Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LebaneseARAB I read the da vinci code, it is a good book, i liked it very much. I can't wait to read his other book Angels and Demons. I think a lot of the thing the author says is possible, like Jesus being married and having kids, this is only a shock because people have been raised believing the story from a certain perspective, but historically looking at it, nothing should surprise us that a man from Palestine at that time and culture was married and had kids, that was normal back than but people do not want to believe it because it goes against what they were taught. |
In the first page i posted a huge post about this subject...and i think i replied Dan Brown in the best way about the so called "marriage of Jesus and MM"....
By the way ,can you give me one reference where any of the apostles say that Jesus is married?
If you want to refer to the Gnostic Gospels in your answer....read the following:
The The Da Vinci Code claims that the New Testament is a forgery and that the Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the original Christian texts.
This claim, however, is flatly contradicted by an overwhelming amount of scholarship by Christians and non-Christians. Many scholars believe that the New Testament was written during the first century and that the Gnostic texts were written no sooner than the second century. And, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any gospels of any kind. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any Christian writings of any kind.
There are four New Testament Gospels, which are named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many scholars believe that these were written during the century in which Jesus lived. The Gnostic gospels are generally believed to have been written later – about 100 to 300 years later. These Gnostic texts borrow some elements from Christianity, including the names of Jesus and his apostles, but these writings are not Christian.
There are major differences between the New Testament Gospels and the Gnostic gospels. The New Testament Gospels contain details about life in the land of Israel during the first century. They also contain several references to Old Testament passages, prophecies and theological concepts. For Christians, the New Testament presents itself as a continuation of the Old Testament. In contrast, the Gnostic texts contain very little detail to suggest that their authors had ever been to the land of Israel, or that they were even alive during the first century. And the theological concepts of the Gnostic texts sharply contradict those that are found in the Old Testament.
It is for these reasons, and others like them, that the Gnostic texts were rejected by early Christians as being divinely inspired. In fact, there is evidence that early Christian church leaders were rejecting Gnostic writings as early as the middle of the second century, which is when some scholars believe that the Gnostic texts first began to appear.
Consider this from pages 26 and 27 of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes:
"But were the Gnostic gospels written prior to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Most scholars, Christian and non-Christian, would answer no. They date the Gnostic gospels (for example, those in the Nag Hammadi collection) to about A.D. 150 to 250. Although many of these texts are Coptic translation of earlier Greek texts (that are no longer extant), most scholars agree that the material itself still does not date previous to the mid 100s to the early 200s.
"In other words, the Gnostic texts were written after the books of Matthew (about 65 to 100), Mark (about 40 to 75), Luke (about 60 to 80), and John (about 90). They [the Gnostic texts] were late arrivals, which is one reason why church leaders rejected them. ... These Gnostic gospels not only disagreed with the older [New Testament] Gospels, which were already accepted by Christians, but they lacked authority since their authors were neither a) apostles of Jesus nor b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus. ... No one really knows who wrote the [Gnostic] texts."
As for Brown's claim about the Dead Sea Scrolls - these scrolls were found in 1947, not in the 1950s as Brown mistakenly claims on page 234 of The Da Vinci Code. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies and fragments of Old Testament books and various religious and secular writings. But they do not contain any gospels, and they do not contain any references to Jesus. In fact, many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written centuries before the time of Jesus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LebaneseARAB I also believe the book when it says that the original christians never believed Jesus was god's son, they used to believe Jesus was a prophet but not god's son, the church later on, 300 years later made him god's son for whatever reason.. |
Well well i think i wrote Supelec about this subject when he talked about the Nicean Council in 325...did you rea what i wrote about arius and St Athanius??
The main purpose of helding this council is to correct the controversy that caused Arius....and Sy Athanius replied in the best way that Jesus is son of God(same essence and substance as God his Father....Begotten not made from Him...and he refered to the Gospels of Matthew,Mark,Luke and John...and these Gospels were written long before the Gnostic Gospels!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LebaneseARAB You can see all of the pagan influence in christianity and really in all religions, but like christmas being on dec 25 when jesus wasn't born on that day, that is actually a pagan god holiday, constantine united the pagan and christian beliefs in his empire so everybody could be happy.. |
The Da Vinci Code, on page 232: claims: "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian god Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 was also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
This sequence of claims has puzzled many critics of Brown's book as to their possible origin, if indeed they have an origin outside of the author's imagination.
Serious scholars who have studied the Mithraic traditions, including Franz Cumont, paint a very different portrayal. They don't mention any death of Mithra, and they certainly don't mention any type of resurrection for Mithra.
Some Christians do celebrate Christmas on December 25 as a time of year to commemorate the birth and life of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that they believe that Jesus was born on that particular date. In fact, the Bible does not mention a specific birth date for Jesus.
For comparison, consider the American holiday called "Presidents Day." The holiday occurs on a day in February, but that doesn't mean that Americans believe that all presidents were born on that particular day in February. Of course not. It is simply a day that is set aside to commemorate American presidents.
As for the claim that the myths known as Osiris, Adonis and Dionysus were born on December 25, I have been unable to track down any scholarly source that actually makes that claim.
In regards to some of the other claims involving Mithra and Christianity, consider the following from page 87 of de-coding Da Vinci: The facts behind the fiction of The Da Vinci Code by Amy Welborn:
"Mithras was a god with many forms. By the centuries after Christ, his cult was primarily a mystery religion, popular among men, especially soldiers. Mithraic studies do not find any attribution of the titles 'Son of God' or 'Light of the World,' as Brown claims. There is also no mention of a death-resurrection motif in Mithraic mythology. Brown seems to have picked this up from a discredited nineteenth-century historian, who provided no documentation for his assertion. The same historian is the source for the Krishna connection to which Brown alludes. There is not a single story in actual Hindu mythology of Krishna being presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh at his birth (see Miesel and Olsen, Cracking the Anti-Catholic Code)."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LebaneseARAB The book is very interesting and i think a lot of what he wrote about is true, he isn't the first one to write about it, he just put it in a nice story and simple way that anybody could read it. |
The Story is nice but as i said he used wrong facts in order to make his book interesting and sell it all over the world....well he sold more than 10 million copies till now...
P.S. AS YOU READ THIS BOOK AND THE OTHER BOOK FOR DAN BROWN....WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE RESPONSE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?....THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Re: Da Vinci Code -
9th February 2005
