Da Vinci Code
|
|
Christian Beliefs challenged.The Da Vinci CodeFor the last two thousand years, ever since Jesus Christ appeared on this earth, there have been claims and counter claims regarding him. People opposed to him, start from the very beginning, attacking the New Testament writings, their authenticity, and thus disputing the very existence of a character in history named Jesus. To begin with, Jesus did not write any books, or leave behind any manuscripts of notes. He was a wandering preacher, to whom the people of Palestine, got attracted to, as their own experience led them to believe in what he was doing and saying. Jesus opposed some of the interpretations of the keepers of the Judaic Law, and that was the beginning of the rift, which culminated in his crucifixion. This was an unpalatable event, and immediately stories arose to counter-act the effects. As more and more people joined the followers of Jesus, and they too worked wonders like their Founder, the rift between the Traditionalist Jews and the followers of Jesus grew, the latter being passive and the former aggressive, as the seat of power was in their hands. The Traditionalists must have thought that with the crucifixion their problems would have ended, but the opposite must have taken place, as the after effects were palpable in the current history, creating a larger rift as the followers of Jesus started to accept non-Jews in their fold, and did not insist on them the adherence of the Judaic Law. Once Romans destroyed the backbone of the Jews in 70 AD they dispersed and spread in all corners of the Roman Empire. This was applicable to the followers of Jesus as well, and converts were made in Rome and all the large cities and villages of the empire. It spread eastwards as far as India, through the missionary journeys of the apostles of Jesus, which is not a figment of pseudo history. Even though Jesus and his immediate apostles preached only orally, there were their followers who kept notes and that gave rise to the early writings, which were read at the prayer meetings of these people. They followed a ritual called Eucharist, which was the celebration of the breaking of bread as done by Christ before his death. His followers believed, that the bread was the body of Christ and the wine was his blood. So these stories were pumped into the ears of the Roman Authorities that these sectarians were eating flesh and drinking blood, and that was against the Roman Law, and they came down heavily on them, but the Traditionalists were in good books of the Romans. This changed with the arrival of Constantine the Emperor in the year 300 Ad. . Read more Years pass, and the European history is a witness to the faith of the people in the expression of great cathedrals and monasteries build over the centuries, and one can not wish away all this as based on a lie. The very fact, that there are intellectuals also in the Christian fold, is a fact to be contended with, and though non-believers, their opponents, are always in the minority, they are well heeled, flush with funds and power, which has been the feature throughout history. It is very relevant to ponder on the words of Christ, as he was founding his Church on Peter the Rock, against whom he said the "gates of hell will never prevail". Here comes the modern age with all the fanfare of media blitz, movies and modern technology. Dan Brown writes a book, called the Da Vinci Code. May be he was born a Catholic, but was somehow disillusioned with it. In his search for reassurance he must have come across old history and picked everything that suited his hypothesis, and as he could not counter history, he must have used the medium of fiction, to express his view. Of course, in the modern temper of the times, he is justified in expressing himself, as the Society protects his freedom of speech, which can be lies as well as truth and in between insinuations. Just as he has the right, we too have the right to express what we believe to be true, and that is the aim of this writing. Synopsis of Da Vinci Code, the Book and Movie.The Da Vinci Code opens with the grisly murder of the Louvre’s curator inside the museum. The crime enmeshes hero Robert Langdon, a tweedy professor of symbolism from Harvard, and the victim’s granddaughter, burgundy-haired cryptologist Sophie Nevue. Together with crippled millionaire historian Leigh Teabing, they flee Paris for London one step ahead of the police and a mad albino Opus Dei “monk” named Silas who will stop at nothing to prevent them from finding the “Grail.” But despite the frenetic pacing, at no point is action allowed to interfere with a good lecture. Before the story comes full circle back to the Louvre, readers face a barrage of codes, puzzles, mysteries, and conspiracies. With his twice-stated principle, “Everybody loves a conspiracy,” Brown is reminiscent of the famous author who crafted her product by studying the features of ten earlier best-sellers. He has married a thriller plot to a romance-novel technique. . The risqué allusions are fleeting although the text lingers over some bloody Opus Dei mortifications. Brown’s lack of seriousness shows in the games he plays with his character names—Robert Langdon, “bright fame long don” (distinguished and virile); Sophie Nevue, “wisdom New Eve”; the irascible taurine detective Bezu Fache, “zebu anger.” The servant who leads the police to them is Legaludec, “legal duce.” The murdered curator takes his surname, Saunière, from a real Catholic priest whose occult antics sparked interest in the Grail secret. As an inside joke, Brown even writes in his real-life editor (Faukman is Kaufman). The InsinuationsThe fiction of Da Vinci Code rests on the presumptions that Leonardo da Vinci in fact was a conspirator. (Fact or Fiction). It related to Mary Magdalene, as wife of Jesus, a 'truth' which the Church suppressed. (Fact or Fiction). The Grail Story prevalent among the Anglo Saxons, related to a 'cup' of Christ's blood lost in the passage of time, and the Knights Templar were in the search for it, and apparently the legends connected to this form a background to Dan's story, and it may make an interesting plot. Some where along the way comes a movement called Opus Dei and perhaps Dan had some bad experience with its followers, and they too form part of his plot, and he admits it is fiction, but there is an axe to grind. The Grail, a sub plot in Dan Brown's story“The Grail,” Langdon says, “is symbolic of the lost goddess. When Christianity came along, the old pagan religions did not die easily. Legends of chivalric quests for the Holy Grail were in fact stories of forbidden quests to find the lost sacred feminine. Knights who claimed to be “searching for the chalice” were speaking in code as a way to protect themselves from a Church that had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned non-believers, and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” (The Da Vinci Code, pages 238-239) The Holy Grail is a favorite metaphor for a desirable but difficult-to-attain goal, from the map of the human genome to Lord Stanley’s Cup. While the original Grail—the cup Jesus allegedly used at the Last Supper—normally inhabits the pages of Arthurian romance, Dan Brown’s recent mega–best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, rips it away to the realm of esoteric history. But his book is more than just the story of a quest for the Grail—he wholly reinterprets the Grail legend. In doing so, Brown inverts the insight that a woman’s body is symbolically a container and makes a container symbolically a woman’s body. And that container has a name every Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children. If Christ was crucified at the age of 33, and the early teachings never speak about Brown's story, from where has he concocted it. Is the fiction a slap on the Catholic Church and does he find it a threat to his community? He presupposes the Islamic theory that Jesus was not crucified, but a look alike, thus the Jews were not guilty of Deicide. These were the theories circulating in the early centuries due to the schism in Judaism into the old religion and the new Nazarene followers of Jesus. Over the centuries, so the legend goes, the Grail-keepers have been guarding the true (and continuing) bloodline of Christ and the relics of the Magdalen, not a material vessel. Therefore Brown claims that “the quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene,” a conclusion that would surely have surprised Sir Galahad and the other Grail knights who thought they were searching for the Chalice of the Last Supper. This aspect of misinformation was not on the radar until Dan Brown brought it up, and one should thank him, to getting people interested in historical research. Not everyone will be wanting to go the whole way, as belief is something more vital than pure thought and reason. It is a shortcut the truth, as it is based on trust. Those who are not satisfied with Brown's theories should study the subject themselves rather than blame him, for putting his point of view across and making money out of the gullible readers. If the blame goes, it is the latter, uncritical mass of human beings, who are responsible to the state of affairs, for lending themselves easy prey. In order to justify the Magdalene story, Dan claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Read More. Sources for the Da Vinci Code Brown actually cites his principal sources within the text of his novel. One is a specimen of academic feminist scholarship: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. The others are popular esoteric histories: The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince; Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln; The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird. (Starbird, a self-identified Catholic, has her books published by Matthew Fox’s outfit, Bear & Co.) Another influence, at least at second remove, is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker. But despite Brown’s scholarly airs, a writer who thinks the Merovingians founded Paris and forgets that the popes once lived in Avignon is hardly a model researcher. And for him to state that the Church burned five million women as witches shows a willful—and malicious—ignorance of the historical record. The latest figures for deaths during the European witch craze are between 30,000 to 50,000 victims. Not all were executed by the Church, not all were women, and not all were burned. Brown’s claim that educated women, priestesses, and midwives were singled out by witch-hunters is not only false, it betrays his goddess-friendly sources. In the modern times, printing and publishing business does not depend on truth, but what is likely to be purchased by gullible readers. Make your readers ignorant, and keep scholarly research away from them, and you can make money out of them, as their pockets and jingling with cash. Brown’s approach seems to consist of grabbing large chunks of his stated sources and tossing them together in a salad of a story. From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown lifts the concept of the Grail as a metaphor for a sacred lineage by arbitrarily breaking a medieval French term, Sangraal (Holy Grail), into sang (blood) and raal (royal). This holy blood, according to Brown, descended from Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, to the Merovingian dynasty in Dark Ages France, surviving its fall to persist in several modern French families, including that of Pierre Plantard, a leader of the mysterious Priory of Sion. The Priory—an actual organization officially registered with the French government in 1956—makes extraordinary claims of antiquity as the “real” power behind the Knights Templar. It most likely originated after World War II and was first brought to public notice in 1962. With the exception of filmmaker Jean Cocteau, its illustrious list of Grand Masters—which include Leonardo da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Victor Hugo—is not credible, although it’s presented as true by Brown. Brown doesn’t accept a political motivation for the Priory’s activities. Instead he picks up The Templar Revelation’s view of the organization as a cult of secret goddess-worshippers who have preserved ancient Gnostic wisdom and records of Christ’s true mission, which would completely overturn Christianity if released. Significantly, Brown omits the rest of the book’s thesis that makes Christ and Mary Magdalene unmarried sex partners performing the erotic mysteries of Isis. Perhaps even a gullible mass-market audience has its limits. From both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, Brown takes a negative view of the Bible and a grossly distorted image of Jesus. He’s neither the Messiah nor a humble carpenter but a wealthy, trained religious teacher bent on regaining the throne of David. His credentials are amplified by his relationship with the rich Magdalen who carries the royal blood of Benjamin: “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,” laments one of Brown’s characters. The BiasUnsurprisingly, Brown misses no opportunity to criticize Christianity and its pitiable adherents. (The church in question is always the Catholic Church, though his villain does sneer once at Anglicans—for their grimness, of all things.) He routinely and anachronistically refers to the Church as “the Vatican,” even when popes weren’t in residence there. He systematically portrays it throughout history as deceitful, power-crazed, crafty, and murderous: “The Church may no longer employ crusades to slaughter, but their influence is no less persuasive. No less insidious.” This says a lot for his motivation and pent up hatred of an Institution which I am afraid to say is mirrored by Jewish complaints that have been circulating for a long time. Just see what reaction ADL of Abraham Foxman had for Mel Gibson's movie, the Passion of the Christ.. The well funded media had nothing to say at that time, but for Da Vinci Code they have glowing reports. The same Hollywood Masters, who did not recognize Mel Gibson's contribution, have well heeled financiers backing Ron Howard and his team, who made this movie. Like everything else, the truth has the habit of sneaking out after some time.
Goddess Worship and the MagdalenWorst of all, in Brown’s eyes, is the fact that the pleasure-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating Church suppressed goddess worship and eliminated the divine feminine. He claims that goddess worship universally dominated pre-Christian paganism with the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as its central rite. His enthusiasm for fertility rites is enthusiasm for sexuality, not procreation. What else would one expect of a Cathar sympathizer? Astonishingly, Brown claims that Jews in Solomon’s Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, via the services of sacred prostitutes—possibly a twisted version of the Temple’s corruption after Solomon (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Moreover, he says that the tetragrammaton YHWH derives from “Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” But as any first-year Scripture student could tell you, Jehovah is actually a 16th-century rendering of Yahweh using the vowels of Adonai (“Lord”). In fact, goddesses did not dominate the pre-Christian world—not in the religions of Rome, her barbarian subjects, Egypt, or even Semitic lands where the hieros gamos was an ancient practice. Nor did the Hellenized cult of Isis appear to have included sex in its secret rites. Contrary to yet another of Brown’s claims, Tarot cards do not teach goddess doctrine. They were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century and didn’t acquire occult associations until the late 18th. Playing-card suites carry no Grail symbolism. The notion of diamonds symbolizing pentacles is a deliberate misrepresentation by British occultist A. E. Waite. And the number five—so crucial to Brown’s puzzles—has some connections with the protective goddess but myriad others besides, including human life, the five senses, and the Five Wounds of Christ. Brown’s treatment of Mary Magdalene is sheer delusion. In The Da Vinci Code, she’s no penitent whore but Christ’s royal consort and the intended head of His Church, supplanted by Peter and defamed by churchmen. She fled west with her offspring to Provence, where medieval Cathars would keep the original teachings of Jesus alive. The Priory of Sion still guards her relics and records, excavated by the Templars from the subterranean Holy of Holies. It also protects her descendants—including Brown’s heroine. Although many people still picture the Magdalen as a sinful woman who anointed Jesus and equate her with Mary of Bethany, that conflation is actually the later work of Pope St. Gregory the Great. The East has always kept them separate and said that the Magdalen, “apostle to the apostles,” died in Ephesus. The legend of her voyage to Provence is no earlier than the ninth century, and her relics weren’t reported there until the 13th. Catholic critics, including the Bollandists, have been debunking the legend and distinguishing the three ladies since the 17th century. Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ’s “companion,” meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to “kiss her on the mouth” and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter’s reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that “women are not worthy of Life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” That’s certainly an odd way to “honor” one’s spouse or exalt the status of women. CLICK BACK The Knights TemplarBrown likewise misrepresents the history of the Knights Templar. The oldest of the military-religious orders, the Knights were founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. Their rule, attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, was approved in 1128 and generous donors granted them numerous properties in Europe for support. Rendered redundant after the last Crusader stronghold fell in 1291, the Templars’ pride and wealth—they were also bankers—earned them keen hostility. Brown maliciously ascribes the suppression of the Templars to “Machiavellian” Pope Clement V, whom they were blackmailing with the Grail secret. His “ingeniously planned sting operation” had his soldiers suddenly arrest all Templars. Charged with Satanism, sodomy, and blasphemy, they were tortured into confessing and burned as heretics, their ashes “tossed unceremoniously into the Tiber.” But in reality, the initiative for crushing the Templars came from King Philip the Fair of France, whose royal officials did the arresting in 1307. About 120 Templars were burned by local Inquisitorial courts in France for not confessing or retracting a confession, as happened with Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Few Templars suffered death elsewhere although their order was abolished in 1312. Clement, a weak, sickly Frenchman manipulated by his king, burned no one in Rome inasmuch as he was the first pope to reign from Avignon (so much for the ashes in the Tiber). Moreover, the mysterious stone idol that the Templars were accused of worshiping is associated with fertility in only one of more than a hundred confessions. Sodomy was the scandalous—and possibly true—charge against the order, not ritual fornication. The Templars have been darlings of occultism since their myth as masters of secret wisdom and fabulous treasure began to coalesce in the late 18th century. Freemasons and even Nazis have hailed them as brothers. Now it’s the turn of neo-Gnostics. Twisting da Vinci Brown’s revisionist interpretations of da Vinci are as distorted as the rest of his information. He claims to have first run across these views “while I was studying art history in Seville,” but they correspond point for point to material in The Templar Revelation. A writer who sees a pointed finger as a throat-cutting gesture, who says the Madonna of the Rocks was painted for nuns instead of a lay confraternity of men, who claims that da Vinci received “hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions” (actually, it was just one…and it was never executed) is simply unreliable. Brown’s analysis of da Vinci’s work is just as ridiculous. He presents the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait when it’s widely known to portray a real woman, Madonna Lisa, wife of Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo. The name is certainly not—as Brown claims—a mocking anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and L’Isa (Italian for Isis). How did he miss the theory, propounded by the authors of The Templar Revelation, that the Shroud of Turin is a photographed self-portrait of da Vinci? Much of Brown’s argument centers around da Vinci’s Last Supper, a painting the author considers a coded message that reveals the truth about Jesus and the Grail. Brown points to the lack of a central chalice on the table as proof that the Grail isn’t a material vessel. But da Vinci’s painting specifically dramatizes the moment when Jesus warns, “One of you will betray me” (John 13:21). There is no Institution Narrative in St. John’s Gospel. The Eucharist is not shown there. And the person sitting next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene (as Brown claims) but St. John, portrayed as the usual effeminate da Vinci youth, comparable to his St. John the Baptist. Jesus is in the exact center of the painting, with two pyramidal groups of three apostles on each side. Although da Vinci was a spiritually troubled homosexual, Brown’s contention that he coded his paintings with anti-Christian messages simply can’t be sustained. Brown’s Mess In the end, Dan Brown has penned a poorly written, atrociously researched mess. So, why bother with such a close reading of a worthless novel? The answer is simple: The Da Vinci Code takes esoterica mainstream. It may well do for Gnosticism what The Mists of Avalon did for paganism—gain it popular acceptance. After all, how many lay readers will see the blazing inaccuracies put forward as buried truths? What’s more, in making phony claims of scholarship, Brown’s book infects readers with a virulent hostility toward Catholicism. Dozens of occult history books, conveniently cross-linked by Amazon.com, are following in its wake. And booksellers’ shelves now bulge with falsehoods few would be buying without The Da Vinci Code connection. While Brown’s assault on the Catholic Church may be a backhanded compliment, it’s one we would have happily done without. CLICK BACK WHAT IS OPUS DEI?Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society. Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate. Historical OverviewOpus Dei was founded in 1928 in Spain and is currently established in 61 countries. 1928. 2 October: While on a spiritual retreat in Madrid, Saint Josemaría Escrivá, under divine inspiration, founded Opus Dei. 1930. 14 February: In Madrid, while Saint Josemaría was celebrating Mass, God made him understand that Opus Dei was for women too. 1933. The first center of Opus Dei was opened in Madrid: the DYA Academy, mainly for students, where classes in law and architecture were given. 1936. The Spanish Civil War temporarily delayed Saint Josemaría’s plans to expand the apostolic work of Opus Dei to other countries. 1939. Fr. Josemaría returned to Madrid. Expansion of Opus Dei to other Spanish cities. World War II prevented expansion to other countries. 1941. 19 March: The bishop of Madrid, Leopoldo Eijo y Garay, granted the first diocesan approval of Opus Dei. 1943. 14 February: Again during Mass, God let Fr. Josemaría see the juridical solution that would enable priests to be ordained for Opus Dei: the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. 1944. 25 June: The bishop of Madrid ordained the first three faithful of Opus Dei who became priests: Álvaro del Portillo, José María Hernández de Garnica, and José Luis Múzquiz. 1946. St Josemaría moved to Rome. In the years that followed, he would travel from Rome throughout Europe to prepare the beginnings of the apostolic work of Opus Dei in several different countries. 1947. 24 February: The Holy See granted the first pontifical approval. 1950. 16 June: Pius XII granted the definitive approval to Opus Dei. This approval enabled married people to join Opus Dei, and secular clergy to be admitted to the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. 1969. A special general congress of Opus Dei met in Rome to study the change of Opus Dei’s legal status in the Church to that of a personal prelature, a juridical structure introduced by the Second Vatican Council and suited to the pastoral characteristics of Opus Dei. 1970-1975. Saint Josemaría made various trips around Europe and the Americas to speak to people about the Christian faith. 1975. 26 June: Josemaría Escrivá died in Rome. Around 60,000 people belonged to Opus Dei at that time. 15 September: Álvaro del Portillo was elected to succeed the founder at a congress of Opus Dei members called for that purpose, in accordance with the Statutes by which Opus Dei is governed. 1982. 28 November: John Paul II established Opus Dei as a personal prelature, appointing Álvaro del Portillo as its prelate. 1991. 6 January: John Paul II ordained Álvaro del Portillo as a bishop. 1992. 17 May: Beatification of Josemaría Escrivá in Saint Peter’s Square in Rome. 1994. 23 March: Death of Bishop Alvaro del Portillo in Rome at the age of 80, just hours after returning from a trip to the Holy Land. 20 April: John Paul II appointed Msgr. Javier Echevarría as Prelate of Opus Dei, confirming the election carried out by the general elective congress held in Rome. 1995. 6 January: Msgr. Javier Echevarría was ordained as a bishop by John Paul II. 2002. 6 October: Canonization of Josemaría Escrivá in Saint Peter’s Square in Rome. Dates on which Opus Dei began its work in different countries 1945 - Portugal 1946 - Italy, Great Britain 1947 - France, Ireland 1949 - Mexico, United States 1950 - Chile, Argentina 1951 - Colombia, Venezuela 1952 - Germany 1953 - Guatemala, Peru 1954 - Ecuador 1956 - Uruguay, Switzerland 1957 - Brazil, Austria, Canada 1958 - Japan, Kenya, El Salvador 1959 - Costa Rica 1960 - Holland 1962 - Paraguay 1963 - Australia 1964 - Philippines 1965 - Belgium, Nigeria 1969 - Puerto Rico 1978 - Bolivia 1980 - Congo, Ivory Coast, Honduras 1981 - Hong Kong 1982 - Singapore 1983 - Trinidad and Tobago 1984 - Sweden 1985 - Taiwan 1987 - Finland 1988 - Cameroon, Dominican Republic 1989 - Macao, New Zealand, Poland 1990 - Hungary, Czech Republic 1992 - Nicaragua 1993 - India, Israel 1994 - Lithuania 1996 - Estonia, Slovakia, Lebanon, Panama, Uganda 1997 - Kazakhstan 1998 - South Africa 2003 - Croatia, Slovenia 2004 - Latvia CLICK BACK
Church History according to Dan BrownWhy? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicaea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians. Now this view is surprisingly that of the Traditionalist Jews of those times, who lost power as a result of Constantine's decrees. This leads me to wonder, if Dan is a Catholic or a Jew. If he is the latter, then, the personal history of his community which has suffered throughout the 20 centuries may have a reason to vent out his grief. These views were circulating in the Roman Empire after Constantine the Emperor, had a change of heart, due to a vision he had, and changed the status quo by making Christianity the official religion of the empire, and thus creating a rift which hit the Jews badly, as he specifically had promulgated laws which affected their lives. As a result controversies have existed ever since, and as the Catholic Church has expanded ever so much since then, it is perceived as a threat in many quarters Brown has no doubt studied the Council of Nicaea but its purpose was to formulate a code of Canons for the new State Religion, and the power was in the hands of Rome and not the bishops. They were consulted as it was the intention of Constantine ,to set everything soundly as far as the Roman Law was concerned. His own mother Helen, has been considered a Christian Saint, and was responsible for building many Christian Churches throughout the Roman Empire. With this cataclysmic event there were many who lost their power base, and had reason to counter act this change with their own brand of 'truth' and all sorts of manipulations which Dan claims came from this side. Some of these half-truths, which Dan has used as his historical discovery to build his plot are: An Alexandrian theologian named Arius, of the opposing school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity. But he was excommunicated at the Council for not retracting his teachings. There were famous theologians also on the traditional side, such as Eusebius, St. Athanasius. and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. Of course, they would not help Dan in this thesis, so they are 'liars' and Dan is the teller of a true story. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his advocate for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless." Again a typically a Jewish thought of the times, who were being snubbed and their power was being trimmed. In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly believed in Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. As mentioned before, this was necessary for the Roman Law, as it adopted Christianity as the Religion of the State. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ." The Christians took over this usage of kyrios (the Greek word for Lord used in the 325 BC translation of the Bible called the Septuagint version) and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicaea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord. In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons. The Council of Nicaea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation. With the Bible playing a central role in post Reformation-Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ. However, in pre Constantine era, most of the Christian Faith, rested on the Apostolic teaching, and the tradition of the early church fathers, which were expounded at the various Ecumenical Councils. Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments. Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon. Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudo historical claims of a modern novel can't make it false.
CLICK BACK
|