Mark, I wonder if you're familiar with a concept - it's called 'entertainment'. One form involves watching actors portray a work of dramatic fiction on a large screen. Viewers enjoy watching this and having their intellects stimulated. This happens in a movie theatre. Which, by the way, is not the same thing as a church.

Dave

See, I just feel like if you're that open-minded about discussing your beliefs and thoughts, then its odd for you to boycott the movie. It is just a movie and it's for entertainment. Very few people watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to get their political information instead of the news. So who would watch a movie based a fiction book to form their understanding of Catholicism? In order to follow the plot, the person watching would have to have some ability to reason and therefore, extrapolated to religious belief, there is no reason for the person to come away anti-Church or Opus Dei. Silas is the "obvious" villain throughout the book, but let's not forget how Teabing kills Remy and allows Silas to die. If people can enter the military to die for the beliefs the US was founded on, its not hard, for me as a reasonable person who doesn't particularly love any sort of military in general to understand how people can allow faith to guide them so completely. I think it's being blown out of proportion.

"It does concern me that unsuspecting believers or seekers will be thrown off by the movie,"

Then how strong is their faith?

"I led two seminars on the novel and its claims."

As a novel, it desn't make any claims of fact.

"Truth is self-evident."

Apparently fiction isn't for some, even when properly labeled.

Having read the book - I haven't got money to waste on movies like this - I can only say that the author plays with this stuff and has a formula to his books that he sticks to. If Opus Dei wants to go after the author, fine. All they'll do is increase his sales. If the Vatican wants to go after the author, all they'll do is make him a richer man.

I have to honestly say that the idea that Christianity might be disproven was rather pleasant. But obviously that couldn't hapopen, not even in fiction - at least not best selling fiction. So the readers of the da Vinci code were treated to a strip tease.

If you don't want to go see it, don't go, but why hassle other people into not going? This is, fundamentally (!) the problem I have with all religions - they tell other people what to think and then judge them as inferior or worthy only of pity if they ignore the 'advice'.

Christianity started in the second century when the mysogynistic branch of the judeo-buddhist sect begun by Jesus's desciples helped the Romans to wipe out the other branches and imposed a simplistic, MacDonalds-style teaching standard. The complex ideas of gnosticism were suppressed simply because they took power away from the priesthood.

Since that time, the teachings of Jesus have been largely ignored or spun to suit the power-management needs of the organisation (and each of the various offshoots that resulted from the enlightenment).

Anyone who believes such teachings is abandoning his or her right to think for themselves. Anyone who believes in the pseudo-history in Da Vinci is doing likewise.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and I would encourage everyone with an interest to look into the serious academic studies on the subject and come to their own conclusions.

Heaven forbid a Christian should exercise his right of free speech or association. Hoggle feels "hassled" and Dave wonders if I'm familiar with the concept of entertainment. As I am familiar with the concept of democracy, I will certainly exercise my right to speak out against The Da Vinci Code, even my right to boycott the film and encourage others to do so. If my religion offends, fine. But if my democratic inclinations offend, go to... heck.

Hoggle, if you seriously believe Christianity began in the 2nd century... gee, I can't even begin to comment on the idea.

The fact that the Catholic church and "Opus Dei" are offended by this book's (and now the movie) contents, and how loudly they are wailing "boycott" only influences me to conclude perhaps Dan Brown's fictional account may have roots earthed within a certain level of fact. The Catholic religion has a long history of fact control and manipulation. If this fictional work had been ignored by the church, would lend greater credence to nothing in the book resembling fact. All this controversy is creating more revenue for Brown, I've noticed he is keeping a relatively low profile and probably quietly trotting to the bank.

Jewels, I wouldn't conclude too quickly. Regardless of the church's response to the book, if the facts don't support the conclusion, one needn't just accept The Da Vinci Code.

For a more scholarly and factual bit of info on the subject, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was the source book for much of Dan Brown's speculation. Some good stuff there.

As for this movie, and people's right to speak for, against or even boycott. Do as you like, for whatever time we have of it, America is still a theoretically free country.

But it is only a movie, and maybe the topic will get people to think about the topics involved and do a bit of digging on their own.

Is that such a bad thing?

Mark Adams: As I am familiar with the concept of democracy, I will certainly exercise my right to speak out against The Da Vinci Code...

If you are familiar with the concept of democracy, then you should understand that in itself it is no guarantee of freedom of speech. That right was written into the constitution as a protection against the "tyranny of the majority".

Jewels, I wouldn't conclude too quickly.

Some of us think you already have.

JR, yes, but don't confuse the exercise of speech with tyranny. The system works if people excercise their rights. You'll note that I am opposed to banning the film. I feel boycotting it is a more appropriate form of expression.

Mark-

Even though I personally think any talk of boycotting the film is a bit silly, I would firmly defend your right to do so.

The thought for you here is; does such attention help or hurt your cause more? How many people will go to see the film, merely because some people say they shouldn't?

Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a good read. Blue Meanie you raise a great point, all the boycott talk will work to drive people to read the book and attend the movie to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm only halfway through, but so far the only part of me offended is my sense of good writing.

Matt, I'm forced to agree with you.

Having read Brown's novel Angels and Demons (my kid had his mitt on The daVinci Code and wasn't letting go) first, I found The daVinci Code terribly formulaic - Angels and Demons 2, so to speak. But I don't want to spoil your "fun", so I'll shut up.

"if the facts don't support the conclusion, one needn't just accept The Da Vinci Code."

Who is asking you to? Again, it's fiction not a history book. What don't you understand about this concept? Just because the Bible mixes fact and fiction doesn't mean all books do.

But please continue drawing attention to your boycott. The free publicity for the film will only hurt your cause.

The "what don't you understand about the concept" arguments are growing tiresome. Yes, it is a work of fiction -- that is after all, the evangelical response to the work -- but, it's also offensive. Trust me, boycotts do work, not always, but generally. Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably. It didn't help, for example, that Edwards Cinemas in Orange County would not show the film (that, and the film was pretty awful, from what I'm told).

Will my protesting draw attention to the film? Yes. Will the film draw attention to my beliefs? Yes, again. In that regard, I have very little to lose and much to gain.

Lastly, this is a consumer market. If you offend the consumer, is it unreasonable that the consumer might balk?

Mark-
Thank you for the clarification. I had not been aware of your particular flavor of faith.

As for "rather tiresome", well then, stop making obtuse, straw man arguments. I just don't understand how any from protestant denominations have such problems with this material since the basis of their sects are formed around the belief that the Catholic church and Vatican are wrong and have not only hidden things, but actually skewed dogma to benefit the Church. See good old Martin Luther's reformation screed.

No matter, as for comparing this film to "Last Temptation of Christ", good luck there. That was an obscure smaller budget flick. This one comes from a world wide best selling novel and has a world reknown director and star.

I have read the book, enjoyed the pace and the interesting ideas. I look forward to seeing the movie, but only as entertainment.

It's sad and concerning that the Catholic church has such little faith in it's flock. If someone is firm in their beliefs then this movie isn't going to sway them. Offend them? Maybe?

I don't remember such a fuss when the movie The Order was released. It did not portray the Church in the best light. As I recall, it the papacy wasn't painted all that pretty either.

Now I could conclude from the lack of fuss that the film's concept was just too far-fetched to get worked up about.

And this concept?

Someone in an above comment noted the possiblity of the inherent chance of truth within the fiction. That's what some may be afraid of: there's always a kernel of truth.

"Viewers enjoy watching this and having their intellects stimulated. This happens in a movie theatre." -- Dave Nalle, who clearly has not attended a movie anytime recently

Mark,

"Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably." Because of protests? No, I don't think so. I think a lot of people just weren't interested, or they disliked it for artistic reasons. A lot of other people thought it was a beautiful film, and a lot of others no doubt went just to see what the fuss was about.

When I went to see it, there were protest groups on both sides, for and against. Boy, that was a night to remember.

Controversy ALWAYS helps a movie. Always.

You know, the fact that you can mention a 15-year-old movie, and everyone knows exactly what you're talking about, indicates it wasn't a total failure.

Remember, back in the day, conservative evangelical groups were trying to buy "Last Temptation" from the studio for the sole purpose of burning it. Now you can find it in video stores and libraries across the country. Some failure.

Well, your crusade to get the facts of a work a fiction straight is just as tiresome.

"Let's not forget that the Last Temptation failed miserably."

The film's budget was only $7 mil. It made over $8 mil in US B.O. then you add worldwide, cable and home video sales. Thanks for illustrating your commitment to getting the facts straight. The film was very good, but you would need an open mind to view and understand it.

The consumer is free to balk all he likes, but when his outrage is based in ignorance he shouldn't be agahst when other consumers take him to task.

I usually skip opening weekends but you have sold two tickets, and probably the DVD.

Blue Meinie, I don't recall anywhere in Martin Luther's reformation creed there being mention to Jesus being married and having offspring. A nice distraction, but it does little to support you argument.

We have problems with this material because...

a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)

I'm not sure which part of my argument employs a straw man, but I'm sure you can tell me.

They're not exactly straw men. But one is on pretty thin ice:

it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)

Which may be true. But bear in mind that there's very little factual basis for the claim that Jesus even existed.

That's not me trying to offend, Mark, I promise. I'm just pointing out that you are on far firmer ground when you say that it's offensive than you are in questioning its historical veracity.

a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)

a) If Dan Brown made the grand pronouncment that this is a new discovery in the studies of the Bible and published his work as non-fiction, then I could see being at least quite concerned - if not offended.

People everyday say that what Christians believe are lies. Do you want to be offended? Or rather, would you just work at spreading the Gospel as you know it, acting as Jesus would (turn the other cheeck?)and pray for those who have lost their faith?

b) It is supposed to be fiction. Why worry about the historical fact. I know you don't like the 'fiction' argument - but it is just a movie.

Are people SO worried that the audience will be swayed that much?

This is what I don't understand. People are going to make up their own minds. They don't need to be protected from the movie.

Right on, Mary K. There's tons more garbage out there to be offended by than a big budget Hollywood movie based on a poorly written thriller.

Instead of starting a boycott, why not encourage people to read/see it and then discuss the issues it brings up?

Or better yet, rent The Last Temptation of Christ. It is quite beautiful and has all kinds of meaty subject matter to talk about.

Does anyone know if the Da Vinci Deception and Holy Blood Holy Grail have story lines or are just documentary-like?

thanks Sir Mat

And damn, it's 'cheek', not cheeck.

The "it's just a movie" argument belies the basic truth that fiction is potent. Yes, it's entertainment, but not just entertainment. Most works of literature, or art, or movies attempt to convey ideas (though some aim only to entertain). Saving Private Ryan is fiction, but to say it's just fiction is to ignore the potency of the message.

Mark - obviously that's valid. Remember Jaws?

But when the Church creates this hue and cry about the film, potent or not, it gives the movie much more power than it had to begin with.

I don't understand what the real fear is - I really don't.

oh my stars and garters...

leave yas alone fer a bit, and look what a shitstorm yas manage ta drag out over nothing...

i'm not getting into too much of it here, it appears like a healthy discussion is going on...

but there was one bit i wanted ta touch on...

Mark in #23 sez...
*a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)*

now for a) and your sect that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do is damned and going to burn in hellfire for Eternity...which do ya think is more Offensive now? anybody killed over this film that hasn't come out yet? howabout the book?

nope ta both...wanna guess how many have died because of what churches say?

now that kinda shit is REALLY offensive

and for b) not historical? what the fuck are you talking about here? you are comparing the factual historical content of two books...both of which have some factual history and both of which have provable bullshit in them...

and then yer in a glass house shooting a machine gun?

puh-leeeEEEeeEEEzzzEeee

you don't wanna see the flick...simpicity itself

don't go

you wanna tell yer friends and congregation not ta go...fine

but you come to a site like this and toss that kinda shit around, then expect ta get yer Opinion hammered

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

Gonzo Marx, check out the comment policy:

"Please think of the comments as a conversation between individuals and interact with civility."

I hate that "only a movie" argument when people are clearly trying to have it both ways. As much as I enjoy Limbaugh, he does the same thing, calling his show alternately "entertainment" or "truth", as it suits him. Jon Stewart does the same thing. It's a type of cowardice.

I haven't read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but I'm familiar with the author's theories. He's definitely pushing a set of beliefs. Dan Brown based a book on those beliefs. US News devoted a special issue to the questions raised by Brown. The book may be fiction, but it's being taken seriously.

Mark, i'm well aware of the comments policy..

and i AM treating this as i woudl a conversation with you standing right in front of me...i take exception to your voiced opinion, NOT you personally...you i don't know at all

fair enuff?

now..ya wanna try and discuss the Issue here, you can try and show me where i am wrong, or better explain yer position if ya like...

and when we agree, i'll gladly say so...

when our Opinions differ, i will just as quickly say so...

as fer civility...newsflash....fer me this IS being civil

nuff said?

Excelsior!

um. yeah, he did interact with civility. an argument is a conversation. he didn't threaten you, he doubted your assertions, and (rhetorically) threw them back in your lap for further consideration. now you're getting offended at that?

don't do that. you're not proposing a ban. you're only saying that you and a bunch of christians aren't going to go see the film because you don't want to give money to such a thing. i'm not christian, but i'm not interested in it either. i think it's an overblown bunch of crap that has gotten far more attention than it deserves. from what i've read, the book's a peice of crap and tom hanks sports a mullet in the movie (hmm... maybe i will see it).

it's kind of like the brokeback mountain situation, except for not as bad. let's face it... if you are offended by the material here, why would you want to see it? if you are not, you are either some conspiracy theorist, or someone who is curious, or someone who actually liked that peice of crap book, or you just don't care.

it's the same with any other movie. did you go see freddy vs jason? no. crap. maybe. haven't seen it.

but don't tell gonzo that he isn't being civil when he tells a bit of truth. there is little more dangerous in the world than religion (and especially right now). so he cursed... get over it. shit.

heh...thanks zing...

one thing fer good olde Baronius...

read Holy Blood, Holy Grail...

some crap in there , but clearly marked as speculative...the historical facts contained are also sourced and referenced in a quite amazing Index

as for yer presumption that *I haven't read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but I'm familiar with the author's theories. He's definitely pushing a set of beliefs. Dan Brown based a book on those beliefs.*

get yer Facts straight...there's more than one author listed fer "HB,HG"...and on many occasions , both authors have stated that what they put out were NOT neccessarily their belifs...but merely a hypothesis based on what they found over the course of the investigation into the material for the book

before ya spout off about a book, try reading it...k?...tnx

Excelsior?

Mark, go see the movie. Sun Tzu wisely noted:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

After all, you do think of Dan Brown and his ilk as "the enemy," don't you?

Gonzo, what's the deal with changing "Excelsior" from an imperative to an interrogative? Losing hope?

heh..nah Duane...

i'm the fucking Enemy, well read on the material from all sides, apostate and heretic...

but we won't get into that fer now...

fer the Record, i give the Brown books both a "C"

nothign great, but decent beach reads (i did them on a plane after all the fuss)

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

The message of the film? It does nothing to contradict the teachings of Christ, so what's the problem? Your issues speak to how shaky your faith is.

All DaVinci says is that those in charge of carrying on the tradition might have not have passed on all the information. Are you actaully saying that throughtout history, those in power never altered the records of the past to suit their own purposes? If this idea is new to you, than you have bigger problems than a movie. Give Orwell's 1984 a read.

Brown wrote a good thriller that appealed to a lot of people. Those of you who call it crap, please let me know where I can pick up your brillant novels.

um. "Those of you who call it crap, please let me know where I can pick up your brillant novels."

i call celine dion crap as well. but i can't sing like her, or do that thing with my neck, or pop melons out of my crotch. you don't have to back up an opinion with talent. crap, i say!

"you don't have to back up an opinion with talent."

Which is lucky for you. Of course, it does show that your opinion might not be much more than crap itself.

heh, fuck off. of course my opinion might be crap. so might yours. actually, your point is pretty much crap. i don't think you would even agree with your self. lucky for me... sheesh.

Duane in #38 is the first one to notice...

perhaps bro'...that might just be it in a nutshell, time will tell...and i ain't as certain as i was when i started this Journey here at BC...

but if it was easy, then it woudl be worthless, eh?

Excelsior?

Roger!
so what's the problem? Your issues speak to how shaky your faith is.

Exactly what I was trying to say!

Also, I like the point about those who call things crap... sort of a put up or shut up type deal.
But Zing, I see your point too. I am curious though, what about the book gives it the crap label?

Gonzo, I went out of my way to note that I'm no expert on the book HBHG. And I got the number of authors wrong. You indicated that you've read two of Brown's books, along with HBHG. But it looks like you got the number of authors wrong too. For some reason, I find that really funny.

My main point stands: people are taking the theories in The Da Vinci Code seriously.

I'm an agnostic who's offering a partial defense of Mark here. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a seminar on a popular novel that blends historical fact and fiction, to sort out what is what.

When Mark talks about "boycotting" the movie, I take it he means not giving them his money just to see it out of curiousity. Fair enough. Years ago, when O.J. Simpson wrote his book, I was journalistically cusious what he had to say for himself, but I didn't want to give him any money. So I borrowed it from the library.

But you can't call it a boycott if you weren't going to go to it anyway.

Baronius...it's a fair cop, but society is to blame...

mea culpa...i saw an interview with 2 of the authers a few months ago, it's been years since i read the book...ok, over a decade....funny indeed.

i agree with yer point too....some folks are taking it seriously...i'm curious as to which parts...the good stuff that made it, or the bullshit Brown made up for the story....either way, if it gets folks curious and they start digging around on their own...

sounds good ta me

Excelsior?

Mark Adams: Will my protesting draw attention to the film? Yes. Will the film draw attention to my beliefs? Yes, again. In that regard, I have very little to lose and much to gain.

Well, you've just served as another reminder of why I choose not to be a Christian. I'm sure they're not all bad, but the ones who get my attention really turn me off to the whole idea.

Duane in #38 is the first one to notice...

Gonzo, Hi. I noticed too, and before this DaVinci Post.

Ok are there prizes? Since I never said anything - probably not. : (

How about a fee pass to see DaVinci Code!?: )

heh...well Mary, you get the grand prize....

have yerself a nice cookie with yer coffee...

-------------------> @ cookie

-------------------- c|_| coffee

how's that?

Excelsior?

I support the boycott. Not because it is offensive. Not because it is blasphemous. Simply, because if some people can read the old testament and believe that Jonah lived in a whale, Adam and Eve existed, and Methusula was 600 years old, than i really don't think they should see this movie, because they are bound to believe it is Nonfiction.

But seriously, people just need to remember it is a movie. If you don't wish to see it, don't see it. The catholic church shouldd'nt have the authority to tell catholics whether or not they are allowed to see a movie. Besides, its obviously fiction, because why would Jesus run away to FRANCE to get married....

Oh Gonzo, you are a prince! Yum, coffee and cookie go great right now. I'm hungry and chilled to the bone.

Thanks!

uhh..yay? ( needs to think up a better closing phrase - but obviously 'excelsior' is taken)

Let me simplify my argument. I don't advocate banning the film (the main point of my blog entry), but I do support boycotting the film, which could work. These are market forces, which is how I see this whole debate. The Passion of the Christ and The End of the Spear demonstrated one thing plainly: evangelical Christians want Christian films. Absent that, we do not want our faith parodied in a film that's "hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense" (Tom Hanks). Produce that kind of film, and we will respond.

--

Gonzo Marx, if that is the way you would speak to me in a face-to-face encounter, ours would be a short conversation.

And to others who say my position has inspired them to see the film or to not be a Christian, think for yourselves (I might be a marketing agent for the film!).

Jewels and Hoggle, I agree that it's good to see the leaders discomforted--perhaps this will lead some followers to question some of the paint-by-numbers teachings. I think that's good, regardless of whether any beliefs are changed. Belief not challenged is just blind faith.

Baronius is right here, the simplistic plot line is fiction but contains lots of "nonfiction" within. I'm thankful that Brown was able to put these ideas into such a widely read book--despite its flaws. They deserve to be considered; people should at least figure out that Christianity was *much* more diverse than it is now, even if that's the only change in their opinion. Intolerance is not very becoming, after all.

People will debate well beyond all our lifetimes whether the books that qualify as canon are really the only ones "inspired by God" -- one of the Church's greatest mistakes is that it burned all copies of the alternate texts so that people could not read them and judge for themselves. Until this novel, most info about them was contained in "nonfiction" books like HB,HG and not available to the average reader. This, thankfully, changed that.

mark: "evangelical Christians want Christian films. Absent that, we do not want our faith parodied in a film that's "hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense" (Tom Hanks). Produce that kind of film, and we will respond."

isn't that just censorship then? i like to make fun of christians (nothing personal), so maybe i want to see films that parody christianity (and it's lack of tolerance for other ideas). or maybe, maybe, this is america, and all ideas are welcome, whether the correspond to yours or not. or maybe, it's fiction, just like passion of the christ, which was a horrible peice of shit. it's like watching mel gibson masterbate with his own feces. revolting.

you'd better learn to live with having your ideas and faith mocked. it's the american way. it's called freedom. there is nothing you can do to stop it, and, frankly, i'm a bit disturbed that you would want to, much less actually make an attempt at doing so.

christianity, that fortress of tolerance, is one of the most intolerant institutions on the planet. it has its good moments, but the hypocrisy it exhibits is truly reprehensible.

i can't spell so good.

JP - I agree. I think questioning things is important. Its a learning process, whether it's about faith, the tax code or biochemistry.

The term 'blind faith' is a strange one. I admire those who can rely on faith in their God when their life is falling apart. But solid enduring faith doesn't come without questions and the odd doubt along the way.

"Baronius is right here, the simplistic plot line is fiction but contains lots of "nonfiction" within. "

no it doesn't. what are you talking about? wait... do the quotes around nonfiction mean that it is not nonfiction and is, in fact, fiction? if that's what you are saying, then yes. but if not, no.

Aww Zing, we're not all that bad, really.

zingzing, are you really arguing that a consumer excercising his or her right NOT to purchase something is equal to censorship? Isn't that playing fast and loose with the term?

Zing, sorry - I refer to 'nonfiction' as the section the HBHG type books are found in. They're not fiction, but rather they're speculative. So one can't call them 'fact.'

JP, one should make a distinction between historical and factuality. The fact is that historically, yes, some groups did believe that Jesus married.

Once the historicity or reliability of information is ascertained, we can debate whether it is factual. You do not need the quotation marks around the word non-fiction.

Would it be equally controversial with evangelical Christians to say that Mary had other children? Tradition dictates that they did not, but a whole lot of mainstream Christians believe that they did.

When you have historicity for Jesus himself or herself, we'll talk about historical accuracy of these claims

These evangelicals are akin to those who in previous generations took to bribing and forcibly converting millions of Asians and Africans to their brand of superstition - why should their sentiments be protected?

mark: "zingzing, are you really arguing that a consumer excercising his or her right NOT to purchase something is equal to censorship? Isn't that playing fast and loose with the term?"

no, i'm arguing with your reasoning. and your attempted christian power coup. your personal decision not to go see it is just fine. trying to rally christians into some sort of economical mind game is just covert censorship. the southern baptist boycott of disney world. they tried to economically influence disney into doing something they (disney) knew was motivated by hatred. history will find the southern baptists on the wrong side of that one.

sure, this is just a movie, but i'm worried about the amount of influence christians want to wield in fields that have little to do with their faith. this does not injure your personal faith one bit. it's fiction. we can both agree on that. leave it alone.

I was gonna go see this movie, but I'm still hunting for that treasure that's buried up under Wall St. I think Nicolas Cage beat me to it, but I'm gonna keep searching...'cause dammit...if it's in a movie...it must be true!!!

Actually, I'm boycotting Christianity for not sharing all it's information with me...why wasn't I told about other gospels that were written at the same time as the "accepted" gospels until somebody dug them up in the desert in Egypt 1600 years later?

Christianity and specifically the Catholic church and really most religions in general are afraid of ideas that clash with their own...whether they be labled fiction or non-fiction...

As far as boycotting the movie and if it will do any good or not...I heard a lot of talk about Brokeback Mountain...people telling me I should...I shouldn't see it...well...I didn't and I didn't because it was my choice, not somebody elses idea. I do remember however, The Life of Brian. I went to see that movie specifically to break through a picket line. You hard core fundies are pussies when it comes to picket lines!!!

HA!

Andy Marsh: "why wasn't I told about other gospels that were written at the same time as the 'accepted' gospels...?"

No other gospels were written. The other works were composed in the late 2nd century and beyond.

I swear I've read more about Gnosticism than the rest of you have read about Christianity. Before you spout off this nonsense, do a little research.

If you even bothered to study church history, you'd find volumes on the Gnostic sect. No one is hiding anything.

zingzing: "no, i'm arguing with your reasoning. and your attempted christian power coup. your personal decision not to go see it is just fine. trying to rally christians into some sort of economical mind game is just covert censorship."

Dude, censorship is when one prevents another from reading or viewing something. I'm only keeping myself from the theater. If others wish to join me, that's their decision.

that's true. if you read the part you quoted, i say that. but i also say that organized efforts for this sort of thing are suspect. if censorship is made possible through economic means, it's still censorship. see: southern baptist disney thing.

zingzing, no one is keeping your from visiting Disneyland, nor is anyone keeping you from watching one of their movies. Withholding our purse is a consumer's right. We are under no obligation to support any commercial enterprise. This is a free market.

Mark sez...
*Gonzo Marx, if that is the way you would speak to me in a face-to-face encounter, ours would be a short conversation.*

absolutely correct, but probably not for the Reasons you are thinking...

but i digress....

Mark also sez...
*I swear I've read more about Gnosticism than the rest of you have read about Christianity. Before you spout off this nonsense, do a little research.*

swear all ya like, but yer fucking wrong...

for example, Mark sez...
*No other gospels were written. The other works were composed in the late 2nd century and beyond.
*

factually incorrect, and here's why

in about 160 Ad, bishop Iraneus of Lyon writes about the Gospels of Mary, Thomas and Judas in "the Book of 5 Heresies"....they are all mentioned by various historians even earlier...about the same evidentiary mentions as the accepted 4 Gospels of the NT....the Jesus seminar has the best dates for those so far, 3 between 64-75 Ad (the first and second uprising of Jerusalem against Rome), the Gospel of John is usually dated aroudn 100 AD

now, the second century dating you mention is indeed factual when talking about the Coptic COPIES of said gospels, as calculated by carbon dating....

here's the part many christians miss when talking about these Gospels...those Coptic codexes (codexi?) were copies in Coptic of original texts done by scribes usually as treasured copies of things found at the Library at Alexandria...in many cases the Coptic copies are the only ones that survived ( see the Nag Hammadi texts as well as the recently translated Gospel of Judas)

to more accurately place these Gospels in question, one has only to check the history of the oldest existing christian sect....the Manicheans, Dualists who think of Yeshua(Jesus) as a uddha like Enlightened figure (hence the greek title of "Christ" which means "the Annointed One")...these Manicheans have been around since the first century, and their version of Christianity remains unchanged since then.....they can be found in Iraq, where they have always lived.

there are other places where the gospels of Mary, Thomas and Judas are mentioned prior to the Book of 5 Heresies in historically verified texts...go and have some fun looking it up

there is also a MUCH older text in the christian gnostic canon, the "Hymn of the Pearl"....this one goes to at least pre-Alexandrian times, is a hermetic Parable, and was included in some early christian teachings as well as being part of the modern gnostic christian texts (www.gnosis.org)

now, as to my mentioning good old Martin Luther earlier...perhaps i wasn't making my point clear...

the Reason i brought that one up is that NO protestant sect has ANY history in and of itself prior to the Reformation...all your biblical History and prior doctrines and dogma come from the Roman Catholic Church as founded by Iraneus and codified by Constantine after Nicea...

as for the "volumes" you would find in any established contemporary christian church....let me say that it is so much bullshit and propaganda for the most part as to be ludicrous...

all of it was used as justifications, as outlined and commanded in "the Book of 5 Heresies" to discredit ANYTHING not accepted by 180AD according to Iraneus, as part of the unified(catholic) church dogma

there are MANY different forms of gnostic beliefs, from Manichean Dualism to the hermetic traditions

so let me just put the Thought out there that you might think you know because you have been fed what your dogma requires, but you don't know many of the Facts involved

this kind of shit, laid out by Iraneus, has gotten quite a few "heretics" killed, or tortured, or burned...or all three

just ask the Cathars....or Jaques DeMolay

Excelsior?

gonzo marx,

Just using your dates I conclude the following:

1. The canonical gospels were written in the first century, some only thirty or so years after the death of Christ.
2. The Gnostic gospels are first mentioned in 160 A.D., and some copies (that part I understood), have been dated to the 2nd century.

If I wanted historically reliable information about Jesus, I would opt for the earlier material, some of which is dated to 64-75 A.D.

What you did not say -- and cannot say -- is that the Gnostic gospels you mentioned were written in the first century.

There's no questioning that Gnosticism, in some primitive form, existed even in the first century (ref., 1 John). What they might have written about Jesus in the first century is unknown. We don't have any of their writings from that period, if any existed in the first place. We have a better understanding of 2nd century Gnosticism, for that is when their extant writings begin to appear.

"the Reason i brought that one up is that NO protestant sect has ANY history in and of itself prior to the Reformation...all your biblical History and prior doctrines and dogma come from the Roman Catholic Church as founded by Iraneus and codified by Constantine after Nicea..."

As I understand the Reformation, the history of the Catholic Church is their history, too. The reformers, remember, sought to reform the church, not undermine it. These reformers employed the writings and ideas of the apostolic fathers as their own and for their own purposes. I might not be a Roman Catholic any longer, but nevertheless, it is part of my heritage. The dogma of the early creeds, I accept. I do not accept later traditions which are at variance with the creeds. In this way, I am entirely consistent, espcially as regards my criticism of Gnosticism. It is a later development, which while noteworthy in its own way, has no real bearing of the truth of the gospels.

Mark sez...
*2. The Gnostic gospels are first mentioned in 160 A.D., and some copies (that part I understood), have been dated to the 2nd century.*

well now it seems you don't read closely enough...i showed you and clearly stated that there were earlier mentions of these Gospels BEFORE Iraneus...who shares with Saul of Tarsus and Constantine the lion share of the blame for all that has gone horribly wrong with the original Teachings

but i do understand you are never going to accept that...and you don't have to, i'm not trying to convince you...merely show you that you know much less on the topic than you think you do

example: Andy Marsh...i'll stake his Knowledge of christian theology against anybody's...especially in the Roman Catholic arena...

too bad Shark isn't around anymore, he is also a biblical scholar, and fluent in greek so he is much more able to give you accurate translations from the originals of the NT, he was also at the Jesus Seminar...and is more conversant with their findings and provenance than is yer humble Narrator...

now, just as some examples, let us examine the so-called "truth" of your Gospels...we will stick with the Synoptics ("one eye") for ease of discussion....

one gospel in the NT has the Nativity attended by only shepards and animals, the other has the three Wise Men (hermetic gnostics, more than likely)

2 different versions of what the Romans put on the sign above Yeshua's head on the cross

3 different versions of Yeshua's last words

as fer Judas...how could any of the writers of said gospels know what was in the conversation between Judas and the Pharisees? according to the scriptures the only ones there were 3 Pharisees and their guards and Judas himself...

just some Examples to ponder...

now, don't get me wrong, there is plenty of good Stuff in the NT....as long as ya take out all the Pauline bullshit...but there is a lot of crap in there as well

the provenance of ANY of these scriptures, gnostic or NT, are highly suspect...but if you read carefully you will see much of the good Stuff appears in each of these works...

try gnosis.org and read the Gospel of Thomas...all of it are Quotes..allegedly directly from the Teacher's lessons...in them, you will see some of the same phrases and teachings you find in the NT...

but you also find some things you probably have not heard before

enjoy yer Time, be well...

but there is MUCH more to this whole Topic than you appear willing to examine, which is why this apostate and heretic will always live by a very simple Formulae...

gnosis dogma

nuff said

Excelsior!

gonzo,

Unless I've missed something, you do not mention those earlier references. You say you won't try to convince me, so why bother speaking at all?

my fave example of biblical strangeness is the second set of 10 commandments that have such doosies as "don't boil a goat in the milk of its mother" or some such silliness as that.

then again, it's all strange.

Mark sez...
*unless I missed something, you do not mention earlier references*

well now....you missed quite a bit obviously...didn't i say...
*n about 160 Ad, bishop Iraneus of Lyon writes about the Gospels of Mary, Thomas and Judas in "the Book of 5 Heresies"....they are all mentioned by various historians even earlier...about the same evidentiary mentions as the accepted 4 Gospels of the NT.*

read it closely...there's more

as for the "why"...

i know i can't convince you...you can only learn for yourself, or not...your Choice

but there are other folks who will read this Thread...and if even one person starts to think for themselves, and their curiosity gets peaked...they might start looking shit up themselves

and the mere Thought of that makes this olde troll smile

nuff said?

Excelsior

Am I really missing something here?

*n about 160 Ad, bishop Iraneus of Lyon writes about the Gospels of Mary, Thomas and Judas in "the Book of 5 Heresies"....they are all mentioned by various historians even earlier...about the same evidentiary mentions as the accepted 4 Gospels of the NT.*

Who the heck are these "various historians"? The only name you've given me is Iraneus. The only date you've given me is 160 A.D.

yep..and if you read all of what i wrote, i say look stuff up yourself....the Info is out there

and it's not my Way to spoon feed a pilgrim.....

just ask Andy

Excelsior?

You assume a lot about how much I know of the Gnostic Gospels Mark...and the church...I may spew blindly about a lot of things...but this isn't one of them.

If Iraneus needed to write something specifically denouncing them, they must have had a pretty broad following. It's not like somebody could turn on the boobtube and see a commercial or something.

What's cool is that someone else thought they were important enough to save for those of us that can't do the blind faith thing...unless it's Ginger Baker/Eric Clapton Blind Faith...I can handle that...

The problem is they teach a different brand of christianity...one that doesn't need a church and a collection plate...

Mark, 1 for 2: Yes, the fact is some believed Mary Magdelene married Jesus.

No, "No other gospels were written" is not a definitive statement--some datings of these GOSPELS placed them around the same time, and some place them later than, the time of the 4 canonical ones. Examples of GOSPELS: the "Gospel of Thomas," the "Gospel according to Mary Magdelene," and the "Gospel of Truth." The texts of some of these can be found at the Nag Hammadi Library.

And "no-one is hiding anything" is a pretty difficult position to support when you consider that the Church burned all available copies of these documents, so that the only modern copies available were ones buried in Egypt by people who did so specifically so that they could be saved. The Church knows what happens at Fahrenheit 451.

"I might not be a Roman Catholic any longer, but nevertheless, it is part of my heritage. The dogma of the early creeds, I accept. I do not accept later traditions which are at variance with the creeds." Your choice, but you're putting lots of faith in one interpretation of the age of those doucments. I love how Protestants "protest" the decisions of the Church, but they don't "protest" how books of the Bible were selected. Or that the others were burned.

and gonzo...you remind me of a couple of other people in my life...they always told me...look it up...I think you give me better reference material than they did...all they gave me was the World Book...

I've kind of figured out that some folks are just to set in their dogmatic ways and ideas to sees Sophia...

The Nag Hammadi reference is a great one on the Gnostic Gospels...I would also suggest Elaine Pagels books on the subject...The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief...I have a few other books around here that are pretty interesting on the subject...

andy...you have come far, my young padawan...

do note that no one ever answers my qquestion in #73

the best i seen tried was to assert that those differences proved the veracity of the NT gospels, because of those differences...

the olde "phone game" or "car accident" bit of witnesses seeing different versions of the same thing...

all well and good, but it is those SAME folks that adhere to the LITERAL INTERPERTATION of scripture because they claim it is the "word of god" rather than the writings of men...

now, check me here...ya can'rt have both at the same time, can ya?

just checking...

Excelsior?

JP - my mother told me I was gonna die a catholic...it's like the Hotel California...

gonzo marx wrote:

"yep..and if you read all of what i wrote, i say look stuff up yourself....the Info is out there

and it's not my Way to spoon feed a pilgrim....."

I need to take you to task on this point. It's not that I'm unwilling to find this information for myself, it's that I suspect that you are lying or you are misinformed. Perhaps, you misspoke. To my understanding there is no reference to a Gnostic gospel in the first century. You apparently have a very simple piece of information, but you are not willing to share it. I in no way wish to be spoon fed, but I won't eat a load of crap either.

JP:

None of those gospels you mention can be dated to the first century. According to gonzo marx, the canonical gospels were composed in the first century, some only decades after Christ. The ones you mentioned were drafted later in the 2nd century, and beyond.

Apparently, there is some very, very secret--ultra-secret--gospel, which no one besides the voices here understands.

Andy Marsh:

Yes, Gnosticism had a very broad following, as it encompassed a number of religious ideas, and as a mystery religion, existed before Christ, whom Gnostics later adopted as one of their spokesmen. Gnosticism is not a different brand of Christianity, it is another religion.

well Mark...i just wanted to thank you for reminding me why this medium is futile for meaningful communications...

thanks for referring to me as a liar

thanks for not noticing that the Manicheans are the oldest sect of Christianity , and are considered a gnostic sect

thanks for not checking gnosis.org and asking Bishop Hoeller of the modern gnostic christian church any of these questions

and thanks for demonstrating why i am wasting my time here...

be of good health

fini

gonzo marx:

There are two other less severe possibilities: you are mistaken or you misspoke. I am, however, willing to accept any of the three, unless you provide a reference for your prior statement.

As regards Manicheans, is your calendar missing a century or two? Didn't Mani live in the third century? Who were these Christians before that time?

Your claims are so wild, that I am not sure what to make of them. Saying the Manicheans are the "oldest sect of Christianity" is like saying the Nation of Islam is the oldest sect of Islam. The mere use of a calendar refutes the claim.

You are indeed wasting your time here if you think such things will go unnoticed.

Mark -

date for the Manicheans - 210-276 AD (Mani himself)

source:wikipedia

date for the Council of Nicea, which establishes the Roman Catholic Church under Constantine - 320AD

source:newadvent.org

So what are you talking about? It is quite clear who cannot read their calendar.

I am also quite interested still in hearing your answers to the questions Gonzo raises in #73

A damn shame if "fini" is final this time. Shouldn't that be "finis"? My latin is not what it used to be.

Blue Meanie: please follow the blogcritics convention of making links active. Thanks.

Christopher-

My apologies, but it appears that simple html tags alone won't do it, and I really don't contribute enough around here to try and find out how it's supposed to be done.

Blue Meanie:

"date for the Council of Nicea, which establishes the Roman Catholic Church under Constantine - 320AD"

Well, thanks for qualifying that statement with "under Constantine." I'm glad for it, for there is no way that you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church started in 320 A.D. I know you would not make such a statement. Before that time, as you know, existed the Christian church. When it became "catholic" or when it came to use that term is unknown, though Ignatius used it in the late first century. Some Protestant churches still refer to the church as catholic.

today's html lesson: how to make links active. It's easy.

Mark -

I believe you might find that you can date the unified, or catholic, church around 180AD if you accept that Iraneus founded it by establishing the texts of the New Testament. Between then and Nicea, there were various factions that were not united until Constantine formed the Roman Catholic Church after Nicea. Even mentioning the factional nature of modern Protestant denominations shows just how ludicrous it is to view any organization of a religious nature as singular and unified.

Mark -

You still have not even attempted to answer the questions raised, and brought up again by me.

On point and topic, a mediocre book, and I will wait until the movie comes on cable.

All this has really done is make Christians look kind of daft, or like they're hiding something. Neither one of which makes "faith" seem that appealing.

Thanks, Christopher!

And although Gonzo and Zing made a fly-by pass at it, there is a lesson in the hoorah surrounding The Passion of the Christ: The more noise, the more bloody audience.

Literally bloody, in the case of Passion...

So make all the noise you want, whether it is banning, boycott or "Boy, I can't wait!" The film will ultimately rise or fall based on whether it satisfies the audiences desires.

BTW, DrPat forecasts an equal outcome with another best-seller-turned-movie starring Tom Hanks. Yep, I'm talking The Bonfire of the Vanities.

I've got to say that it's a great read, but I can't for the life of me see why the whole controversy about the novel has arisen.

There are a lot of suggested possibilities in the book, including whether Jesus was married or had brothers or sisters or had children himself; who cares ? Does any of that make him a better or worse role model ?

And even allowing for that, there are loads of factual errors in the book; for example, the incorrect number of panes in the Louvre entrance and the incorrect statement that "England is the only country in Europe to drive on the left"....if the guys has current facts wrong, why is there an expectation that 2,000 year-old facts or generally-accepted opinions should be more accurate ?

There's no point boycotting or banning the film (particularly as everyone probably knows the story by now) but definitely worth getting everyone to calm down and treat this for what it is - a novel.

Mark Adams - I think you need to take gonzo's advice and read a little. The Gnostic Gospels as we're talking about here DO NOT encompass a number of religious ideas as you put it...This wasn't some other religion that Iraneus was basically banning in the Book of 5 Heresies. It was different versions of CHRITIANITY that he deemed heretical! That's pretty simple to understand even for me! What's your problem?

The Gnostics had different ideas about where to find heaven...and like I said...their version didn't work very well in a church or with a collection plate. And furthermore...I've said this before...I believe that the NT gospels may have been specifically picked and placed in the NT to refute the Gnostic Gospels.

I was taught when I went to religion classes every freaking day as a kid that Mary Magdalene was a whore...come to find out, she was actually an independant woman of means that may have even been one of Jesus' means of support! And then there's the BS about doubting Thomas...and can you positively identify who "the most beloved disciple' really is? Biblical scholars can't agree on any of this, but I guess you buy that divinely inspired line...

There's so much contradiction in ALL the books of the Bible, that a little more, like the BS of the daVinci Code shouldn't even matter.

Are you guys kidding? You are trying to argue facts and history with a Christian. It's like matter and anti-matter; they can't exist together without dire consequences.

In regards to BC housekeeping, the emailed comments is intriguing, but can it be turned off? I wouldn't sign-up for fear that Mary might Literally be Reborn in this thread.

Also, why can that be done yet no button to make links active? Free Chris Rose!

Natasha says: "Very few people watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to get their political information instead of the news."


HAHA. Every guy freshman year in my entire dorm watched the Daily Show for actual news.

Hoggle: No one has the time to be a tight-ass like you. Tell us then, what is truth?

Yet another thread on BC where people get whipped into a frenzy over God / Religion / Christianity.

I've read HBHG several times, and DaVinci Code once. Although they do it in different ways, both books pose the questions: "What if Jesus......?" Was married? Didn't die on the cross? Moved to France? Had a Twin brother? And about 40 different other what ifs. That's a lot of what ifs - if any one of them breaks down, there goes the dominoes. But if you can accept all those what ifs, you can join the new DaVinci Code religion. If not, don't worry about it - enjoy it, as a good historical fiction mystery novel.

I suppose the same could be said about faith in general - you've got to believe a lot of what ifs. In the end, I guess it depends on how strong your faith is.

Y'know, everyone should just go out & get some Arturo Perez Reverte or Umberto Eco, each of who can write the same style of historical esoterica, except better.

Mark: "JP: None of those gospels you mention can be dated to the first century."

I must beg to differ. A fair summary per Wikipedia: "There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 100s."

Many argue it is a source document used by the writers of the synoptic gospels, since it shares quotes but no storyline. Some think it's "Q."

So it's not that they "cannot be dated" to the first century, but rather that no-one knows for sure. It's a matter of "faith."

Rats -- last comment regards Thomas specifically. Forgot to include that in my preface.

"Is The Da Vinci Code Worth Boycotting or Banning?"

It's not worth reading. What a dreary boring book! I got it as a gift so I felt duty-bound to read it through, and then threw it in the trash.

I dunno. I wasn't impressed by the book, since it is so formulaic. Having been on BC for a while, I've become a bit familiar with the ideas of the Gnostics and how they differ from standard brand Christianity. Having studied a few things about the Torah Code, I knew about the Atbash Code in the Hebrew Bible. So, Brown was not offering anything particularly new to me. But if he gets Christians thinking about Gnosticism and shakes them up a bit, THAT would be a good thing.

There would be no controversy if Catholics and so called Christians were not themselves insecure in their Christian belief system...which has no basis in fact or history.

The Truth is that no belief system has any power whatsoever unless we as individuals give away our intellectual discernment and empower the belief. It amazes me how the multitudes are so psychologically immature and so unable to take responsibility for their beliefs and what they allow into their awareness. But evanagelicals are intellectually weak anyway and refuse to take responsibility for their psychic lives. Jesus does this for them . If you do not like Browns book or feel threatened by it...ignore it stupid.

This one is just silly. Which is easier to think of as fact?

A virgin birth, walking on water, and ressurection after 3 days, or some rabbi being a rabble rouser, marrying a rich woman to finance his ministry and having children?

Bottom line, it's only a movie.

JP:

I would be surprised if Gnostics had not written a gospel of their own even in the first century. Gnostics certainly existed in the latter part of the first century (ref. 1 John). One might even argue they existed before Christ, as a mystery religion that later adopted Christ. But, no one has yet demonstrated that Gnostics had composed a gospel in the first century.

Your references to Wikipedia relate to internal evidences based on conjecture. Absent in your presentation is any external evidence (manuscripts, citations in church fathers -- or anyone, for that matter -- etc.). And Q is merely a theory.

It is, however, demonstrable that the gospels were drafted inside the first century, both from internal evidences and external. (Even gonzo marx concurs on this point.)

Andy Marsh:

I'd take up your suggestion, but I've already read and even studied several Gnostic writings (including Thomas and the Acts of Thomas). I'm in no way an expert on those writings, but it is not if I am unaware of them or what they say.

Again, to all:

Taking all of your comments in general, I think we all agree that Gnosticism and Christianity were separate and distinct movements, each with their own literature. One necessarily excludes the other: you cannot believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and be a Gnostic, nor can you reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus and be a Christian. The dogmas are mutually exclusive.

Am I mistaken on this point?

Just for fun, check out this site, which describes a bunch of ancient "mythological" figures whose stories predate Jesus'. Notice how much of the Jesus mythology is borrowed from other, much older mythologies.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information, but it sure makes for interesting reading. File under "Things that make you go 'hmmmmmm.'"

In the "it's-just-fiction" category, try this article:

Reading "Da Vinci Code" does alter beliefs: survey

What bothers me most about this story is not that people would draw such conclusions about Christ, but that they do it so thoughtlessly, based on a mere reading of a novel. I have to give credit to gonzo marx and the like who make their decision based on reading and research, on a study of the source documents.

Mark asserts: "I think we all agree that Gnosticism and Christianity were separate and distinct movements, each with their own literature."

Not so , according to the evidence gathered. There are sects of gnosticism that predate Christianity, such as the Hermetics, and to this day there is still a Gnostic Christian Church (pointed out at gnosis.org).

The two do not truly seem to be mutually exclusive, if one discards dogma for theology.

To wit: if one takes it that Jesus was either a Prophet(the Muslim position) or Enlightened (the gnostic take), this does not preclude the use of many of these scriptures for the purose of teaching the lessons contained within.

wasn't it Ben Franklin who said (and I paraphrase)
"I have no doubt about the authenticity of Jesus, just about his Divinity"

See also Jefferson's Bible

I looked at the site that Lori recommended (comment #110), just for the heck of it. Just like there are figures in the ancient Middle East who have similarities to Moses, there are a whole pack of figures who are similar to Jesus.

Heckler:

I cannot make sense of what you just said, so let me ask a direct question: Do Gnostics believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

P.S. John Adams was very convinced of Jesus's divinity. I'm not sure that really matter much though to this conversation.

Ruvy said: "...there are a whole pack of figures who are similar to Jesus."

Actually, that's backwards. Jesus is similar to a whole pack of ancient figures.

;-)

Mark, you would have to ask one. ( a gnostic , that is)

My understanding is that the gnostic christians think of Jesus in the same manner that a buddhist thinks of Siddhartha...

enlightened teachers, but in no way Divine, or gods

And I prefer Jefferson to Adams for a variety of reasons. But then we get into the difference among our Founders of Deiosts and Theists. A completely different discussion, that does have some bearing on this topic, but far deeper than most want to tread.

Heckler:

If you don't know what Gnostics believe, how is it that you make any statement at all regarding their beliefs? But I believe you do know and are unwilling to answer. You're being obtuse.

It's simple: Do Gnostics believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus or not?

Surprisingly, this question is a real stumper. Most people I debate with over this issue will not answer the question. I'm at a loss to explain why, but usually, I get clever answers like Heckler's, i.e., "you would have to ask one." Clever, but it misses by a wide margin the opportunity for frankness. Tragic, really.

mark, your link to the survey (does reading the divinci code alter beliefs) is dead. so i haven't looked at the results. i find it hard to believe that anyone would alter their beliefs based on this book. it's a curious, disturbing thing if they do. i always thought that faith took a type of strength i didn't have. maybe it's just gullibility. or maybe they just want to believe something. high priest brown. ugh.

No movie should be banned, but this movie is odd because people say that anyone can enjoy it, while I contend you must be Christian or deeply into Christian teachings to understand the story.

Don't believe the BULLSH*T when people say they like it because of the "code," clues, and all the conspiracy stuff irrespective of Christianity.

If the Da Vinci code was EXACTLY the same, but dealt with Hinduism and not Christianity, it would not be a bestseller book nor a soon to be hit movie.

And THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

OK Mark, you want me to tell it bang.

No.

As I had said earlier, I'm with Franklin. And an agnostic. But I do read, and find comparative mythology fascinating study.

Lori:

Comparisons, such as you make, are interesting, but sometimes missleading. I remember in philospophy class comparing Jesus to Socrates. Indeed, there are many similarities, but one shouldn't make too much of it. Consider the similarities between Lincoln's assaination and Kennedy's. Interesting, but not much there.

www.snopes.com

Heckler:

Then, wouldn't it follow that Gnosticism and Christianity were very distinct movements? Wouldn't it follow that they would have different literature?

This draws me to a concluding point: The Da Vinci Code claims the Roman Catholic Church subverted the truth about Christ, but might it also not follow that perhaps the Gnostics tried to subvert the truth of Christ? One party (or both) is wrong, but the two can't be true at once. And given that the earliest literature is from the Christian church, wouldn't that have the best claim?

Mark, they are distinct movement, yet among gnostic christians, you share many of the same teaching from the same teacher. It appears the gnostics type christians reject the miracles as well as Pauline doctrines.

Just as an example of what both have in common is the quote...

"the Kingdom of Heaven is within you"

But that same teacher did not teach both Gnostic and Christian ideas.

From Luke, chapter 24:

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

This teacher did not also teach that he would not die, rise, etc.

Mark, I think the point behind the web site I linked to is, in part, to point out that all the things that are supposed to make Jesus unique don't actually do that. It makes sense that, 2000 years ago, you find those qualities being reported in someone -- they'd been around for a long time and the people of the time would have be familiar with them. The story of Jesus seems to be an amalgamation of many other stories, and that makes perfect sense from historical and literary perspectives.

Mark, you are raising the quintisential points of difference between the two doctrines. And if you read all of the texts on the matter , there are many differences indeed.

Comment #73 shows just a few differences that exist in the New Testament alone, between the accepted Synoptic gospels. And those went through not only the editorial process of Iraneus, but also Nicea.

I find it far more interesting to notice the similarities between all these works. There is where you find the real meat of the matter, and in so many cases the parables used and the lessons taught are identical. In quite a few cases, there are the same stories, but completely different interpertation of them.

That's one of the reasons why the Gospel of Thomas is so fascinating, no interpertation, just quotes. Very similar to some buddhist teachings in both style and presentation.

My thought is that it was indeed the same teacher, but very different students. Examine the questions in comment #73 for some evidence (not proof mind you, but evidence) for such a hypothesis.

You appear to have some difficulty seperating the teacher from the lessons, more than likely due to this being a matter of faith for you. Completely understandable, just as it is understandable for gnostics to be cryptic, obscure or even esoteric.

After all, the accepted Church has been killing and burning them since Iraneus, one would expect them to be a bit shy.

The earliest literature is from the Christian church because they had EVERYTHING ELSE BURNED!

The only reason the Gnostic Gospels have come to light is because everyone didn't follow the dogmatic beliefs of Iraneus and decided to try to safeguard some of it!

As far as whether or not Gnostics believe in the bodily resurrection as you ask...I can find information on Gnostism that says both...some did believe it some didn't.

Thomas was apparently a Gnostic...he was also a disciple of Christs...ie....a CHRISTIAN...Mary was apparently a Gnostic...also a disciple of Christs'...another CHRISTIAN...Phillip was apparently a GNOSTIC...also another disciple of Christ...ANOTHER CHRISTIAN...should I keep going or are you getting the picture?

Just because someone doesn't believe your particular brand of Christianity doesn't mean they're not Christians...you sound like the Catholic Church...they always taught me that only TRUE Christians...Catholics...were the ones going to heaven...if that's true...I don't want to go!

You want quotes? here's a couple for you Mark Adams...


Some of my favorites from the Gospel of Thomas...

Thomas 2...Jesus said, "Let one who seeks not stop seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will be troubled. When he is troubled, he will be astonished and will rule over all."


Thomas 39...Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered, nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

Or...Thomas 77...Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all. From me all came forth, and to me all extends. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

I can also list a whole slew of Jesus' sayings from Thomas that can be found in the scriptures that you're familiar with...I would, but I'm sure you're familiar enough with them already.

This is a line from Elaine Pagels book titled "Beyond Belief" and it's so very appropriate for this conversation....

To this day, many traditional minded Chritians continue to believe that whatever trespasses canonical guidelines must be "lies and wickedness" that come either from evil of the human heart or from the devil."


And dammit...we gotta boycott the devil!

The other point on Gnosticism is that there was a large group of Gnostic Christians that were gentiles and did not want to believe in the Old Testament or the Jewish version of creation and the rest of the stories of the Old Testament.

They had or have their own version of the beginnings of the world and man and who God is and he or she, which is actually more appropriate, is not the god of the Old Testament.

When you think about it, Christs' Father isn't the vengeful God of the Old Testament either.

Anyway, it's not the point of the post! By even asking if we should boycott the movie, you've bought even more attention to both the book and the movie.

Like I said earlier, I specifically went to see Life of Brian because I knew it was gonna piss some people off. I've read this book and I was gonna see the movie anyway...but now, I'm gonna find the theater here in the golden buckle of the bible belt with the most protestors and go see it there...with my whole family...just to piss you off!

HA!

A quote from Mark dated May 11 caught my interest.

We have problems with this material because...
a) it's offensive (basically it says what we believe is a lie)
b) it's not historical (there's no factual basis for its claims apart from later interpretations of Christ)

I feel the same way about the Bible. Probably the most important statement by a character in Brown`s book is (roughly) "God did not fax the bible to us". It is an invention, and therefore fiction. It has caused nothing but suffering and confrontation for centuries. Enough, I say. Ban it and burn it.

Yes, let's blame all of human stupidity and malice on the Bible and burn the book as if that'll make it go away...

Or perhaps, just maybe, it wasn't the Bible, but the people who misuse it who might just maybe be to blame for the death and destruction that followed.

Maybe I'm going off the deep-end here...

The author and producers must be very happy to stir such a hot discussion!

I am in the 45+ age group and do not take the book seriously - just cannot!

Same (for me) was with Harry P. stuff.

Remember - some voices though were against the anti-human ideology etc when another movie was released.

Resume - do not like it - do not watch it - do not make money for the fim makers - do not encourage them to continue with this mystic as the entrtainment..

I see no one took note of a clever recent post here which I whole-heartedly agree with from our friend Ty. I think it is worthy of discussion:

"this movie is odd because people say that anyone can enjoy it, while I contend you must be Christian or deeply into Christian teachings to understand the story.

Don't believe the BULLSH*T when people say they like it because of the "code," clues, and all the conspiracy stuff irrespective of Christianity.

If the Da Vinci code was EXACTLY the same, but dealt with Hinduism and not Christianity, it would not be a bestseller book nor a soon to be hit movie.

And THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE."

Oh Scott thats hardly "the bottom line". It sounds to me like you are underestimating the reading public. I think a historical conspiracy based on Hinduism, if it were well written and had a sufficiently intriging plotline, would gain quite a readership. One needn't be an alchemist - or a chess player - to enjoy Katherine Neville's historical conspiricy thriller, "The Eight", the story of two women who unravel the mystery of the philosopher's stone from an ancient chess set. One needn't be a pagan to appreciate Elizabeth Hand's pagan-themed historical fantasy/mysteries. One needn't live in the future to enjoy a sci-fi conspiracy, and one needn't live long long ago in a galaxy far far away to enjoy Star Wars. One need not need to be a christian to enjoy Dan Brown's novels.

However, it is true that without the christian "controversy" the Davinci Code would likely have slipped into obscurity, having perhaps a small core readership. It's a mediocre book at best, the prose stale, the dialogue stiff, the characters dimensionless, and the plot not nearly as intricate and intelligent as it pretends to be. The secret to the book's success is a fortunate combination of timeliness and controversy. In turbulent times Jesus always gains in popularity, but in the modern world the audience is demanding a little more from their savior. They don't want him to hang silently from his cross in the corner of their kitchen, patiently awaiting a prayer. They want flashing lights and music, an all-singing, all-dancing savior with his high-kicking apostles. We've become a voyeuristic society and the Lord is not immune to the scrutiny of the masses. No longer is it enough to merely pray, we want to dig through Jesus' underwear drawer, get a peek at his sex life. We want him to blog. We want him to go on Big Brother and expose all his dirty little secrets. And Dan Brown gave us precisely that. (I am not saying that Dan Brown's premise is fact, I'm just saying that it gave the people a picture of a more complex and gritty Jesus, coupled with a nice conspiracy).

Of course the hard-core fundamentalists are too busy getting into everyone else's business to nose around in their savior's business, so they get up in arms about the people who go poking into Christ's private life.The christian church never likes it when people start developing their own ideas about Jesus, God, and Christianity. But it happens all the time. And yea does the controversy flourish, and lo, the book sells.

So Scott you are correct in your conclusions that the Davinci Code would not be near as popular if it were not for the "christian" subject matter, but you arrived at you conclusion via an erroneous path. Historical conspiracies in general have a solid readership, regardless of whether their theme is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Shinto - or not religious at all. People enjoy them because people enjoy conspiracies and puzzles so I don't doubt the word of those who say they enjoyed Da Vinci for the code and I would not call their claim "bullshit". Without the conspiracy and the 'airing of the lord's dirty laundry on the line', the book would have still been read by these very people. But with the controversy - stirred mainly by Christians who oppose the book - it has become quite a phenomenon.

"It's simple: Do Gnostics believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus or not?"

Hardly a stumper. Many of the gnostic texts make mention of the resurrection. Why, its mentioned in the very first verse of the Sophia of Christ:

"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers...."

As Andy pointed out, some Gnostic traditions embraced the resurrection as an element of their belief system, and some did not.

There is some controversy as to whether the term Gnosticism is even relevant to the study of the faiths indicated by the Nag Hammadi texts. I refer you to Richard Byrne's article The End of Gnositicism for clarification.

Elaine Pagels herself stated: "if we drop the invented terms, what we have is many different types of early Christianity. When I used the title The Gnostic Gospels, I assumed that they were all Gnostic. Now I would say that these are other Christianities. ..."

Of course I meant to spell it Gnosticism but my brain doesn't function very well in the morning hours.

Che:

A closer reading of that text, "The Sophia of Jesus Christ," indicates that Jesus was not resurected bodily--

"...not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit..."

The Sophia a Jesus Christ

Again, belief in the bodily resurection of Jesus distinguishes orthodox Christianity from the Gnostic sects.

As for variety among orthodox Christians, that is unquestionable, just as you have suggested there is variety among Gnostics. I do not know that the Gnostics ever employed the canonical gospels. How could they?

Whether you call them a sect, a variety or a entirely seperate religion, the same remains true: they rejected the most ancient account of Jesus' death and resurection.

Category: Yikes!

What can be worse than a movie that offends millions of Christians? Make a boring movie that offends millions of Christians:

The Cannes audience clearly grew restless as the movie dragged on to two and a half hours and spun a long sequence of anticlimactic revelations.
<