Posted on 05/09/2006 11:22:42 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. It is OK for a novelist to create a fictional story and even a fictional setting if he wishes. What you can't do with impunity is create a fictional foreground and fictional background, the latter of which you claim is based on fact. That is precisely what Dan Brown has done. His novel, "The Da Vinci Code," claims to be based on facts, but his "facts" are just as much fiction as his fiction.
Upon examination, "The Da Vinci Code" is chock full of errors. Some are unimportant; others, if true, would spell the end of Christianity. Here is a short list of "Da Vinci Code" errors. More errors from the book are rebutted on the new documentary special, "The Da Vinci Delusion," which airs May 13 and May 14 nationwide. For listings, go to www.davincidelusion.tv.
Error: The book tells readers that "The New Testament is false testimony."
Rebuttal: The New Testament was sealed with the apostles' blood. They put their money where their mouths were. The Greek word for "witness" – as in the idea of witnessing to the truth about Jesus – is "martyro," from whence we get the word martyr. Why? Because so many witnesses to Jesus, e.g., the apostles, were killed for testifying about what they themselves saw. Brown glibly ignores this history and, instead, exalts the questionable writings of second-, third-, and fourth-century Gnostic Christians, who were sexual libertines for the most part. (Other Gnostics were strict legalists.)
Error: The doctrine that Jesus was divine was created by a pagan emperor in the fourth century, Constantine, for the purposes of manipulation: "It was all about power."
Rebuttal: After the Resurrection, Christians worshiped Jesus because He was divine. They called Him "Kurios," the Greek word for "Lord." In the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles had (translated roughly 150 B.C.) – the word used for Yahweh is Kurios. For a Jew to say that a human was Kurios was absolutely forbidden.
Error: No one believed, prior to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that Jesus was divine.
Rebuttal: Again, in the Gospels, written in the first century, we see that Jesus was divine. This is why He was delivered up to be crucified. The Jews accused Him of blasphemy, which is why they arrested Jesus and had a "trial" among themselves: Dan Brown's view that the early Christians believed Jesus was only a mortal rests on historical quicksand. From the very beginning, Christians worshiped Jesus as the Son of God. "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" authors Jim Garlow and Peter Jones have compiled a list of several Church Fathers – all of whom wrote before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 – affirming this most basic Christian doctrine that Jesus was divine. Those Fathers include: Ignatius (writing in A.D. 105), Clement (150), Justin Martyr (160), Irenaeus (180), Tertullian (200), Origen (225), Novatian (235), Cyprian (250), Methodius (290), Lactantius (304), and Arnobius (305). Furthermore, one of the earliest Christian creeds was "Jesus is the Lord" (Kurios) (1 Corinthians 12:3).
Error: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and the Gnostic gospels teach that.
Rebuttal: There is the flimsiest of evidence for that. There is one passage in the pseudo Gospel of Philip, written about A.D. 250, long after Philip the apostle had died, that claims Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on her ________ (where he kissed her is obscure in the manuscript). The word could have been mouth, cheek, forehead, or whatever. Even liberal scholar Karen King of Harvard University observes that this is referring to a holy kiss that is asexual in nature. Just like it says in the Bible, greet one another with "a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16). Let's also remember that this was written more than 200 years after Christ. So even Dan Brown's sources from antiquity don't make his case for him.
Error: In "The Last Supper," Leonardo da Vinci allegedly painted Mary Magdalene seated next to Jesus.
Rebuttal: One of Dan Brown's proofs is that John looks so feminine, but John is often portrayed in such a way in art because he was young. Go to any cathedral and look at the stained-glass images of John. Just as you can identify Peter because he is holding keys, and you can tell Andrew because he is holding a Cross like an X (the kind on which He was crucified), so you can tell John by his feminine looks. But suppose it were the case that Leonardo intentionally painted Mary Magdalene next to Jesus instead of John, because Jesus and Mary were allegedly married, and Leonardo was in on the secret, then where is the "beloved disciple" John? He is not in the picture. Where is he? Under the table?
Error: The Gnostic gospels uniformly teach the "sacred feminine" – the pagan idea that sex with a woman is the route to a relationship with God.
Rebuttal: Unlike the four Gospels, the Gnostic gospels can be actually degrading to women. The Gospel of Thomas declares that a woman cannot be saved unless God first changes her into a man (the very last verse of Thomas, 114).
Error: The Priory of Sion, which looms large in the novel, was created in 1099 by the Knights Templar.
Rebuttal: The Priory of Sion was created out of whole cloth in 1956 by a French anti-Semite con man, Pierre Plantard. In 1975, documents were found in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris that allegedly proved the Priory is as old as 1099, and that Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton and other luminaries secretly presided over it. These documents were proved to be fakes.
Error: Christianity was based on pagan religions – such as the mystery religions. Specifically, Dan Brown states: "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras – called the Son of God and the Light of the World – was born on Dec. 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days."
Rebuttal: Dan Brown has it exactly the opposite. The mystery religions more often borrowed from Christian themes – including the ones that Brown mentions. In ancient cultures, there was always the myth of the dying and resurrecting god – essentially "winter" and "spring." However, these are never alleged to have been real history. In contrast, on such and such a day (some scholars, including Dr. Alan Whanger, retired professor of Duke Medical Center – believe April 7, A.D. 30) Jesus Christ was crucified and laid in a tomb in Jerusalem. He came out alive with a resurrected body in three days (as Jews count it – two days as we would count it).
Going further on the mystery religions, note what authors Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel write in their book, "The Da Vinci Hoax":
Unfortunately for Brown and the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," there is little or no evidence that most pagan mystery religions, such as the Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris or the cult of Mithras, existed in the forms described in their books prior to the mid-first century. This is a significant point, for much of the existing evidence indicates that the third- and fourth-century beliefs and practices of certain pagan mystery religions are read back into the first-century beliefs of Christians – without support for such a presumptive act ...
Was there any fact-checking?
There are so many errors among the alleged "accurate depictions" of "The Da Vinci Code" that historian and first-rate scholar Paul Maier just has to shake his head. He notes, "Detailing all the errors, misinterpretations, deceptions, distortions, and outright falsehoods in "The Da Vinci Code" makes one wonder whether Brown's manuscript ever underwent editorial scrutiny or fact-checking."
Amazingly, we live in the Information Age, yet we live in an age of massive disinformation. The Bible says Satan is the "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2). The Bible also says that in the end times, "men will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:3). Is that not happening in our own day?
I trust that out of all of this, God, who is able to turn all things to our good, will use it to give opportunities for us to share the true Gospel of the true Savior, who gave His life and shed His blood that we might be forgiven and redeemed and saved by His grace through faith.
The new documentary special, "The Da Vinci Delusion," airs May 13 and May 14 nationwide and is available now on DVD from Coral Ridge Ministries.
D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., is senior minister of the nearly 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian broadcasting organization which reaches more than 3 million people weekly by radio and television. He also is the author of more than 60 books, founder and president of Evangelism Explosion – a lay evangelism training program used in every nation on earth – and founder and chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
It is fiction indeed, but do you know how many people are believing this garbage????
I have never heard of anyone or read any writing that would substantuate your false claim. If you have a valid source for this statement please provide it. If not, then please admit that this is just your own uninformed opinion.
I don't believe Mark was a direct eyewitness. Wasn't he brought into the Church by Peter?
Yet his Gospel was said to have been written between 55 and 70 A.D.
None of the gospels mentions the destruction of the temple and the Romans destroying Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That was a pretty big deal. This suggests that the Gospels were all finished before 70 A.D.
Probably the same number who believe Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911".
Mark was an eye witness. The Last Supper is believed to have been held at his home. Also notice Mark 14:51-52.
Many Bible secholors believe that Judas first brought the soldiers who arrested Jesus in the garden to Mark's house. That would be very logical since that was the last place where Judas had known Jesus was. That being the case, it is further believed that young Mark, probably a teenager at the time, ran in his bedclothes to warn Jesus. Many believe that he is the young man who ran from the Garden naked. Only Mark records this. Mark was also probably one of the ones who witnessed the resurrected Christ.
Wasn't he brought into the Church by Peter?
No. Read Acts 12:12 When Peter was released from jail he went to Mark' house. In Acts 12:25 we find Mark and Barnabas as companions of Paul when he returned to Antioch from Jerusalem.
Read Acts 15:37-40. Here we see a dispute between Paul and Barnabas over Mark. Mark had started out with them on the first missionary journey but had not finished the journey. Now Barnabas wants to take him again on the second missionary journey but Paul says no. This resulted in Paul and Barnabus going on separate journeys, Mark going with Barnabas.
Read Col. 4:10. Here we find that Mark was with Paul when Paul wrote Colossians. They had evidently reconciled by that time.
Read II Tim. 4:11. This was written just before Paul's death. Notice that he ask Timothy to bring Mark with him when he comes to Paul in Rome because by this time Mark had grown into a strong advocate for the church and Paul considered him useful for the ministry.
The Scriptures associate Mark with Paul rather than Peter. Mark was without a doubt an eyewitness to many of the things he would later write about in his Gospel and a companion of Paul.
I hope you find this useful.
Then why does Brown make this claim at the book's beginning... “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”.
This is why there is an outcry.
Brown is a despicable liar and a coward.
When called on his "accurate" secret rituals and documents, he and his apologists throw up their arms and say "it's fiction.....it's fiction........"
He can't have it both ways.
This is like all the liberals who swore that the "Passion of the Christ" was going to cause Christians to beat and kill Jewish peoples in retaliation.... When all is said and done, it'll be just a footnote in Pop Culture.
I think your bible ignorance is showing. What about John's Gospel or the Apocalypse or 1st and 2nd Peter, The Epistle of Jude or 1st 2nd or 3rd John? They all knew Our Lord quite well. Not to mention the conversation that Paul had with Him on the road to Damascus.
Sorry, Eastbound. We all understand that the Gospel of Thomas wasn't calling for sex-change (er, sex-mutilation) surgery. The point was that women should stop being like women: if you read it, they were to become sexless. The gnostic gospels, far from preaching female empowerment, preached that feminity was evil.
How that plays out in the 'real world' insofar as role-playing is concerned, it makes sense that the male is pre-dominately masculine in appearance and activities, and the female is predominantly feminine in appearance and activities.
I say, predominantly, for if we are created in the image and likeness of God, after the manner of Adam, who had both the masculine and feminine aspects, it would seem logical and normal for the man to act more masculine and the woman to act more feminine for there to be an attraction -- and a basis for a union, each complimenting the other.
I don't know what gnostics think or what they understand. Never studied them in depth.
I think it more advantageous, at least for me, to look at things beyond their face value or what they appear to be. I began thinking like that when I started studying the meanings of the parables of Jesus. In fact, I've found some of the parables to have different meanings when re-examined from another perspective, or state of need.
Some folks apparently don't go that far and attribute their beliefs to the natural interpretation and stop there. Don't have the ear to hear what is really being said and settle for corn on the cob rather than what the kernels represent.
OK. Just that in the case of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, that was NOT what was meant.
""The Gospel of Thomas declares that a woman cannot be saved unless God first changes her into a man (the very last verse of Thomas, 114)."
When a woman (or a man, for mankind is the feminine aspect or spirit) is saved, that is when the transformation starts and the feminine prepares to becomes one with the masculine. That's what the marriage is. A twaining of your mind and the mind of Christ and we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, in a spiritual sense. Your will is sublimated to the will of God, as Christ sublimated his will to the will of the Father when he said, 'Not my will, but thine be done.'
Now, in that He is now the eternal mediator between man and God, it is for us as individuals to sublimated our will to the will of Christ, (our husband, if you will) who is the express image of the Father within us, for Christ dwells within us and we in Him. Ideally, in conscious internal dialogue.
So I see no problem with the Thomas statement, though I wouldn't take it to mean a natural happening, for what profit has the flesh? The statement could serve as a metaphor for the wedding between Christ and His church, a confirmation of the inner process of re-uniting with God and realizing our salvation on an individual basis.
Sorry, but you're simply reading into it what isn't there. This is not anything like St. Paul ("There shall be neither... woman nor man"); there is no reciprocality indicated. Nor did the gnostics believe there should be. Besides, the bride does NOT prepare for the groom by becoming groom-like; in fact, preparing for the groom is done by bringing forth the fullness of femininity; so reading it as a preparation for the wedding feast is precisely backwards.
Further, the gnostics wholeheartedly, passionately, and fundamentally rejected the wedding element of the Christian faith. The early Christians saw marriage as a foretaste of the ecstatic union, Mary and Joseph experiencing the presence of Christ so closely that they had no need for the shadow of it that is sexuality; the Gnostics went in the opposite direction: to see sexuality as a curse created by the conquering of dirt over spirit, and religious sexuality as an abomination, seeing the "sacrament of marriage" as being of the same cloth as temple prostitutes.
So, yes, they did see "unsexing" as a preparation for their union with God, but that was because their god hated marriage and sexuality. Our God created sexuality as a way of permitting us to experience the bond between love and creation.
One last point, more of a pop-culture reference: The cosmology / "religion" professed by the vampries in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is actually quite similar to gnosticism, minus the ascetic elements. Why? The gnostic view is that the experience of a spiritual longing was an evil created by the Hebrew God, a lesser God who revolted against the Gnostic God, according to them. Vampires were, then, humans without the Yahvistic spark of spiritual longing, experiencing only "pure" animal longings. (The Gnostics did, hwoever, believe that there was no chance at going to the pre-edenic "natural" state, and sought, therefore to go to purity in the opposite direction: pure spirit.) Also, The Gnostic cosmology created a perfect viewpoint of Satan's arrogance: that it was God who messed everything else, and that he was the true god.
(Of course, what more perfect expression of the Vampires' spirituality than to profess a "gospel of Judas"?)
Exactly! Thanks.
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.