Posted on 03/21/2006 5:03:06 AM PST by Dark Skies
Somewhere on my "to-do" list for the year -- No. 116, No. 117 or something like that, right after "rearrange sock drawer" -- is when I picked up Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" to ascertain, if possible, why a whacked-out account of Christian origins has earnest people debating the whacked-out implications.
The inevitable movie version, produced by Sony, comes out in May. We're agog to know what people will think of seeing -- not just reading about, but seeing -- Jesus depicted marrying Mary Magdalene and having children with her, and a Catholic lay organization depicted murdering folks so as to keep the secret.
Hoping to head off a Christian backlash, Sony has created two websites: www.thedavincichallenge.com and www.thedavincidialogue.com. The material features short commissioned essays by Christian writers opining on the novel's plot. There's additional information on the Bible and some material noting differences in the gospels' accounts -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Dan. The Gospel of Dan is now the hot property -- 40 million copies sold -- and not a patch on the four evangelists, but of course, they had a 2000-year head start.
Meanwhile, a civil trial in London goes forward, its purpose being to ascertain Brown's liability, if any, for using in his novel the structure of another book that posits the Jesus-Magdalene connection. All this on top of "The Passion of the Christ"! The idea spreads fast through our society that this Jesus of Nazareth was some guy.
Nor have Christians ever pretended he was anything but colossal. The Nicene Creed, from the fourth century A.D., gives this classic account: "only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light..." Not to mention, "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." Not to mention either, following that episode on the cross, "he rose again," according to the scriptures, and "shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead..."
Pretty stout stuff. How "The Da Vinci Code" threatens to mess up the Second Coming is not automatically apparent. I think the nervousness in Christian circles about "The Code" and its implications stems as much as anything from nervousness about Christianity's centrality in a world where faith and foolishness rub elbows daily.
Fifty years ago, Hollywood celebrated the tribulations of early Christianity: Robert Taylor, bound in the arena before Peter Ustinov, calling on Christ to save Deborah Kerr from a mad, bad bull; Richard Burton and Jean Simmons going gladly to execution for the sake of their new faith, accompanied by the rantings of the crazy Roman emperor Jay Robinson.
Fifty years and it's come to this? "God of God, Light of Light" in the arms of, hmmm, yes, Mary Magdalene? How came it to this, you might well ask. The consumer society that's been building for the past half-century hasn't been especially kind to unflinching affirmations of a spiritual order that trumps the material order. The culture likes what it likes. Best of all, it likes that which affirms the convenient, the personal, the profitable, the malleable. Dan Brown (I gather) gets a hearing partly because he tells a gripping story and partly because the story of a Jesus "like us" has great appeal.
Odd thing, the theologians might say: He (SET ITAL) was (END ITAL) like us -- human as well as divine. But that's hard to grasp. Give us a Jesus with a wife and kids and maybe an SUV.
Does "The Da Vinci Code" matter in the great scheme of things? So much so that we're all atwitter waiting to see how the movie comes out?
Can a movie make Jesus other than as the creeds of the church say he was? That would seem the real question. Attempts to remold him after the mold maker's fancy easily preceded Dan Brown and Sony. And will continue. But the Jesus of the creeds, "God of God, Light of Light" -- it really should have struck us long ago that the likes of Dan Brown can't lay a glove on this guy.
That is true but he sure can lead a lot of the sheeple astray. Just doing his father's business, I guess.
"He was despised and we esteemed Him not."
JESUS actually foretold that MANY would come professing themselves to be the "true Christ" and having "true Salvation"
Dan Brown just took a number & stepped in line.
It was a fun, if predictable, read. Found in the fiction section of local libraries and bookstores. Obviously, by the fact of this trial, Dan Brown is not the first to get involved in this conspiracy theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
I hardly see how Dan Brown is professing himself to be the true Christ and having true salvation.
He's a novelist.
But I'm sure he appreciates all the press (positive and negative). As my dad had always said, "there's no such thing as bad publicity", except of course if you're found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
A young Lou Gosset, Jr. or young Denzel Washington would have been good choices to play the part of Jesus.
Obviously I don't think that he was caucasion!
I received the following e-mail this morning. My first thought was to wonder what Freepers would think of the idea. Any thoughts?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING MAY 19TH?
May 19th is the date the Da Vinci Code movie opens. A movie based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor.
What can we as Christians do in response to the release of this movie? I'm going to offer you the usual choices -- and a new one.
Here are the usual suspects:
A) We can ignore the movie. ........
The problem with this option: The box office is a ballot box. The only people whose votes are counted are those who buy tickets. And the ballot box closes on the Sunday of opening weekend. If you stay home, you have lost your chance to make your vote heard. You have thrown your vote away, and from Hollywood's point of view, you don't count. By staying home, you do nothing to shape the decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big screen.
B) We can protest. ........
The problem with this option: It doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And again, protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years. (Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)
C) We can discuss the movie. We can be rational and be ready with study guides and workshops and point-by-point refutations of the lies promulgated by the movie. ........
The problem with this option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to say already. We'll lose most of these discussions anyway, no matter how prepared we are, because the power of story always trumps the power of facts (why do you think Jesus taught in parables?!). And once again: rational discussion of history does nothing to affect Hollywood's choices regarding what movies to make.
But there's a fourth choice.
On May 19th, you should go to the movies.
Just go to another movie.
Save the date now. May 19th, or May 20th. No later than Sunday, May 21st -- that's the day the ballot box closes. You'll get a vote, the only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down on a box office window on opening weekend.
Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than DVC. If enough people do it, the powers that be will notice. They won't have a choice.
The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact, let's all go see
it.
Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects -- without protests, without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn, too.
May 19th. Mark your calendars now: Over the Hedge's opening weekend. Buy a ticket.
And spread the word. Forward this e-mail to all the Christians in your address book. Post it on your blogs. Talk about it to your churches. And let's all go to the movies.
To read more on The Da Vinci Code, see:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=32199
Lou Gossett isn't enough of a heavyweight and Denzel is too much of a pretty boy.
I would recommend Sam Jackson or a young Morgan Freeman (who is my favorite actor).
Remember that Jesus was a young man and I'd guess extremely attractive from a human point of view, as well as physically strong from being a carpenter by trade.
He was the epitome of compassionate, gentle, humorous, strong, and even actively physical and loud when needed.
He had enough 'gravitas' to stand up to the ruling parties of his day.
I'm not sure that even a yound Samuel Jackson or young Morgan Freeman would do the trick.
But that's the great thing about opinions like this is that we can each have one.
Jesus was a Jew. He undoubtedly looked very "Middle Eastern." He was not a black African.
Although it is also pretty unlikely that he was blond or Nordic-looking.
Jesus's lineage is laid out very clearly in the Scriptures. He was Jewish. Middle-Eastern people are classified as Caucasian.
Hmmm.....let's see...Adam was the first perfect man...Jesus was the second Adam....and also a perfect man. Somehow I doubt that he was of a flawed appearance in any way.
The scripture you are probably referring to shows how badly he was mangled during his torture and execution. He was hideously disfigured and would have been such a horrible sight to behold that people would hide their eyes to keep from seeing him.
I still think Jackson could pull it off (would have to be a shaved-head Jesus). Morgan Freeman is so good at everything he does that he could probably pull it off...I just can't imagine him young (but he has gravitas in spades). Also, Freeman has already played God quite believably in Bruce Almighty.
Actually he wasn't "jewish" but Judean. On both his mother and father's sides.
Not all children of Israel were Judean, but all Judeans were children of Israel.
And many modern day 'jews' are descended from east Euorpean tribes, not from the children of Israel, or says the author of The Thirteenth Tribe, which is a banned book in some parts of the world.
I liked Freeman's God better than George Burns' God, but both were good.
The shaved head is something hard for some to swallow, but seeing Lou Gossett, Jr in Officer and Gentleman got me thinking of him in that light.
Well, on His dad's side he was pure Immortal God, maker of heaven and earth. His stepfather, Joseph, went back in a direct male line to Abraham. On his mom's side His descent from Aaron is spelled out in Luke 1:5, where her cousin Elizabeth is said to be "a daughter of Aaron." How this translates to being non-Caucasian and non-Semitic you have not yet clarified.
Not all children of Israel were Judean, but all Judeans were children of Israel.
This has a bearing on the racial makeup of Jesus how? In other words, there is no Biblical documentation for saying that He was not Caucasian and Jewish.
And many modern day 'jews' are descended from east Euorpean tribes, not from the children of Israel, or says the author of The Thirteenth Tribe, which is a banned book in some parts of the world.
Um, maybe, but how does this relate to Jesus's genetic inheritance? And why are you invested in demonstrating that He was not white and Jewish?
Isaiah 53:2 does not refer to Jesus' appearance after being beaten. That's simply untrue, just like what you're saying about his appearance has no biblical basis. Please read your bible. Or just keep twisting things toward your own ends. History is full of people like you.
First of all, this was a fun and friendly conversation until you pulled up on your high horse.
And now, you seem intent to show off what an a@@ you really are.
Read the verse IN CONTEXT...
Don't just stop when convenient.
Yeah, prooftexts are fine...and history if full of people, like you, who use them.
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The following verses describe Jesus' torture and execution, and the reaction of those around him.
Buddy, you reap what you sow.
You are taking this way too seriously.
Some of us having fun talking about non-western whites that would make a good Jesus.
And you have the parental lineage correct. He had to be able to trace it back on both sides, both parents of the flesh being descended from David.
My point on the Jewish side is that, imo, today's Israel isn't a great place to look to see what Judeans looked like 2000 years ago.
I'm not invested in anything of the sort as you claim, but I don't think that using today's term of Jewish to describe Jesus is terribly accurate. That term today implies anyone claiming to be either one of the children of Israel or any convert to the religion. Jesus was Judean, of the tribe of Juda, not just one of the children of Isreal.
Are you invested in preserving the Jeff Hunter version of Jesus?
Little Suzie was skipping down the street. She came upon her grandma's cabin and entered. She then discovered that her grandma had been eaten by a wolf and became sick.
Using the same interpretive reasoning you use for Is. 53, Little Suzie was skipping because her grandma was killed by a wolf.
There's this little thing in writing called "timeline," you might want to look into it. There is NO reason to interpret the scriptures the way you have in Is. 53. Your view of Is. 53 is just that: your view. It is absolutely not the traditional one. It is your unreasonable, unnecessary interpretation invented for God know what your purpose is. Either you're stupid or you have an agenda. If the former, good enough. If the latter I can't imagine what. A pretty Jesus doesn't do good for anyone. The very reason God made Jesus look normal is so that people followed the truth of his message rather than his attractiveness. That's God--smart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.