Da Vinci Code and ignorant Christians
USA Today: The best reporting ever!
Let's set some things straight:
1. The idea of Christ's divinity was changed. According to Bart Ehrmann in Misquoting Jesus, and supported by other authorities such as Karen Armstrong, scenes such as the descent of the dove to Christ as he was baptised were altered to refute the beliefs of fringe groups who did not fall in line with the majority's views. The arguments stem from the wording of the earliest and most reliable texts which point the usage of "son" (God supposedly said, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased.") as an adoptive term which was used for Christ not stating that he himself was the Son of God, a situation which has led to some theologians questioning the Trinity as it makes of Christianity a polytheistic religion. The only people who tend to trust the Catholic texts and/or King James versions are those who tend toward fundamentalism
The claim that Christ's lack of divinity somehow diminishes morality or the power of Christianity is absurd. Christ's focus was more on one's deeds than on any acceptance of himself as God. It is through translation errors (and there were many), purposeful alteration of the text in order to brand as heretical those sects who believed differently than the mainstream, and through a need for a powerful master to force one to behave that Christ was elevated to such a high status. If you need a God, an afterlife, and a book to tell you to be good to others...are you really a good person?
2. The Council of Nicea was an attempt to consolidate power. Perhaps not in Rome but for the mainstream Christians. The need to create a fundamental belief was so strong that they needed to canonize their belief structure so as to brand heretical those groups (such as the gnostics) who believed differently. We see this today when a new religious movement arises. It is not long before someone has branded them "cult" a term which, in the vernacular, has taken on a sinister meaning but which, in reality, describes every religion.
3. This whole question is just part of the fiction. Let it go, people.
4. Every time I have heard Opus Dei described by the church or its members, it always goes like this, "We/They are not crazy masochistic people. They are lay people who want to do God's work in their every action. None of them practice self-flagellation like in the book and the movie. Some of them do whip themselves or wear cilice in order to experience Christ's suffering. But they do not mutilate themselves." Freud had a thing or two to say about this type of behavior. I don't feel the need to get into it here...but it really does point to religion as reaction formation. You know about reaction formation, right? That's where a homosexual will feel that his or her natural urge is wrong and will become the most violent opponent of homosexuality as a result. Yeah. That's most fundamentalism.
5. Sadly, the person answering this last question is a knucklehead. The gnostic texts are not all older than the gospels. It's really hard to say that considering we have very few original documents for even the books which are in the bible. It is impossible to even know what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John originally said much less how much of it was true. Since the gospels were written so long after the events they described that there was no way the authors could possibly have know what actually happened, a person who argues validity against the relative date of a document in comparison to the Gospels has already, as the parable goes, built his or her house on shifting sand.
A major issue in the reporting here is that no religious scholars were questioned who did not have some investment in arguing these issues. Of course these people are going to say that the Da Vinci Code is wrong. If they don't, they just undermined their own faith! Where are the Erhmanns, the Armstrongs, or even Dr. Cornell West (You know, he's a Christian...but he can separate his faith from dogma.)?
Finally, here's the major point...IT'S.A.MOVIE. FICTION. A STORY.
As Scott Kurtz (creator of PVP) says, it's no more historical than Star Wars...well, okay, maybe a little more...but still.
Let's set some things straight:
1. The idea of Christ's divinity was changed. According to Bart Ehrmann in Misquoting Jesus, and supported by other authorities such as Karen Armstrong, scenes such as the descent of the dove to Christ as he was baptised were altered to refute the beliefs of fringe groups who did not fall in line with the majority's views. The arguments stem from the wording of the earliest and most reliable texts which point the usage of "son" (God supposedly said, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased.") as an adoptive term which was used for Christ not stating that he himself was the Son of God, a situation which has led to some theologians questioning the Trinity as it makes of Christianity a polytheistic religion. The only people who tend to trust the Catholic texts and/or King James versions are those who tend toward fundamentalism
The claim that Christ's lack of divinity somehow diminishes morality or the power of Christianity is absurd. Christ's focus was more on one's deeds than on any acceptance of himself as God. It is through translation errors (and there were many), purposeful alteration of the text in order to brand as heretical those sects who believed differently than the mainstream, and through a need for a powerful master to force one to behave that Christ was elevated to such a high status. If you need a God, an afterlife, and a book to tell you to be good to others...are you really a good person?
2. The Council of Nicea was an attempt to consolidate power. Perhaps not in Rome but for the mainstream Christians. The need to create a fundamental belief was so strong that they needed to canonize their belief structure so as to brand heretical those groups (such as the gnostics) who believed differently. We see this today when a new religious movement arises. It is not long before someone has branded them "cult" a term which, in the vernacular, has taken on a sinister meaning but which, in reality, describes every religion.
3. This whole question is just part of the fiction. Let it go, people.
4. Every time I have heard Opus Dei described by the church or its members, it always goes like this, "We/They are not crazy masochistic people. They are lay people who want to do God's work in their every action. None of them practice self-flagellation like in the book and the movie. Some of them do whip themselves or wear cilice in order to experience Christ's suffering. But they do not mutilate themselves." Freud had a thing or two to say about this type of behavior. I don't feel the need to get into it here...but it really does point to religion as reaction formation. You know about reaction formation, right? That's where a homosexual will feel that his or her natural urge is wrong and will become the most violent opponent of homosexuality as a result. Yeah. That's most fundamentalism.
5. Sadly, the person answering this last question is a knucklehead. The gnostic texts are not all older than the gospels. It's really hard to say that considering we have very few original documents for even the books which are in the bible. It is impossible to even know what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John originally said much less how much of it was true. Since the gospels were written so long after the events they described that there was no way the authors could possibly have know what actually happened, a person who argues validity against the relative date of a document in comparison to the Gospels has already, as the parable goes, built his or her house on shifting sand.
A major issue in the reporting here is that no religious scholars were questioned who did not have some investment in arguing these issues. Of course these people are going to say that the Da Vinci Code is wrong. If they don't, they just undermined their own faith! Where are the Erhmanns, the Armstrongs, or even Dr. Cornell West (You know, he's a Christian...but he can separate his faith from dogma.)?
Finally, here's the major point...IT'S.A.MOVIE. FICTION. A STORY.
As Scott Kurtz (creator of PVP) says, it's no more historical than Star Wars...well, okay, maybe a little more...but still.