firm” thesis. Rather, you hold a dominant proposition, “but” simultaneously maintain degraded heuristics. Theists and atheists, please note.

(Geophysical) Evolution & Da Vinci… Leonardo did observe what marine palaeontologists call superposition (nothing to do with cats)... Why are there fossil sea creatures on/in mountains above sea level? The Church said, “The Flood”. Da Vinci saw, envisaged mountains once under the sea, adding The Flood would not have created multiple layers.

T-J,

Very interesting post. Especially concerning Hebrew marriage rites. I didn’t know these matters. In dynastic China, under Taoism, Yin and Yang, influenced happenings in the Imperial bedroom too.

For Mary, I agree with you, genetic material involving mitochondrial DNA is best viewed from the maternal perspective. Were Mary from the House of David: The Royal Line; David’s Non Recombinant DNA; would have been inherited by Mary’s brother via their shared father.
Same goes for DVC characters. Joseph can transmit Non Recombinant DNA.

Philo and John-Tassie,

I am sure J-T is correct in noting that as ancient documents come to light, people in small rooms are carefully unrolling first to fourth century scrolls and codexes and providing interpretations in scholarly publications. Much of that information could be of great value to society-at-large.

The Christian story is too important to basically skip centuries of detail between the crucifixion and Nicea. With Nicea offering canon (kanon), Biblical scholarship might offer precision in the absence of accuracy?

What we need is UNIX. UNIX? Yes, metaphorically. An open system. An open system is the antithesis of canon. Canon promotes a priori validation, the handmaiden of intellectual stagnation.

During the period in question, we have a Jewish Diaspora and more specifically a Christian-Jewish Diaspora offering differing interpretations of events and writing these down in gospels using nom de plumes. These Mark Twains seemingly provided their own twist to events, which occurred decades, even a century, beforehand. And as previously posted, much was going on, the fall of the second Temple and the Roman-Jewish War. “The times they were a-changing.” Not all writers framed the same opinions.

Agreed, Philo, much gnosticism is Zoroastrian, but there were Christian Gnostics. We shouldn't drop everything not in the Bible.

More importantly, Peter mentions compiling earlier works. It seems that in the early Church, there were housebound Jesus sects. Peter pulls these earlier patterns together, and seems to moving towards a building a Jewish-style church/temple?

TODAY: An open system inquiry - IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN – could evaluate and discuss the various ideas of the early Jesus sects. "Divinity" obviously the big one. We have the Quelle document, the Essenes and the Dead Sea scrolls too.

Probably DVC will go the way of Jurassic Park. Just the same, I would like to see serious open inquiry into all the Jesus accounts, before Nicea, without the need for a priori validation to the selected gospels and in the absence of canon.

Modern science and historians can bring enormous scholarship to the issue of the divinity of Jesus. Open inquiry isn’t an ‘ism.

Comments welcome.

Oliver,
If you have read my posts you will realise the Gospel and writings of John deals specifically with the divinity of Jesus. John does not give Jesus divinity based on his conception or natural parentage, he in fact denies that such makes one a son of God [John 1: 10 -13].

One is a son of God to use Jesus term when one is "born of the spirit of God". This is evident when our attitudes change toward God and fellowman and we endeavour to live lives pure in character and devoted to forgivness and love. Love and forgivness are hardly the elements of science.

"Modern science and historians can bring enormous scholarship to the issue of the divinity of Jesus. Open inquiry isn’t an ‘ism."

Thanks Philo,

I will revisit John.

My point has to do with the source documents upon which the gospels are based. I don't have any particular interest in the gnostic writing contra Nicea. Rather, I am saying, as would historians, I think, there are earlier writings. 1 Peter 1-4, I suggest alludes to earlier texts.

Regressing the chain of evidence can support Christianity too. Triangulating source documents (especially detatched third party) could prove very powerful.

I understand your earlier point that Jesus stands apart from the Christian-Jewish sect/Roman mysteries merger. Here, we agree, He is a separate construct (in an analytical sense). Investigations could use many writings externally converging on an independent focal point, rather have the focus of investigation embedded in selected writings (selection bias. A priori reliance on the Bible "alone" isn't good investigative design.

Cheers.

Philo,

MY HOMEWORK:

In sum, I think what John is saying is the Son is within the Father and we (humanity) are within the Son.

OTHER COMMENT:

Love existed before the Bible, not because of it. Science has been used as an instrument of love and hate. Religion has contributed to modern Science, e.g., the Augment for Design, is a religious cum scientific precept. Design is the foundation for Mechanics.

I will try an example. When scientists were studying sun spots in the nineteenth century, the calibrations used for examining the data were too short. They could not see the twenty year periodic cycles. In the philosophy of disciplines, Lakatos maintains a protective core is defended against outside threats…

Philo and John-Tassie,

What I am saying is theism protects the Bible. But, this is the wrong construct. However, the Christian Churches need to protect the Bible (Their "must be protected" core). What I am suggesting is to study the Jesus one should (a) take a wider view and (b) make Jesus the focus of the study, not the Bible.

Philo, do understand the Gospels to be "primary" sources?

Cheers,

O.

Oliver and Philo, re “Son of God”
Barbara Thiering’s book Jesus the Man explains the orders of the organisational structure of the Essene society and their dynastic names. The guiding leaders of their doctrine the “Way of the Light” was a high ranking triarchy, of Priest, King and Prophet. The clerical patriarchy consisted of a supreme FATHER, and two deputies designated his SON and his SPIRIT. From King David’s time, the priestly dynasties were
1 FATHER Zardok priest also designated dynastically as the Archangel Michael,
2 SON or Abiathar priest designated whatever his personal name as the Archangel Gabriel (the ambassador of the Zardok/Michael) ie the Angel of the Lord.
3 SPIRIT or Levi priest being the Archangel Sariel.
See 1-Enoch4:9 for names and the Essene War Scroll 9:15-17 which gives the order of ranking of all angels in the Gospel era.
In the Gospel era, Zardok/Michael was Zacharias and then John the Baptist. His first deputy Abiathar/Gabriel was Simeon the Essene, and his second deputy Levi/Sariel was Jonathon Annas.
Jesus as a descendent of David, was not in a priestly dynasty and referred to himself as the Son of Man Matthew 16:13 ie no angelic title. His crucifixion crime was to have acted as the head of the priestly dynasty as well, a Son of God. This he denied Matthew 26:63-64 and Like 22:60.

john-tassie,
I would'nt put to much authority on Barbara Thiering's theories. When Jesus addressed the Father he wasn't addressing a leader of the Essene community.

The relationship of us being considered sons of God because our God is a loving father and our spirit is meant to be a reflection of God's pure character, attitudes and actions led to this concept. This is reflected in Jesus use of the term "Father". We note its use in the prayer, "Our father who art in heaven", Even though it is a prayer used by John the baptizer and the Essenes is not a prayer to the deceased pater in some place in a distant universe, but a recognition of the spiritual omnipresence and omniscence of purity and holiness. Truth and holiness must win so that peace and blessing may reign in God's knigdom.

The concept of heaven is a spiritual state of purity and joy even as hell is a spiritual state of deceit and torment. Those whose lives are bound in pride, hatred, evil, terror, and human destruction create a spiritual state of torment in which they remain eternally unless a dramatic repentance and conversion takes place.

Saul who became Paul was one of those who repented and instead of ministering torment he then ministered release, reconciliation, hope and blessing and he happily accepted the torment of others for the sake of telling and demonstrating the forgiving nature of God.

Building a personal relationship to the purity of God far outweighs the clinical study of history and dusty texts. It is who I am, or who I should be in this present history that is important. Overall Jesus had little in common with the Essene community. John the Baptizer was an Essene being raised by them and like his father had frequented their community. Jesus said of John that in the kingdom of God John though a holy man was the least, in the kingdom of God sinners were welcomed as saints upon their repentance. Compare Ifran's article on Easter. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4385

Philo and john-tassie,

1. The Gospel of John appears to have been written in Syria around 90? Seemingly displaced in time and place from Jesus. Is there a chain of scriptural evidence from John back to Jesus in Galilee? This would support John on Jesus’ divinity assertion.

On what documented basis does John make his claim?

Based on documents from Qumran and our knowledge the Essences, religious groups of the period kept records. Otherwise, we have Lore and the risk of Chinese, nay, Jewish Whispers from Jesus house-gr members.

2. Does the Q document actually exist. Our is it a reconstruction? What I have read is vague?

3. I have read some debate on whether Jesus was a Cynic. Vaage, Mack and Crossan seem to say so. A position denied by Griffin, based on Jesus’ Jewish behaviour.

Just the same, it would seem Greek philosophy outlasted the Greek City-States, such as Sopphoris, very near Nazareth. Philosophers, Popkin et al. (nothing to do with religion) state, cynics say the world as fundamentally evil (Roman occupation?) and they must withdraw from evil and individually/small group live virtuously. What was important individual conduct. Cleave cynicism from Hellenism and enjoin it to Judaism in Roman Galilee and perhaps there is some basis for understanding why Jesus seems to skilled in Judaic Law and often used “chreiai”:

Jesus the preacher:

-A- Can the rich can enter the Kingdom? Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle” (Mark)

Diogenes the cynic:

-B- Why are you begging from a statue, Diogenes? “To get practise in being refused” ( Diogenes Laertus)

Note, in both cases, (a) the cynic style, (b) reference to poverty and (c) the use of humour. In which case, -A- has nothing to do with camels’ kneeling.

What is important here, is, documentation. Elsewise, John’s claim about divinity is not well supported. Similarly, the cynic speculation is an histographically supported proposition. I think the cynic augment the best unproven proposition. However, in the absence of validated contemporary scrolls and codex we have conjecture in both cases.

Philo and john-tassie,

Your letter to john-tassie "Building a personal relationship to the purity of God far outweighs the clinical study of history and dusty texts."

But can't see how such a relationship would negate valid study of pre Nicean-gospel history. The Bible itself is an edited composite of "dusty texts" from history. If we don't keep revisiting "all" these texts and testing these against new formulations, we could become guilty of a priori validation and intellectual stagnation: Self-confirmation can result.

We don't learn about deep sea creatures buy diving in the shallows. We need to know based, on what basis the Bible is formulated, from reputable indepedent sources...

To Amercians Lincoln is portrayed, as a strong abolutionist. Reading dusty old history tells us most-of-all, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. Albeit, the Emancipation Proclomation did lift his anti-slavery profile. Dustier books might allude to the South's striving for the "right" of independence from the Union, just as the thirteen original colonies did from Britain. Perhaps, the South (slavery aside) stood closer to the French revisionists thinkers than did the Union. Get my drift?

Any body of knowledge needs its supporters and protagonists, as above. A gestalt? Amercian history, Aussie history and Biblical history needs to revised, revised and revised again.

The Bible is not Jesus, anymore than the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Neither, is infallible, in my view. You can disagree. But we both should investigate, I suggest.

p.s.

"It is who I am, or who I should be in this present history that is important." Early cynics, methinks, would agree. Just the same, history stands independent to this belief.

Oliver,
The occupation of my time on other things has depleted my time to research properly. I have read Professor FF Bruce and others on the NT documents and the sourse material and did well in the exams on the NT documents but that was 40 years ago.

Some observations: Jesus was exposed to Hebrew life, adhered to Jewish religious practise and ideas, infancy in Egypt, Greek language and Roman culture. He was familiar with live theatre as he uses many of its terms in description, eg hypocrite. His upbringing was with Galileean Jews, and briefly with John the Baptist from the Essene community.

There is a uniqueness of thought in his words that is why he stood out from every other Jewish sect. He was teaching love for our enemies while every Jewish sect, even his own deciples, were anticipating the violent overthrow of Roman occupation.

When you note his attitudes towards the unclean, the downtrodden, the Samaritans and social outcasts you can begin to see a dynamic that commands attention. He believed that change needed to occurr and it would happen where people felt their need for change. Religious heirarchy and power brokers have little consciousness that they need to change their ways.

I must update by some study to answer your questions.

Philo,

No problem regarding you commitments. I am in the same boat. John-tassie silence suggests a similar position.

After moving from esoteric writings to just looking the matter up in an encyclopaedia, I discovered a Q is a hypothetical retrograde construction based on later writings and contemporary history.

Just the same the Hellenistic influence idea does seem valid. To what extent, I guess it is hard to tell. Jesus always having the last word is also a Greek technique. As is shifting away from a direct question, towards an answer to an “associated” for which there is a pre-prepared answer. (Politicians on TV please note. ;-).

In 3006:

Someone in 3006 reading the Letters of Philo and Olive could probably make speculative guesses about us. But not be certain.

The Hypothesised Me. Someone might suggest I have had a liberal arts education, but also pragmatic. My common use of metaphors might suggest that I try centre readers’ on something more familiar them. This 21st writer is a liberal progressive developer.

The Hypothesised You. Based on your “early” submissions, possibly a Jewish to Christian convert. You have an excellent knowledge of OT. Too free-thinking to be a priest or minister. OT-NT is link is very important. Deep study into the OT and the NT is recommended. But for the 50 AD – 300 AD period, one needs to tread carefully.

Maybe someone, who left Bible College, after a theology degree and joined the regular workforce. “Philo?” Philo of Alexandria? That again suggests a respect for a Jewish tradition. (I think the more Christian, Christian Jews were settled more around Pella?)

Science can’t be ignored, but can be protagonist to value systems.

This 21st centurt writer is a "guidedly" open-minded scholar.

Above speculation. Hits&Misses? Apply to past discourse.

Can what a few weeks for a reply to all. Busy too.

The apostles Paul and Peter were martyred during the reign of Nero 54 – 68 AD; the Apostle Paul beheaded after his trial in Rome, Peter crucified upside down. Therefore their writings were written before 68 AD.

Peter wrote a record of Jesus life during the three years he was with Jesus and this account is alluded to by Serapion of Antioch in 190 AD, and by Origen a historian in 253 AD, Eusebius of Caesarea in 300 AD [others later than that mention it also]. I have a copy of three pages found in the upper Nile in 1886 and translated into English recorded in “Lost books of the Bible”. The three pages cover a detailed account of the removal of Jesus body from the cross and being placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. From this account Herod and not Pilate gives the orders that Jesus be crucified. It appears Joseph was a friend of Pilate and when the Jews requested that the dead be buried before the preparation of the Sabbath, Joseph makes his tomb available. If we could find a full copy of the Gospel of Peter it would be a valuable resource.

It’s from the original record of Peter that Mark and Matthew were written. The three synoptic gospels have been influenced much by Peter’s writings. Luke more than the others seems to be an attempt at an ordered history, combined with Acts of the early believers. A prefix has been added to a copy of Luke sent to Theophilius the Leader of a Christian gathering in Alexandra in the second century. It is this copy we have in our NT. Luke influenced from the writings of Mary and James writes his account of Jesus infancy.

The writings of Mary mother of Jesus and James son of Joseph were written in Hebrew during their lifetime; and translated into Latin in 1552. I have copies of both these in English.

John’s account was written while imprisoned in Patmos, also his revelation. John was a personal friend of Jesus so his writings share the intimacy of Jesus words

Hey Patty

I like being called a Cheeky Monkey

Philo,

Interesting information with some dates a generation earlier than I thought. Thanks for the effort too.

I have read that the Hasmonean dynasty should have offered a ruler not the Herodians. Rome was said have placed Herod on his throne. (Like China and Tibet, and, China and its new RC cardinal.) If true, it might explain an actual/apparent friendship between Pilate and Herod?

Would Herod have the power to deliver a capital judgement? I would have thought not. (My wife's Roman source books are in storage.)

Could it be that Herod brought Jesus to Pilate on charges of sedition (King of ...). Pilate understood that Jesus didn't mean Rome and let him go? Very spectulative, I know. More spectulative, Herod took matters into his own hands and Pilate "overlooked" it? But, doesn't explain the presence of Roman soldiers.

I will study yout post with interest and return to the Forum in a few days.

Whatever the measure of controversy, however uncomfortable the DaVinci Code book and film make many 'Christians' feel, the big religious questions may be about to get even bigger!

The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ, entitled The Final Freedoms has been posted on the Web and at stake may be several thousand years of religious tradition and history.

What at first appears a preposterous challenge to the religious status quo carries within its pages an idea both subtle and sublime, what the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have either ignored or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could humble both tradition and scientific speculation.

Published only on the web and distributed freely as a pdf download, this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.

Using a synthesis of scriptural elements from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness, human ethical perception.

This new interpretation finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage [Hieros gamos] between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality.

This new teaching is pure ethics and ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.

As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching enters the public domain as a reality entirely new to human history.

Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

Oliver, consider this: the gospels are very Jewish in character and to place them as written by the Roman Church several hundred years later makes is totally improbable that they would reflect the character of Judaism during the first century period.

Where were the Jews after AD 72 certainly not writing books about a sect following a rejected Messiah. So if they were writen by Jews in the third century they had at least had some continuous verbal feeder of faith to their stories.

However it should be noted that after the first century the Christian Church was primarily gentile in character. Read the Ante nicene Fathers and you will realise they were redrawing the verbal pictures in gentile contexts. The Christian Church in Rome by the third century had very little knowledge of the events contemporary with the Christian sect in Jerusalem during that first century.

We can only conclude that the source writings were contemporary with the events of the first century.

Hello Philo,

BACKGROUND

The Gospels are “exceptionally” Jewish in character. And as suggested by me earlier in places adopted a Greek writing style. Given the location and the period in history this not surprising. Albeit, Jesus’ use of chreiai perhaps could indicate a certain philosophical persuasion. The Jewish folk lived in a region on the greater page in history with many of its Greek traditions destroyed in the after-mouth of the decline of the legacies of Alexander the Great. Yet, the Jews maintained their beliefs in the Law, to different degrees of observation. They also saw their race as exclusive. The Romans saw them as antisocial, into the first century , yet respected the ancient nature of their religion, because the Romans in some ways conservative and in many ways superstitious about offending any God.

However, like in the Middle East today, various individuals amongst the Jews, belonged to different sects. The Zealots, as you know, might have been seen to be terrorists (into today’s language) by the Romans. So, Romans came down hard twice in 1st and 2nd century history: Destroying of the Second Temple and the Roman-Jewish Wars. The difference between the 1st and 2nd century reactions by the Romans was in the 1st a response to antisocial behaviour. In the 2nd century more to do with Christianised Jews not wishing to participate in celebration (New Year, The Anniversary Foundation of Roman) and ceremony (blessing buildings and soldiers going to war which the Christianised Jews saw as idolatry. Jewish resentment at occupation and the rebellious response to the occupation went through both centuries.

Gibbon:After the Jesus church (not his words) had fifteen ethnically Jewish Bishops of Jerusalem, Hadrian expelled all the Jews from Mount Sion and made it a colony called Aelia Capitolina. Some exiles settled in Pella.

Being exiled from the Holy City was a problem, because as you allude to above, the early Jesus people, did retain the Jewish practice of every adult mail being required three times a year to visit the Holy City. A problem, if the Romans wont let you in.

Philo,

Some exiled Jesus people (Nazarenes) elected a Latin, Gentile Bishop called Marcus, who became the key for the some Christian Jews to re-enter Aelia Capitolina. Some of the Pella population refused to follow a Gentile bishop and stayed in Pella. From Pella, the non-Nazarenes spread to Boerea (Aleppo) Syria. Afterwhich, there was still further fragmentation, eventually leading to the Ebionites and Gnostics.

The history above, I would suggest would cover the period 60AD-c.120AD. During this time, even before the creation of Aelia Capitolia, there would have been writings, perhaps even from Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth and even Roman, the destruction of the Second Temple drove some ethic Jews away from Jerusalem. So, I agree there would have been c.60-c.120 writings.

After the Pella schism, various churches seemed have gone their different ways, with writings supporting various positions, starting with a Jewish base. Some did not stay tethered. Some Gnostics for example rejected “with profane derision” (Gibbon) the idea of God working for six days and the speaking serpent from the OT. Some did. Justin the Martyr would accept even Jewish ceremony provided it was seen to be “necessary”.

So, I agree with you there were Jewish based feeder stories and Christianised Jews and very early writings. More importantly, I am sure history would support you.

**However, the feeders split , split and split again, over the subsequent 250 odd years and went in all directions.**

When the Council of Nicea was performing its deliberations it did so from political motives, not forensic. Consequently, I find in hard to believe the Bible is infallible. That there cannot be incorrect insertions nor import omissions. (Space)


TBC

Philo, my friend, you have made my point, in so much as Constantine’s advisors would not have known much of the above history. Further, if that is accepted, similarly, people forming churches in 60AD-120AD, would have been dealing with fragments of knowledge from 35AD-50AD pre-church house sects. Those writers, two to three and more generations removed from the Crucifixion, faced a similar problem as Nicea, owing to the fragmented nature of the Jesus house-sects.

Kind regards.