Adam McLane

DaVinci Code Opportunity

Da_vinci_codeIt seems there is a healthy amount of fear about the upcoming release of the DaVinci Code. I have to say this… it’s nearly bursting out of me.

What are we afraid of? I’ve heard some fear-mongering on Christian radio about how damaging this book will be for Christianity. Really? Since when is the Gospel not true? Afterall, the only way the gospel message is damaged is if it is not true.

An open diologue is priceless! Instead of people fearing Dan Brown’s interesting conspiracy, we should be encouraging people to discover the truth for themselves. Afterall, hasn’t gnosticism been dead for a long time? Wasn’t the Nicene Creed written specifically to answer the gnostics?Tom_hanks_cathedral_203x152

Isn’t Brown’s interpretation backwards anyway? Didn’t the gnostics argue that Jesus was fully God… and the DaVinci Code is trying to show him as fully human?

I am dumbfounded by fear mongers in the church. We need to look at these not as attacks, but as opportunities. At the end of the day, truth always wins.

Posted

in

by

Adam McLane

Tags:

Comments

10 responses to “DaVinci Code Opportunity”

  1. Sophia Sadek Avatar
    Sophia Sadek

    Thanks for the posting.

    I’ll try to address some of the questions you raised.

    It’s not the Gospel message that is in danger. Instead, it is the misinterpretation of the Gospels that is being threatened. There are a number of very rich religious leaders who are in danger of losing some of their funding if the truth gets out about their misrepresentation of the Gospels.

    The death of gnosticism is greatly exagerated. The Church burned gnostics at the stake continually from the fourth century to the time of the enlightenment. Some very affluent religious leaders would like to rekindle those fires.

    Finally, gnostics did not argue that Jesus was fully divine. The argument is that Jesus was a human being who incarnated the divine Logos. Gnostics focus on the Logos, rather than on the person who incarnates it. That’s considered heresy and blasphemy by those affluent religious leaders who risk losing their funding.

    Reply
  2. adam Avatar
    adam

    Two responses. But first off, thanks for the comment. I don’t know you and I don’t know how you got here, but welcome.

    1. Affluent religious leaders being exposed as fakes? Surely you’ve got your wires crossed there. Most if not all I know in Christian leadership are hardly rich. And know this, if somehow “Christianity were some fake thing exposed” we wouldn’t lose some of our funding, we’d lose it all.

    2. Are you in denial of the written church history of gnosticism and Christianity? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Are you saying that Jesus was not fully God and fully man? Are you saying he did not pre-exist his earthly birth?

    I’m no church historian and I’m not an academic theologian, but it is clear that gnosticism is heresy. I’m just curious.

    But mostly, tell me how you got here to my blog?

    Reply
  3. Sophia Sadek Avatar
    Sophia Sadek

    I read some of the entry you point to on the Catholic study of gnosticism. Given the volume of recent discoveries in gnostic literature, it is a bit outdated. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh has a clear gnostic signature. Since it is a tradition that was relatively recently (only a few thousand years ago) etched in stone, it points to a gnostic tradition that is far older than Babylon itself.

    Just about every aspect of gnosticism is heretical. This doesn’t mean that it is wrong. On the contrary, it corrects many of the errors of the apostolic tradition.

    There were three distinct tendencies that diverged after the crucifixion. Two of these fell into apostolic error. The third was the tradition of highest discipline. Before the two main apostolic traditions attacked each other, they first attacked the discplinary tradition. Those who did not accept the apostolic big lie were outlawed as heretics.

    The primary feature of apostolic error is upholding the human Jesus as divine. Attention is paid to the human aspects, rather than to the divine teachings. The virgin birth, the passion, the resurrection all focus on the human.

    Another flaw in the apostolic tradition is mistaking the apostolic texts as divine Logos. This creates another level of idolotry where the apostles and their output is mistaken for that which it is not.

    As for how I found your posting, it’s in public view, so I noticed it. Thanks for the welcome.

    Reply
  4. adam Avatar
    adam

    Well, I thank you again for your comment. You said “Just about every aspect of gnosticism is heretical. This doesn’t mean that it is wrong. On the contrary, it corrects many of the errors of the apostolic tradition.”

    According to the dictionary, heretical means “Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards.” So yes, being found heretical does mean that the majority of religious experts think that gnosticism is not a viable interaction with Christianity. So I don’t think it holds a lot of truth IMO.

    I uphold the view espoused in the Nicene Creed that Jesus is 100% man and 100% divine at the same time.

    Again, thanks for your comment.

    Reply
  5. Sophia Sadek Avatar
    Sophia Sadek

    Given the way that orthodoxy established its beliefs and standards, it can hardly be considered truth. Truth is not accomplished by theft, murder, and destruction. Simply because the big lie is the standard of theology, does not make it any truer.

    Jesus himself said something to the effect of “why do you call me good.” In his own words, he pointed to a less than 100% divinity. Perhaps that quote is not in your version of the Gospels.

    Reply
  6. adam Avatar
    adam

    It is in my Bible. But you’ve mixed issues. You’ve labeled the world’s largest religion “the big lie.” But yet you provide no evidence.

    Quoting a verse out of context proves nothing. In his own words he not only pointed to his own divinity, he proved it at the resurrection. In that one action he showed his humanity (his flesh died) and his divinity (just as he predicted he rose from the dead.)

    I think the historicity of the book of Luke, which you just quoted, far surpasses the historicity of any gnostic text.

    Again, you make great claims… but show me the money.

    Reply
  7. Sophia Sadek Avatar
    Sophia Sadek

    With respect to the “historicity” of the gnostic texts, they make more sense to the critical observer than do the fabulous tales of transsubstatiations and immaculate conception.

    It is not my place to convince you to repent. The evidence for the deceptive nature of Christianity is all around you. If you refuse to see through the facade of deception, that’s your prerogative.

    Reply
  8. adam Avatar
    adam

    So, it’s pretty clear you are offering no evidence for anything you’ve said. If the evidence for deception is all around me, why don’t you share some with me? So far all you’ve done is make fantastic claims and quoted half a verse out of context… surely if you’ve got something you would share it right?

    Transubstantiation. I’m not going to defend a doctrine of the Catholic church since I’m not Catholic. And if you mean immaculate conception of Mary, I’m with you. But I’ll stand behind the evidence for the virgin birth any day.

    Reply
  9. Sophia Sadek Avatar
    Sophia Sadek

    I can’t give you evidence if you will not accept it. No matter what I present to you will be received in a distorted manner. The only way you will find the truth is by questioning that which you assume to be true.

    If I told you the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, you would not “believe” it to be true. On the other hand, if you were to deliberately seek it out, you would receive it differently.

    If you knew the truth about the resurrection and the truth about divinity, you would not see the resurrection as evidence of divinity.

    Reply
  10. adam Avatar
    adam

    Good comeback. So in other words you will not share with me any evidence? That’s a good way to argue your point… as if “what I claim to be true is false” you could convince me by just saying “look around you.” Umm. Yeah.

    Thanks for the interaction, but if you are providing anything other than double talk, I’m done. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ is clear, the canonicity of the gospels is historically sound, the false dicotemy of gnosticism is plain to see by 99% of scholars, and your alternate “view” of western history is being presented with absolutely nothing but words. Make a claim, back it up… that’s all I am saying.

    Reply

Leave a Reply