Greetings Philo,

I have been very involved with my research, but the DVC has peaked my interest. I have seen the movie but not read the book. I have a minor historical interest in the Templars.

You are correct “fiction” does sound dogmatic. What I was saying, in my view, both the DVC and the selected gospels are composites of fact and fiction. In a literary sense the former is an adventure and the latter, heroic (in the Greek sense). Not that I would deny the past existence of Jesus or Troy.

I would agree with you and would tend to place developed Zoroastrianism more towards the end of the Axial period. Also,one stimulus for the formation of Isalm. That is, to unify the tribes, there was a need for a major religion and a prophet. Thus, I would respectfully suggest that Islam theocracy came about to introduce a unifying force, else outside influences would have been too overwhelming.

Just the same, the Gnostic gospels do provide comment on the divinity of Jesus. And again I agree with you that Jesus is a separate construct (if you will excuse the word) than the politics driving at least one Jesus sect to the Roman gentiles and the Roman-Sect makeover to make it only part Jewish. The Roman’s were conservative and would not have axed the OT, even though they were liberal with regards pantheons. (more next post)

My comment on prostitutes was that it is known several Jesus-like groups did exist, as is known from ancient documents, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls. The worlds’ of some holy men and some prostitutes did mix. Personally, I would doubt Jesus would marry,given his opinion his belief system relating to offer substitutionary ransom. It would be grossly irresponsible. But I wasn’t there.

I don’t see Like 1:1-4, generalisable to the Council of Nicea. The person writing as Luke is saying he is making an honest attempt in setting down his record. The Council of Nicea was deciding between black and white, what is canon and what is heresy.

Jesus, who definitely existed ,as written ,said in the NT Matthew Ch 18 vs 4-5 " believe as little children", and Matthew 23v24 Jesus said they (religious men) were "blind guides who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel", what I am getting at is, that all these theologians trying to work out with their unrgenerated minds,ie, who wrote what, and what was truth,(how would you know ) and how it happened and why this, and why that? Get off yout high minded horses!

In the first book of bible called Genesis Ch 1 vs 26 we see that God's partner, Jesus Christ, who created all things according to Paul in NT Collosians Ch 1 vs 15-16 says by Him (Jesus) were all things created in the Heavens and in the Earth.
If you know your Bible you will see Jesus in every chapter on Old and New Testament, all 66 books.
The bible was written by chosen godly men under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit, whether you believe it or not.Ie, Holy Spirit is the transmitter to godly people .

Mankind today ,since Adam and Eve's fall, when they cut off the Holy Spirit thru sin ,just as today ,in unregenerated human kind without the Spirit of God. Cannot fathom anything spiritual out because they are not born again (John 3 v 3-7 )of the Spirit, I Corinthians ch 2 vs 10-14 makes it clear .Old minds .

Just like Paul ,who was religious (mental belief ) and was killing Christians until Jesus spoke to him after Jesus rose into Heaven (NT Acts ch 9 vs 4 onwards ).

This is what will happen to you ,as did me ,after 42 years as a non believer 27 years ago ,if you accept and believe in Christ, but without Him there is no hope and you can invent all kinds of religions and belief systems you want ,(new agers and the like) with their minds and rebellious powers to no avail,.
Just as Adam and Eve did , mankind's still against a loving Father
ALL REBELLION .

Hello Philo,

When mentioning the DVC, I am not saying it is any threat to the church. Rather, first to fourth centuries history are a Pandora’s box, if opened to the general public domain.
Constantine was under many pressures to unify the way ahead and stem debate. You mentioned Luke, the only Gospel with a prologue. If axed, you would not have been about to refer to it yesterday. Besides, it is the only Gospel a prologue(?). Were the others edited?

In the nineteenth century and perhaps even the twentieth palaeontologists didn’t always assemble dinosaur bones correctly, as palaeo-forensics was not well known. Look at the Michelago’s Moses, it has horns! People then mistranslated light as horns.

We need Luther-Supercharged with scientific octane. Take first to forth century histories and don’t assume a priori positions, atheist or theistic. Run the texts through super-computers to examine styles. Don’t assume OT-NT links. Not just a null hypothesis. Go beyond refuting your hypotheses. Try and prove your opponents’ positions. In sum, I am saying the risk for the Christian Church in placing Nicea and the Jesus sects under tight non a prior investigation, is like Carbon dating the Shroud of Turin. Very perilous. For atheists too.

I assume, many Christian theologians would be happy with an histographic analysis stating Mohammed leveraged Islam to unify the Arabs. But if the same historian said the with the fall of the Temple and the Judaic-Roman Wars, Jesus sects saw survival in compromise allowing in Roman gentiles, don’t go there signs would come out.

The past existence of Jesu is history. Divine or not divine? We need to apply science and contemporary methodologies, without any pre-suppositions. In research, religionists must forget divine revelations, holy spirits and epiphanies. Scientists need consider the feasibility of teleology in physical contexts

Olivier,

So very nicely put. I'm sure everything you describe has happened in small corners for centuries, but I don't see the Churches bringing it to the masses.

And this shall be the true test of Christian motivations.

Will they continue to seize upon Dan Brown's failings, emitting melodramatic protests and shutting eyes, while scrambling awkwardly to force the box closed?

Or do they have the faith, integrity, and transparency, to throw themselves at this type of inquiry, taking advantage of this moment when Dan Brown (rightly or wrongly) has piqued the interest of the masses?

Could if be that a more sinister enemy is at work here to challenge the Christian faith. It is not beyong some antagonists to fund this popular challenge to the New Testament record. Even though some Muslims have been outspoken against the Dan Brown fiction becaue it degrades Jesus. But it is not beyond the agenda of others to degrade the New Testament text that is followed by Christians. Note the source of funding for the Movie.
_______________________________

England: Muslim Backing for Da Vinci Code

Da Vinci Code backers' money 'is safe'

Times Online, Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor

“THE financial backer of the film of The Da Vinci Code rushed to reassure investors last night that a planned £100 million investment was not at risk, even if the High Court were to halt the distribution of the film. Invicta Capital, a British tax specialist, insisted that money put up by the millionaires that make up its client base would be secure because Sony Pictures, the film’s producers, have pledged to return the £100 million being raised. Mohammed Yusuf, the chairman and chief executive of Invicta, said: “We’ve had a number of phone calls today from some investors checking to see if their money will be secure. Even if the copyright action against Dan Brown [The Da Vinci Code’s author] succeeds in halting the release of the film, our payments from Sony are guaranteed.” …”

At: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2063399,00.html

Philo and all,

It usually takes a PhD student 3-5 years to prove a new idea and an expereinced academic perhaps 2 years to make it into a tip-top journal. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (Holy Blood and the Holy Grail)seem to be able to uncover new ideas, historians have missed for hundred of years, page after page. Either, they all brilliant beyond Leonardo himself, or they set out to write a best seller: A fiction, which was picked-up and further developed by Brown.

Thanks, Dewi. Yes, my purpose is neither to attack religionists nor necessarily support athiests. But open up 1st to 4th history to close study in the public domain. Including what is already known. As you allude to, there are matters in closet, the churches can admit to given enough attention.

(A) Jesus, the Churches and the Scriptures need to be studied individually and collectively - most of all dispassionately. At the Singapore Asian Civilizations museum an Eygptologist once said to me, if you want to know about the Eygptians "read 'Greek ' history, they had no need to distort things".

Facing the facts is a hard task. A few years back, I mentioned to an Amercian athiest that George Washington put on his for Manonic dress for the laying of the foundation stone of the first White House (destroyed 1812?). It was just too much, he cut off correspondence with me. Similarly, I think it would be hard for a suburban Catholic priest admit that the names of early Roman bishops are of dubious validy. That's not to say some scholars deep in the Vatican realise the truth.

Disassembling all the texts of all the gospels and reassembling them --open to the general public -- could lead to a great revelation or a great deception. If confident and faithful, why are the Churches concerned?

(B) Similarily, in Science, the leagacy of nineteen century mechanics needs to loosen its grip a bit. A greater understanding of total systems and teleological (perhaps mathematically driven) processes in physical evolution require more attention.

Thesism, no. Atheism, no really. Open inquiry, yes.