The Portable Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code Alert)

The Godhead of White by Dan Brown

"The Godhead of White is a shocking tale of suspense! ****" The Scotsman

For hundreds of years, people have speculated about the existance of The Gnostics. The Gnostics have kept the secret of Mary Magdalene for over a thousand years. A beautiful priest has stumbled upon their trail while solving a crossword puzzle. The Gnostics will stop at nothing to keep their secret, but can The Osirica stop *them* first?!

"The Godhead of White is a fascinating best-seller!" The Times

Create your own, completely original, Dan Brown novel!

A very funny column. Adams apparently likes to talk to conspiracy nuts. I can't stand it, so I won't be carrying the Da Vinci Code around.

Yeah..it's funny all right...disturbingly funny especially considering that the movie was financed by Muslims:

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06050084.htm

I used to think The Koran was the best book to read in the airport, simply because carrying it guarantees you’ll never get searched by airport security.

No, it doesn't.

The fulfillment of numerous Biblical prophecies is powerful evidence for the Bible being the inspired word of God. No archaeological discovery has disproved a single thing in the Bible but numerous things have been confirmed by archaeology.

1) Canonization was completed by the mid 400's AD (CE). It was accepted as canon by the Holy Roman Catholic Church of God. The Apocrypha is considered holy writ by the RCs but is expelled by Protestants as non-inspired history or legend. (As a side note: Jesus Christ observed Hanukkah (Feast of Lights) throughout his lifetime. Yet, there is no such festival listed in the redacted Old Testament. The only mention of such a feast is in the Maccabees. It follows that the Apocrypha should be included on that fact alone; yet, Protestant theologians overlook such points.)

2) The Septuagint text competed with the Masoretic text. Orthodox Jews consider the Sept. a substandard text because of scribal errors in translating Aramaic, Chaldean and Hebrew into Greek. Nonetheless, canonization of the OT was completed by the Jewish authorities regardless of which translation was favored. Some books discussed for non-inclusion include Esther and Song of Songs.

3) Your point on Jewish converts is a nonsensical red herring when dealing with the fact that the gnostic texts were used by the writers of the Old and New Testament. The so-called gnostic texts were then discarded through systematic redaction by scribes and catholic authorities.

4) Dan Brown's salvation or lack of salvation, last time I read the Bible, is none of your concern.

These continue to be undisputed by all biblical experts except point#4.

The Catholics redacted the New Testament and the Jewish scribes redacted the Old Testament.

That's bizarre since the New Testament canon was settled before there was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe you just mean the early church fathers redacted the New Testament by excluding the Gnostic gospels etc. from the canon. That's correct and for good reason. There's nothing whatsoever to connect them with the time of Jesus. They are also often incomprehensible and weird.

No one's disputing that things were excluded from the New Testatment. The issue is the reason. He's disputing that it was done on a political basis.

Jewish scholars exluded the Apochrypha from the Old Testament because it was found to have errors and was therefore not scripture. It was concluded it was not divine in origin although events chronicled in it probably happened.

It is cited from The Book of Enoch--a gnostic scroll. Ergo, the original scroll has been redacted out of the New Testament.

Waah? The Book of Enoch was written long before both Gnosticism and the New Testament. It has nothing to do with Gnosticism. How could it be redacted from the New Testament? I believe The Book of Enoch is considered by scholars as having some validity but doesn't qualify as scripture.

When was the Roman Catholic Church founded? Ask any Catholic and he/she will say on Pentecost after Christ's death. Further, the Emperor Constantine seem to give them his stamp of approval in the 300s AD.

When was canon settled? (Might want to read this source, though I could cited more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) NT canon was not settled officially until the 400s. Some could argue late 300s but why quibble.

Who settled the canon? The Septuagint used many of the books you say were considered non-inspired (Tobit, Maccabees, etc). Yet, the Apostles and Christ seemed to quote at length these books. History tells us that the Jews settled the OT by the middle of the first century AD (CE) while the Catholic church canonized the New Testament officially in the 4th century. The Eastern Orthodox acknowledges Rome's ruling. It was the Jews and the Catholics. Now, some may say that far-flung locations kept their own canon such as the Ethiopians et al. But that merely proves that a theocratic (political-religious) entity set dogma.

Your point concerning Jewish and Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha and the Catholic inclusion of same into their canon as holy and sacred seems to indicate that there is redaction and rejection process. Those that fall under the theocratic sway of the RC church seems to indicate a political process. I fail to understand your point viz a viz Adams' initial assertion that nothing of the sort went on.

Further, the Book of Enoch, though not in the Nag index seen here (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlcodex.html) is considered by biblical fundamentalists as well as Gnostics as gnostic in nature (http://www.thepearl.org/). It was redacted out of the canon. SOME scholars consider it valid scripture inasmuch as they see the texts used in NT canon. Other scholars see many of the ideas in Enoch heretical to church dogma. Again, this only validates my point against Adam's assertions.

Finally, history shows that the temporal authorities under the guidance of the church, emperor, or governors persecuted heterodoxic sectarians and burned their literature. Nothing but catholic homodoxic dogma was accepted. Later, the church began a systematic destruction of all heterodoxic activity through the office of Inquisition. You will find similar ideas espoused by various Protestant leaders (IE. Luther did not accept the Book of James into his New Testament).

Adams ignores such facts, which led to my original engagement of debate.

A very funny column. Adams apparently likes to talk to conspiracy nuts. I can't stand it, so I won't be carrying the Da Vinci Code around.

Carry this one around. ;-)

"The Third Terrorist" -- Jayna Davis

"while the Catholic church canonized the New Testament officially in the 4th century."

I guess the Council of Trent in 1546 was merely an exercise in redundancy then.

"The Eastern Orthodox acknowledges Rome's ruling."

Yet the Eastern Orthodox does not share a common Canon with the Roman Catholic Church. They might even say the Roman Catholic Church removed books from the Bible and uses an incomplete version of the Septuagint as the foundation of its Old Testament.

"Luther did not accept the Book of James into his New Testament"

Look again. Luther absolutely did include the book of James in his New Testament Canon.

1) Trent was not about canonization. Do you really want to assert Trent was about further canonization of new books to the established catholic Bible? Re:

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. [Emphasis mine]

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment..."

2) I admit surprise regarding various orthodox canon and admit I was mistaken in a certain fundamentalist assumption of catholic monolithic usage throughout Christendom. Having lived the past 20 years in a fundamentalist mentality, thinking my KJV Bible was complete and everyone followed the same book, I was surprised in this first year of relearning to find various "tweaks" in several versions. I assumed that all fell into a catholic canon, the Jewish canon, and the Protestant reformed canon. Call it western bias, I suppose, but I never focused on EO, assuming they followed the RCs lead. However, it is clear that the orthodox canon adds certain texts to their canon. I admit that on this point I was mistaken and admit error. Eureka, I've learned something new.

3) IRC Luther originally desired the Book of James removed. However, later BoJ remained in the Bible. My point is that redaction was on the mind of many reformers. I was also thinking of Thomas Jefferson's personal version of the Bible.

Why are we quibbling when it seems apparent that Adams assertion that canon was set and there were no conspiring forces was false. Further, the idea that canonization was not politically inspired and that gnostic scrolls were dismissed, teachings removed, and teachers/ disciples were killed and forced underground is ludicrous. Redaction occurred in the Bible. Adams was wrong on this point. Whether Dan Brown was correct on any other point Adams contended with was not my focus.

Spare me.

"Do you really want to assert Trent was about further canonization of new books to the established catholic Bible?"

No, and I didn't. You said..."the Catholic church canonized the New Testament officially in the 4th century." I merely stated that Trent must have been an exercise in redundancy if that were really the case.

"I never focused on EO, assuming they followed the RCs lead."

I think that is a pretty common misunderstanding since I frequently hear and read statements from Catholics claiming that their Canon is and was THE Canon until Luther came along and ruined everything. That clearly isn't true, as even the document you included in your post indicates that leading into Trent there was more than one version "of the sacred books" in circulation. Now, please understand that I'm not saying misunderstandings like that are unique to Catholics. They obviously aren't. In fact, despite being an active and devoted Christian for almost my entire life, I was 30 before I learned the Catholic Church had a different Bible than the one I'd been studying for decades. I guess the learning process is never ending. Actually, it seems like the more I learn, the more I find out how little I really know.

"However, it is clear that the orthodox canon adds certain texts to their canon."

In the context of what we've already talked about, that statement is factually incorrect. It is more correct to say the Catholic Church has removed books from the Septuagint, which is what it bases its Old Testament Canon on. The irony is, that is the same "crime" many Catholics are so eager to pin on Luther.

"My point is that redaction was on the mind of many reformers."

That is much different than saying "Luther did not accept the Book of James into his New Testament". Again, a common misunderstanding is that Luther autonomously constructed his Biblical Canon without input from other Biblical experts (including many Catholic scholars). His efforts weren't some kind of Joseph Smith moment. They were open debates on a topic that truly hadn't been set in stone by anyone, including the Catholic Church.

It is not within my power to spare you ... but you know in whose power that remains.

I appreciate the give and take. I've learned from the experience.

"I've learned from the experience."

So have I. Thanks.

When was the Roman Catholic Church founded? Ask any Catholic and he/she will say on Pentecost after Christ's death. Further, the Emperor Constantine seem to give them his stamp of approval in the 300s AD. When was canon settled? (Might want to read this source, though I could cited more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) NT canon was not settled officially until the 400s. Some could argue late 300s but why quibble.

I'm not defining the RC Church how Catholics define it but as the functional RC Church in which one Bishop of Rome claimed primacy and claiming his authority as derived from Peter.

Adams and you are to some degree talking about 2 different things. You're talking about some church body, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church officially establishing the canon. Before that however, there was wide agreement on what books constituted the canon, and the Gnostic Gospels were NEVER seriously considered. Athanasius a bishop in Alexandria, put together the first list which corresponds exactly to today's New Testament in 367 A.D. Was that "Official"? Probably not, but Adams is not concerning himself with that. He's concerning himself with WHY certain books were not included, particularly in the New Testament.

Maybe you don't know what the premise of the Da Vinci code is. Dan Brown claims that the Gnostic Gospels were suppressed because they say Jesus was just an ordinary mortal (they don't say that anyway). So in order to build up the power of the RC Church, they had to suppress them.

There was pretty much a CONSENSUS among the early church fathers (well before the 400's) that the Gnostic Gospels were not valid. If you know differently I'd like to see it. Furthermore, this was not done to cement anyone's political power. This was at time when Christians were still being martyred. It was because the Gnostic Gospels obviously have no connection to the time of Jesus.

SOME scholars consider it valid scripture inasmuch as they see the texts used in NT canon. Other scholars see many of the ideas in Enoch heretical to church dogma. Again, this only validates my point against Adam's assertions.

The question is did any of the early church leaders see it as scripture? If it was excluded for having heretical teachings, then that's not political as I define it - particularly if there was more or less a consensus. Again we're talking about a period before there was a Pope as we know it.

Finally, history shows that the temporal authorities under the guidance of the church, emperor, or governors persecuted heterodoxic sectarians and burned their literature. Nothing but catholic homodoxic dogma was accepted. Later, the church began a systematic destruction of all heterodoxic activity through the office of Inquisition.

Again you and he are talking about different things. This would have happened later after the RC Church became powerful. He's talking about a period before the church (whether you want to define it as the RC Church or not) had any power. For example Athanasius was banished 5 times by Roman emperors before Constantine became a Christian.