The Da Vinci Code - fact, fiction, or heresy?

self | 1 September, '03 | J, King

[RightWhale]

What is it with Christians that they call each other heretics? Well, maybe Protestants don't care about such trivial distinctions, but the idea that Prester John was a Nestorian makes some people livid.

[CaptRon]

Yes. I've become quite interested in them. You don't hear much of them in your school history courses. I can only remember discussion of the Carolingians.

[hergus]

Could you source me your reference to Gnostics and the spreading of semen on themselves?

Maybe you have have them confused with the OTO and the Babalon Workings which have absolutely nothing to do with the Gnostics.

TIA

[Prince Charles]

No confusion at all. Your best bet to learn more is a Google search using the keywords "Gnostics" and "semen:"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=gnostics+semen

[hergus]

3 cites from google?

This is from the front page of the second website. People can write anything...I don't learn from this type of website.

"Ialexandriah is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality.  It is an attempt at bridging of the Age of Pisces (i) and the Age of Aquarius (h)."

[hergus]

Here's your third google ref:

http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-034.htm

Yeah, study here too....NOT.

[hergus]

Your first google ref, I guess you believe all of this quote? Or only the parts that affirm your beliefs?

"The Gospel of Eve is known only from one or two short quotations from the great heretic-hunter Epiphanius (310/20 - 402), bishop of Salamis. He tells us that it was used by certain Gnostic sects> with lurid and bizarre beliefs and sexual practices.

Epiphanius' testimony carries weight, because he admits that he himself fell in among them. He reports that they shared their women in common. They celebrated sexual orgies in which partners were swapped. Coitus interruptus was the normal practice.

Semen was collected and offered to the Lord as the body of Christ, before being consumed. The Gnostics also consumed women's menstrual blood.

The theology behind the lechery was anything but world-affirming. It varied from one sub-sect to another.
{snip}

The power of the soul was found in semen and menses. But allowing semen to beget children in this world would play into the hands of the evil archon. So if by accident a woman fell pregnant, the sect would abort the foetus. They would pound it in a mortar, mix it with honey and spices, and eat it.

The beautiful women in the sect used to set themselves out as bait to recruit new followers. Some formed a male elite called

Levites, who did not have sex with women but only with each other.

Jesus himself, they said, was the first teacher of these practices. He took Mary (probably Magdalene) to a mountain, took a woman out of his side and had sex with her, then drank his own sperm saying: "Thus we ought to do, that we may live." The sect even claimed that when Jesus at the Last Supper spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was referring to this practice.

Poor Epiphanius prayed to God, resisted the women, and freed himself from the sect. He then reported them to the bishops, who drove eighty of them from the city.

The accounts and texts are from: Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, James Clarke & Co-Westminster/John Knox Press, Cambridge and Louisville, 1990, and Philip Amidon, The Panarion of St Epiphanius, Oxford University Press, 1990."

[Prince Charles]

Tell me, what are my beliefs?

[Prince Charles]

3 cites from google?

You need some help with this one too, apparently. Set your Google "Safe Search Filtering" preferences to OFF, then try clicking the link again.

[BlueNgold]

Had the author of that phrase 'redeemed prostitute' done any studies or watched the ABC special or perhaps actually read the scriture ... they would have known that never once does the Bible state, infer, or otherwise insinuate that the Magdalene was a prostitute. The genesis of that myth was a Mass set down by a Pope sometime around 550 A.D. Said Mass was later retracted by the church as an innacurate and misleading assertion.

[BlueNgold]

If you want good scholarship on the subject read 'Holy Blood Holy Grail': Lots of good historical information. The sequel is even more in depth, but less 'fun' to read as there is less of the conspiracy research (always good for a hoot) and more of the geneology.

[BlueNgold]

How is it blasphemy? Did Jesus not live as a man? He ate, he drank, he walked and talked, he bled and died ... all as man. Can we assume then that NONE of the Apostles were married as their wives are not mentioned? Such an assertion would be preposterous in my view. I find nothing blasphemic about the idea that Jesus may have married and carried on a 'normal' Jewish life up until the time of his death. To marry and father children is neither sinful nor immoral, and thus takes nothing away from the perfection or diety of Christ.

The real answer is that none of us living today knows for certain. I hope to learn many things that were never written about when we meet on the other side. But I do find it fun and quite interesting that any discussion of Christ should come to the forefront and be a topic for mainstream media. Imagine how many people outside the church may have been intruiged by the story and sought answers... a necessary source is of course the Bible. And is it not good that people seeking knowledge should look to the Word?

[PJ-Comix]

He had another twist on the Catholic Church and so forth in "Angels and Demons".

Didn't Malachi Martin write a book about pedophile priests years ago? If so, what was the book's name?

[hergus]

I have Windswept House, but haven't started it yet. I know he writes about black masses in the Vatican...maybe this is the book you're thinking of?

[longhornmo]

"What is it with Christians that they call each other heretics?"
Well...Heresy is defined as "adherence to religious opinion contrary to church dogma." Agreed that sometimes Christians pick "trivial" points with one another. Of course there are theological positions in which reasonable minds and sincere hearts can disagree.

However, from the earliest history of the Christian church the nature of Christ as God and man and His role as Messiah has been the central point of dogma that separated "heretical" thinking from "orthodox" Christianity. Jesus challend Peter: "Who do you say that I am?". Paul's first letter to the Corinthians in which he states the point he is compelled to defend: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" before going on to discuss how the real "secret knowledge" is found in Christ not in the gnostic teachings that were invading the church only 50 years after the Christian church began. The distinguishing element of Christianity is who and what Christ is, not on what He taught. His teachings emanate from His nature, but His nature is the issue on which Christianity hinges.

Christ's uniquness as Son of God and Son of man, His identify as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and His crucifixion as a real event with the specific purpose of propitiation for sin are the basic beliefs about Jesus that define Christianity. If Christ is not who He said He was, then there is no basis for forming a religion.

The church councils in the fourth and fifth centuries were reactions to teachings that sought to redefine Jesus. The Council of Nicea in 325 confirmed the church position on Christ as "fully divine" to counter the teachings of Arius; the Council of Constantinople in 381 confirmed it's position on Christ as "fully human" to counter the teachings of Apollinarius; and the Councils of Ephesis in 431 and Chalcedon in 451 further defined Christ's nature as
unified in one person against the teachings of Eutyches and Nestorius.

I'm not really up on Prester John. I do know that there is some debate as to whether or not he's a real person and if so whether he's actually out of India or Ethiopia. A simple explanation for what Nestorius taught would be the idea that Christ's divinity was separate from his humanity. In this paradigm, Jesus the son of Mary somehow became a human vessel or host for Christ the Son of God but they did not actually occupy the same body at the same time. If this is Prester John's position, then he's Nestorian.

While this may seem trivial, what Nestorius position implied was that at the time of crucifixion Jesus the man did not suffer and die and Christ as Divine was capable of transcending the suffering. This minimized the act of sacrifice and propitiation. On the other hand, if Christ the Son of God did not suffer and die, could the death of Jesus the man who wasn't the Son of God at the time be sufficient sacrifice? In order for the crucifixion to fulfill it's saving purpose, Christ had to be both man and God simultaneously. The church had to make a "distinction" in order to maintain the integrity of its basic premise.

I'm a Protestant, by the way.

[dnatree]

I let go of the interpretations about the bible and began to gather synchronicities that eventually took on a much different form than what is offered by society. Shall we say "the smallest of points will soon alter the largest of equations and render all the interpretations meaningless". In other words it will soon be evident that the "right people", those that interpret God for us will be revealed to love their interpretation of God more than they love each other, and when that interpretation has been taken from them they will see what they truly have. This process will probably occur through family relationships quickened by dna as spoken in Matt: 10:34 It is through relationship conflict that the interpretations will be revealed as ignorance. dnatree.us/sarah.htm Is a letter to my daughter revealing a free ebook that contains my experience with christianity.

[VOA]

In many denominations today, they don't believe in the virgin birth, healings,
resurections of the dead, especially Jesus'.

A few months ago, I heard seminary professor R.C. Sproul recall a conversation
that he had with a classmate just prior to their "final oral exams"
when he was a seminary student.
At this sweaty moment, just before his classmate was to be called into the
examination room, his classmate turned to Sproul and said "The Ressurection?"
And Sproul said "Well, what about the ressurection?"
And the nervous classmate said "Well, if the profs ask about it...do I believe in it?"

Sproul just mentioned this as an illustration of the liberal nuttiness that had
already invaded the seminary he attended in (IIRC) the 1960s.

Why would someone want to be a priest for an impotent god?

Not necessarily in this order:
$$$
Temporal power over those who do actually believe in a omnipotent G-d.
S-x...access to lots of vulnerable people to be used as sex toys.

(and this is said as I'm mindful of the many virtuous ministers I've met along the way)

[John Robertson]

I agree. Except I thought it was overwrought, over-plotted, had two dimensional characters, too much back-and-forthing and some of the worst writing I've come across since James Patterson. Let me back up, since Patterson is so bad he makes Brown look like an obsessive stylist. I thought much of the writing in The DaVinci Code was really horrendous, with the occasional out-loud howler.

Now, I will concede that the guy sure can crank up a story and make you turn the pages.

[RightWhale]

Even if it is true, so what?

[Hootowl]

How is 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' good scholarship. Admittedly,it's been a long time since I read it, but I recall that much of its "scholarship" was based on documentation that the authors claimed to have seen and taken notes from. The original was subsequently stolen (how convenient). Ipso facto, no one can really check their facts.