cracking the da vinci code

[LarryD]

got this in an email...


>
> LECTURE will CRACK THE DA VINCI CODE AND EXPLORE THE DECONSTRUCTION OF
> CHRISTIANITY
>
>
>
>
> PENSACOLA- Dr. Terry Prewitt, professor of Anthropology, will present a talk
> titled "The Da Vinci Code, Modern Mystery Sects, and the Deconstruction of
> Christianity" March 14 at 3:30 p.m. in the University of West Florida Center
> for Fine and Performing Arts Mainstage Theatre, Bldg. 82. Admission is free
> and open to the public.
>
>
>
> "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction that references Christology
> including Jesus and what his life meant," said Prewitt. "The book
> intertwines mystery traditions, history and liberal interpretations. During
> my lecture, I will discuss The Da Vinci Code in terms of non-traditional and
> traditional gospel criticism taking into account the Dead Sea Scrolls and
> Gnostic gospels."
>
>
>
> Resting on a far-reaching synthesis of diverse backgrounds, The Da Vinci
> Code is an international murder mystery that reveals controversial religious
> societies and cover-ups including an alleged marriage between Jesus and Mary
> Magdalene. The lecture will sort among the documents, communities and
> opinions through which Christianity is being renegotiated in popular
> culture. Prewitt's discussion will also draw from the works of John Dominic
> Crossan, Geza Vermes, Margaret Starbird and Elaine Pagels.
>
>
>
> Prewitt has been a faculty member at UWF since in 1981. Prior to coming to
> UWF, he taught at the University of Houston and University of Tulsa. Prewitt
> is the author of A Gospel for James and The Elusive Covenant: A
> Structural-Semiotic Reading of Genesis as well as numerous other books and
> articles on religion and semiotics. He holds a bachelor's degree in
> anthropology from San Diego State University and master's and doctorate
> degrees from the University of Oklahoma.
>
>
>
> This lecture is sponsored by the UWF FreeThinkers Society.

[Superfluous_Nut]

is the da vinci code anything like the "holy blood, holy grail" stuff? that stuff is cool.

[BigVito]

is the da vinci code anything like the "holy blood, holy grail" stuff? that stuff is cool.Yep, Brown draws heavily from "HBHG." The Priory of Sion plays a piviotal role in the book. Fun read.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Yep, Brown draws heavily from "HBHG." The Priory of Sion plays a piviotal role in the book. Fun read.

i need to try reading that book again... it was interesting, but sorta dry as well. my friend was all into it -- even went to the church in france when he visited europe.

[LarryD]

im on the waiting list for the book at our library. my sister read it. she liked it a lot. i like religious mysticism.

[hasbeen99]

Dangit, I can't decide whether I want to read this or not. I was all fired up about getting it, then I skimmed the cover and got the impression it was just a murder mystery, so I passed. Now it sounds like it's more doctrinal commentary with fiction window dressing. Can someone give me some in-depth info or recommendation?

[LarryD]

i dont read many books, but this kind of stuff interests me.

one book i did read was the celestine prophecy. i can't exactly say what it was about this many years later, but it was fairly enjoyable.

[BigVito]

Dangit, I can't decide whether I want to read this or not. I was all fired up about getting it, then I skimmed the cover and got the impression it was just a murder mystery, so I passed. Now it sounds like it's more doctrinal commentary with fiction window dressing. Can someone give me some in-depth info or recommendation?
HB, it is a Suspense/thriller using some theories on Christs life and the role Mary Magdalene played in it, popular Conspiracy theories regarding secret societies & the Catholic and their role in hiding the "truth" and traditional genre devices to tell a story, that at it's heart is nothing more than a traditional thriller.

I don't believe there is any doctrinal commentary other than the authors fascination with conspiracy theories as a backdrop for his hero. Dale Brown will never win awards for his writing skills but it is an entertaining read that throws quite a bit of intriguing esoteric religious ideas out for readers who are unfamilar with them.

[hasbeen99]

I thought I had read it was about an art theft, or something. Is that totally off-base? What time period is the story set?

[BigVito]

I thought I had read it was about an art theft, or something. Is that totally off-base? What time period is the story set?It is set in the present and starts off in Paris. The mystery begins with a murder at the Louvre with cryptic clues left by the victim. The hero is a professor of symbology and the heroine is a cryptologist so puzzles play a big part in the plot and pacing of the story.

The book brought more than a few of my interests together: the Knights Templars, the early chuch, the black madonna, Rennes-le-Chateau along with some mentions of Gnosticism. Even with that, the book is really nothing more than what it is, a genre thriller.

Oh, the author's name is Dan Brown, Dale Brown is a military thriller author.

[Rob]

I think I saw a movie made out of this book on DvD a while back. I haven't read it though. The movie was mildly entertaining.


The Da Vinci Conspiracy
Distinguishing Fact from Fiction

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

January 20, 2004

Several months ago, a friend came to me outraged over Dan Brown’s thriller, The Da Vinci Code. He read the book, and while he found the story fascinating, it was filled, he said, with historical distortions and was nothing but an anti-Christian—specifically anti-Catholic—screed. Don’t worry, I told him, it will blow over like all fads. Besides, no thinking person will take it seriously.

Well, I was wrong. Since then I’ve talked to a lot of people who have read the book. And for non-believers, it confirms their unbelief. It turns off honest seekers, and it has confused and disillusioned even many Christians.

That’s because while Brown has a knack for creating suspense, breakneck pacing, and surprising twists, he also has a knack for playing fast and loose with the truth.

The Da Vinci Code begins with the murder of a museum curator. A Harvard professor and a French code breaker are called in to decipher a cryptic message that he wrote just before he died. They discover that he was protecting a powerful and dangerous secret.

So far, just your average thriller, right? We soon find out that the curator had evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although the Church had tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings by Da Vinci, the architecture of cathedrals—even Disney cartoons.

That sounds like a loony conspiracy theory, except that Brown props up his flimsy edifice with impressive-sounding, supposedly historical “facts.” One of his characters even states, “The historical evidence supporting this [story] is substantial.”

But it’s not. Brown uses a combination of lies and half-truths, founded on a skewed perspective of Church history. In Brown’s view, the heretics in the early Church were the real truth-tellers, and the Church banned their doctrines because they threatened the Church’s power base.

Just in case readers go back to their Bibles to check facts, Brown has his characters claim that the Gospels aren’t historically accurate. Instead, it’s the Gnostic gospels—books discarded by the early Church as unreliable—that tell the truth about Jesus.

As Dan Brown knows, an adventure story like The Da Vinci Code is an ideal way to get past people’s guard. Between trying to guess who the real villains are and trying to decode the various clues scattered throughout the book, who’s going to notice that Brown’s religious theories are as phony as a three-dollar bill?

Christians need to notice, that’s who. And we need to do our research so that we can respond to the fabrications in The Da Vinci Code. (See the links at the end of this commentary to get started.)

Even though Dan Brown knows the techniques of writing a best-selling thriller, he uses them to reach the most banal conclusions. He apparently thinks it’s exciting to show Jesus as an ordinary human being with strong leanings toward goddess worship. But the biblical story of Jesus—God the Son coming to earth as a man to die and rise again for our salvation—is infinitely more exciting. If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.” And if you have non-Christian friends who have read it, debunk The Da Vinci Code. Then tell them a much better story: one that has the added advantage of being true.

http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20041/January1/The_Da_Vinci_Conspiracy.htm

[wossa]

im on the waiting list for the book at our library. my sister read it.

yeah me too.

#312 on the list. :rolleyes:

it'll be in paper back before I ever get it.

[mathmajors]

I'm always interested in historical references when it comes to the life of Christ. I just don't think it's that far-fetched that Jesus had a wife and kids, etc.

The book is a real page-turner, though.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I think I saw a movie made out of this book on DvD a while back. I haven't read it though. The movie was mildly entertaining.


The Da Vinci Conspiracy
Distinguishing Fact from Fiction

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

January 20, 2004

Several months ago, a friend came to me outraged over Dan Brown’s thriller, The Da Vinci Code. He read the book, and while he found the story fascinating, it was filled, he said, with historical distortions and was nothing but an anti-Christian—specifically anti-Catholic—screed. Don’t worry, I told him, it will blow over like all fads. Besides, no thinking person will take it seriously.

Well, I was wrong. Since then I’ve talked to a lot of people who have read the book. And for non-believers, it confirms their unbelief. It turns off honest seekers, and it has confused and disillusioned even many Christians.

That’s because while Brown has a knack for creating suspense, breakneck pacing, and surprising twists, he also has a knack for playing fast and loose with the truth.

The Da Vinci Code begins with the murder of a museum curator. A Harvard professor and a French code breaker are called in to decipher a cryptic message that he wrote just before he died. They discover that he was protecting a powerful and dangerous secret.

So far, just your average thriller, right? We soon find out that the curator had evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although the Church had tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings by Da Vinci, the architecture of cathedrals—even Disney cartoons.

That sounds like a loony conspiracy theory, except that Brown props up his flimsy edifice with impressive-sounding, supposedly historical “facts.” One of his characters even states, “The historical evidence supporting this [story] is substantial.”

But it’s not. Brown uses a combination of lies and half-truths, founded on a skewed perspective of Church history. In Brown’s view, the heretics in the early Church were the real truth-tellers, and the Church banned their doctrines because they threatened the Church’s power base.

Just in case readers go back to their Bibles to check facts, Brown has his characters claim that the Gospels aren’t historically accurate. Instead, it’s the Gnostic gospels—books discarded by the early Church as unreliable—that tell the truth about Jesus.

As Dan Brown knows, an adventure story like The Da Vinci Code is an ideal way to get past people’s guard. Between trying to guess who the real villains are and trying to decode the various clues scattered throughout the book, who’s going to notice that Brown’s religious theories are as phony as a three-dollar bill?

Christians need to notice, that’s who. And we need to do our research so that we can respond to the fabrications in The Da Vinci Code. (See the links at the end of this commentary to get started.)

Even though Dan Brown knows the techniques of writing a best-selling thriller, he uses them to reach the most banal conclusions. He apparently thinks it’s exciting to show Jesus as an ordinary human being with strong leanings toward goddess worship. But the biblical story of Jesus—God the Son coming to earth as a man to die and rise again for our salvation—is infinitely more exciting. If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.” And if you have non-Christian friends who have read it, debunk The Da Vinci Code. Then tell them a much better story: one that has the added advantage of being true.

http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20041/January1/The_Da_Vinci_Conspiracy.htm


the book is listed under fiction, is it not? did this guy get upset that star wars didn't really take place in history as it proclaims?

[mathmajors]

the book is listed under fiction, is it not? did this guy get upset that star wars didn't really take place in history as it proclaims?

I didn't like that guy's attitude, either.

[BigVito]

the book is listed under fiction, is it not? did this guy get upset that star wars didn't really take place in history as it proclaims?Mr. Colson, or as I like to refer to him "Prisoner 23226", was a bit preoccupied in the '70's so he probably missed Star Wars.

Why are books like the Da Vinci Code and movies like the Last Temptation of Christ so feared by certain segments of the Christian community? "If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.”" Are ideas that dangerous?

[kshead]

Mr. Colson, or as I like to refer to him "Prisoner 23226", was a bit preoccupied in the '70's so he probably missed Star Wars.


:lol2:

[mathmajors]

Why are books like the Da Vinci Code and movies like the Last Temptation of Christ so feared by certain segments of the Christian community? "If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.”" Are ideas that dangerous?

A lot of those folks don't realize that all they really know is what is written in the Bible. They'll take that for truth because they've been conditioned to.

[hasbeen99]

Okay, I've decided Imma read the book. Thanks for the post, Rob. :)

[hasbeen99]

I just don't think it's that far-fetched that Jesus had a wife and kids, etc.

If He did, I think He would have included it in His ministry. Why hide it?

[kshead]

If He did, I think He would have included it in His ministry. Why hide it?

That's one of ths issues in the book. It's not that He hid it so much, it's that the evidence of it was erased by "The Church".

[hasbeen99]

Why are books like the Da Vinci Code and movies like the Last Temptation of Christ so feared by certain segments of the Christian community? "If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.”" Are ideas that dangerous?

I think it's because a lot of Christians don't have a good grasp on what they believe, and are easily manipulated. It's a philosophy of fear, to be sure, but not totally without merit. The bad part is that too many religious people place blind faith into the words of only a handful of ordinary people, or even one ordinary person, instead of looking at the big picture and looking at as much evidence as they can find.

I quote Harry Anderson: "The idea is to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

There are people out there who will believe anything they read or anything they hear at face value if it has Jesus or God in it.

[hasbeen99]

A lot of those folks don't realize that all they really know is what is written in the Bible. They'll take that for truth because they've been conditioned to.

Correct, and that's tragic, because that usually leaves their faith about an inch thick and a mile wide. There's not much there to root it in daily life -- no application. Actually in some of those cases, I think a case could be made that they're treating the Bible like an idol instead of what it was meant to be.

[mathmajors]

That's one of ths issues in the book. It's not that He hid it so much, it's that the evidence of it was erased by "The Church".

I'm not saying I'm buying into everything Brown's book is suggesting, but given the fact that all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul became significant in the Early Church has always kept me open to possibilities.

[Superfluous_Nut]

If He did, I think He would have included it in His ministry. Why hide it?

who says HE hid it? he didn't write the bible, others did... and still others determined what books to call "the bible." you'd have to believe that somebody wanted that information removed for some reason, so somebody in the equation would be less than what you'd like them to be, for sure.

i'm curious what does jesus say about women in general? maybe part of his radical teachings were that women were equals.


edit: didn't see page 2.

[slydevl]

but given the fact that all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul became significant in the Early Church has always kept me open to possibilities.

This is fact??????? I would agree with "the earliest known copies" but "all the Gospels"?

[mathmajors]

This is fact??????? I would agree with "the earliest known copies" but "all the Gospels"?

The earliest book of the New Testament is Paul's 1st letter to the Thessalonians.

[hasbeen99]

who says HE hid it? he didn't write the bible, others did... and still others determined what books to call "the bible." you'd have to believe that somebody wanted that information removed for some reason, so somebody in the equation would be less than what you'd like them to be, for sure.

That's the point I was making, though. Why would anyone, including the church want to remove it? Paul taught often about marriage and the roles of men and women in his letters. It only follows that Jesus' teachings would be even more coveted by Christians. Doesn't make sense to edit them out, if they existed.


i'm curious what does jesus say about women in general? maybe part of his radical teachings were that women were equals.

Good question. I'll research this and get back to you.

[Superfluous_Nut]

That's the point I was making, though. Why would anyone, including the church want to remove it? Paul taught often about marriage and the roles of men and women in his letters. It only follows that Jesus' teachings would be even more coveted by Christians. Doesn't make sense to edit them out, if they existed.


it would make perfect sense if they were simply using the popularity of jesus to serve their own purposes.

[kshead]

That's the point I was making, though. Why would anyone, including the church want to remove it? Paul taught often about marriage and the roles of men and women in his letters. It only follows that Jesus' teachings would be even more coveted by Christians. Doesn't make sense to edit them out, if they existed.


I'm not up enough on Paul's teachings to comment on what you say there HB....BUT...

Speaking strictly in terms of motivation? The church - run by men and only men - had plenty of motivation for removing any reference of a wife of Jesus. Especially if Jesus wanted His wife to continue His ministry. She would be a threat to their power. This is also in the book.

I'm guessing where you will get ticked at this book is over Paul. Can't remember enough about the book to be sure though (I read this book a while back).

Edit: This time I guess I'm a little late. :)

[hasbeen99]

The earliest book of the New Testament is Paul's 1st letter to the Thessalonians.

Probably. The only book that might be dated earlier is James.

[hasbeen99]

it would make perfect sense if they were simply using the popularity of jesus to serve their own purposes.

That's what I'm saying, though. Jesus might have been even more popular if he had a wife and taught specifically about marriage and family. Wider appeal.

[slydevl]

The earliest book of the New Testament is Paul's 1st letter to the Thessalonians.

The earliest known copy

[hasbeen99]

Speaking strictly in terms of motivation? The church - run by men and only men - had plenty of motivation for removing any reference of a wife of Jesus. Especially if Jesus wanted His wife to continue His ministry. She would be a threat to their power. This is also in the book.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Women were almost completely uneducated in that culture, and were very much in a subordinate role to men -- especially in the church. Jesus had 11 disciples to carry on His ministry, and 12 after Paul's conversion. Sending a woman out -- even His wife -- into that culture would make almost no sense. They just didn't have any credibility or authority. The only place a woman might have a successful ministry would have been in Greece, where most of their religious leaders were female, as were a number of their gods.


I'm guessing where you will get ticked at this book is over Paul. Can't remember enough about the book to be sure though (I read this book a while back).

Thanks for the heads-up. :)

[mathmajors]

The earliest known copy

Sorry. I meant 'written before all the other books in the New Testament'. The Gospel of Mark is pretty darn close, however.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Possibly, but I doubt it. Women were almost completely uneducated in that culture, and were very much in a subordinate role to men -- especially in the church. Jesus had 11 disciples to carry on His ministry, and 12 after Paul's conversion. Sending a woman out -- even His wife -- into that culture would make almost no sense. They just didn't have any credibility or authority. The only place a woman might have a successful ministry would have been in Greece, where most of their religious leaders were female, as were a number of their gods.


which is another valid answer to the question.

there's no doubt that christianity was modified to fit the people to whom it was presented. didn't the disciples even teach somewhat different forms as they went off to different places? you can't just create a new religion and expect everybody to accept it. you need to provide some link to their current system. if the women thing wasn't gonna go over, they coulda dropped it. didn't they sorta skew the books to be less jewish (when deciding upon the cannon)?

[hasbeen99]

which is another valid answer to the question.

Okay, lemme see if I'm understanding your point. You're citing a possibility that Jesus was married, and if so, probably did teach marriage values, but those values might have been contrary to what the early church officials wanted to retain and it was conveniently left out of the printed Gospels? If I'm accurate so far, well, I guess it's possible. I can see the possible motivation now. I still think it's unlikely, though. Just seems like an awful reach, and smacks quite a bit of conspiracy theory. Then again, stranger things have happened.


there's no doubt that christianity was modified to fit the people to whom it was presented. didn't the disciples even teach somewhat different forms as they went off to different places? you can't just create a new religion and expect everybody to accept it. you need to provide some link to their current system. if the women thing wasn't gonna go over, they coulda dropped it.

Honestly, from what I can tell, most of the apostles didn't seem that smart. Only Paul really sucessfully adapted the Gospel message to be received by other cultures, but the central message didn't change. And even that adaptation met with bad reviews when he reported back to the others in Jerusalem. Their charge was to witness to the Jews. Paul got everyone else. Peter didn't have the intellectual stones to go head-to-head with some of the most famous Roman and Greek philosophers in history. Paul did.

That being said, Paul did have an issue of changing the roles of women in Greece, because they were outspoken and disruptive to his teaching efforts. They were in power, and had no interest in changing to this new teaching he brought. I'd have to go back over it, but I think he may have taught other aspects of the Gospel to that culture, and not wasted his time on trying to change women. The primary goal was eternal salvation, not cultural conformity.


didn't they sorta skew the books to be less jewish (when deciding upon the cannon)?

This I don't know, but I'd be very surprised. The Jews, if nothing else, have clung mightily to their heritage. To lessen that heritage in order to draw Gentiles in would be counter-cultural for them, I think.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Okay, lemme see if I'm understanding your point. You're citing a possibility that Jesus was married, and if so, probably did teach marriage values, but those values might have been contrary to what the early church officials wanted to retain and it was conveniently left out of the printed Gospels? If I'm accurate so far, well, I guess it's possible. I can see the possible motivation now. I still think it's unlikely, though. Just seems like an awful reach, and smacks quite a bit of conspiracy theory. Then again, stranger things have happened.

i'm actually saying that if jesus was married, you're right, he probably would have mentioned it. but he might have also mentioned it when talking about women in general and their place in society. if people didn't like that part of it -- women in society -- they would have excised it along with his references to his wife (since they're interlinked). absolutely it's a conspiracy theory, but if you don't believe that jesus was divine in anyway, then it's clear stranger things HAVE happened -- like 2000 years later people believe he's the son of god.


This I don't know, but I'd be very surprised. The Jews, if nothing else, have clung mightily to their heritage. To lessen that heritage in order to draw Gentiles in would be counter-cultural for them, I think.
actually, what i'm saying is that i understand that when the bible was cannonized, the books chosen were the ones that seperated themselves from judeism the most. the ones that retained things that were too jewish were left out. if i remember what i read correctly, this was to take advantage of an already established distrust of jews.

[hasbeen99]

...but if you don't believe that jesus was divine in anyway, then it's clear stranger things HAVE happened -- like 2000 years later people believe he's the son of god.

Or that by 70 A.D. all but one of His closest followers had been tortured to death because they wouldn't say He wasn't the Son of God. :wink2:


actually, what i'm saying is that i understand that when the bible was cannonized, the books chosen were the ones that seperated themselves from judeism the most. the ones that retained things that were too jewish were left out. if i remember what i read correctly, this was to take advantage of an already established distrust of jews.

Well, Christianity itself separates believers from the old Mosaic law and Jewish traditions, at least to some extent. So the nature of the Gospel message itself is going to be in conflict to some of that tradition and culture. Whether or not that was a deciding factor in the canonization process, I don't know. I do know there's a dichotomy there I'm working on that I haven't quite figured out yet about how much of the old Law fits into Christian doctrine as Jesus taught it.

[mathmajors]

Honestly, from what I can tell, most of the apostles didn't seem that smart. Only Paul really sucessfully adapted the Gospel message to be received by other cultures, but the central message didn't change. And even that adaptation met with bad reviews when he reported back to the others in Jerusalem. Their charge was to witness to the Jews. Paul got everyone else. Peter didn't have the intellectual stones to go head-to-head with some of the most famous Roman and Greek philosophers in history. Paul did.

I agree that the apostle resembled the Keystone Cops in the gospels, especially Peter. But one wonders whether Paul had influence over the writings of Luke and Matthew in that respect.

And it's hard for me to reconcile Paul 'adapting' the Gospel message to be received by other cultures when he wasn't the one who brought it in the first place. I see what you are saying, but assuming Jesus was who Christians believe, He brought the message.

And while I'm thinking about it, it's also hard to figure out how someone like Luke knew about what happened, for example, to Jesus when he spent 40 days in the wilderness, rebuffing the temptations of Satan. He wasn't there. How does he know? Did Jesus tell someone and they told Luke? If Luke used the same source for information on Jesus, did the source forget to tell him about his wife? Or did Luke not think that was important? Or did Paul tell Luke it wasn't important?

It can be overwhelming.

[Turbo]

Hasbeens, I just finished reading the book.

Indeed, it is a thriller written through the lens of a Catholic conspiracy intended to hide that Jesus was married with Mary Magdalene and that they had children.

I found it interesting and fun to read.

As far as Chrisitan doctrine and history, Chuck Colson had it right. Dan Brown takes a lot of literary license to bring it all together.

As far as I'm concerned, thats ok. The author never intended the book to be historically accurate nor a textbook on Christian history. It is labeled fiction for a good reason.

I hope you read it. It's quite fun.

[Rob]

Mr. Colson, or as I like to refer to him "Prisoner 23226", was a bit preoccupied in the '70's so he probably missed Star Wars.

Why are books like the Da Vinci Code and movies like the Last Temptation of Christ so feared by certain segments of the Christian community? "If you know Christians who are reading the book, tell them, “Throw it away.”" Are ideas that dangerous?

Chuck has to sell syndicated radio segments to Christian stations. I thought that was a bit overdone telling folks to throw the book away. Nothing wrong with reading fiction. I posted that radio transcript because of the book description as much as anything. Like Hasbeen I will probably read it. Sounds interesting.

[hasbeen99]

I agree that the apostle resembled the Keystone Cops in the gospels, especially Peter. But one wonders whether Paul had influence over the writings of Luke and Matthew in that respect.

I can see where it might be a concern, but I really don't think so. Matthew was fairly educated, and wrote his own account. Paul most definitely had influence over Luke -- Luke dictated both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts from Paul. His gospel account was most likely a collaboration with the other apostles (it's almost a carbon copy of Matthew), but according to the NIV, Luke's gospel was intended as a lead-in to Acts, where Paul truly got involved. There are subtle differences, but the meat and potatoes are constant throughout Matthew, Mark (who dictated Peter's account), and Luke. Another thing to consider is that the writing styles and purposes of Paul's letters are very different than those of the gospels. Each letter had a specific message to a specific group of people. The gospels' intent is to recount the story of Jesus' ministry and message.


And it's hard for me to reconcile Paul 'adapting' the Gospel message to be received by other cultures when he wasn't the one who brought it in the first place. I see what you are saying, but assuming Jesus was who Christians believe, He brought the message.

Perhaps I've not communicated what I meant clearly. Every person who teaches Christianity adapts it to apply to his or her audience. The beauty (and the danger) of Jesus' message is that it can be adapted to apply to any person, anywhere, at any time. In other words, it is flexible enough to be understood and embraced by everyone, but consistent enough that it doesn't lose its integrity. Of course, that doesn't mean mistakes and/or unfounded modifications don't happen. They have, and they will, as long as people are doing the teaching. That's why it's so important for Christians to study their Bibles and educate themselves on what they believe instead of relying solely on what the church tells them. Everyone needs accountability.


And while I'm thinking about it, it's also hard to figure out how someone like Luke knew about what happened, for example, to Jesus when he spent 40 days in the wilderness, rebuffing the temptations of Satan. He wasn't there. How does he know? Did Jesus tell someone and they told Luke? If Luke used the same source for information on Jesus, did the source forget to tell him about his wife? Or did Luke not think that was important? Or did Paul tell Luke it wasn't important? It can be overwhelming.

You're right -- Luke wasn't there, and neither was Paul. None of the apostles were, and none of them would know unless Jesus told them, which He likely did. His temptation in the desert was the preamble to His ministry, and likely was included in His early teachings to the apostles.

[mathmajors]

And then there's the book of John.:D

[plutosgirl]

Larry, Can you block me from this thread?

I just started the book and I'm dying to read this. :xyzthumbs

[mathmajors]

Larry, Can you block me from this thread?

I just started the book and I'm dying to read this. :xyzthumbs
If you are getting completely into the book, you'll not want to spend any amound of free time on any message board.

[hasbeen99]

i'm curious what does jesus say about women in general? maybe part of his radical teachings were that women were equals.


I read through His teachings over the weekend, and while all His messages were gender-neutral (disregarding references to "The Father"), His actions spoke loudly about how He felt about women. He did not see them as equal to men in every way, but He treated them with far more dignity and respect than the men of that culture did, or do today -- even women of different races and cultures.

The impression I've gotten from studying the New Testament as a whole is that men and women have different roles, but those roles are balanced. Men are usually assigned to leadership, but Jesus wants them to be 'servant leaders', meaning they put others' needs ahead of their own, while taking full responsibility for their decisions and actions.

Does that answer your question, Nut?

[meatpile]

Hey has-beens,

If you want to cut by all the 'fictional story', read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's pure research and specualtion, without a thriller movie intertwined.

Like S-nut said, it does get dry.

I didn't read everything else in this thread, but basically it theorizes that Christ had a wife - Mary magdalene, and she bore his children. Mary Magdalene IS the holy grail - her womb being the 'cup'. And since he had kids, there are people alive today that are the direct ancestors of Jesus Christ.

The catholics then covered the whole thing up, and made Magdalene a whore, and so forth.

It is a good read.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I read through His teachings over the weekend, and while all His messages were gender-neutral (disregarding references to "The Father"), His actions spoke loudly about how He felt about women. He did not see them as equal to men in every way, but He treated them with far more dignity and respect than the men of that culture did, or do today -- even women of different races and cultures.

The impression I've gotten from studying the New Testament as a whole is that men and women have different roles, but those roles are balanced. Men are usually assigned to leadership, but Jesus wants them to be 'servant leaders', meaning they put others' needs ahead of their own, while taking full responsibility for their decisions and actions.

Does that answer your question, Nut?
but if his treatment was so different than those around him, don't you think he'd have made some mention of it? it would seem logical if he thought it was important for him to have at least talked about once or twice.

this means either,
1. he didn't think it was that important
2. he did speak to it, but it was excised for some reason
3. he didn't actually have these views, but they were added in later (that is, his all-loving persona was enhanced by having his actions toward women depicted with the highest regard)

both 2 and 3 require a reworking of the account after the fact. 1 requires a somewhat strange view of what jesus was doing here (if it was to get his message out, it seems strange to leave off some of the message).

[Superfluous_Nut]

Hey has-beens,

If you want to cut by all the 'fictional story', read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's pure research and specualtion, without a thriller movie intertwined.

Like S-nut said, it does get dry.

I didn't read everything else in this thread, but basically it theorizes that Christ had a wife - Mary magdalene, and she bore his children. Mary Magdalene IS the holy grail - her womb being the 'cup'. And since he had kids, there are people alive today that are the direct ancestors of Jesus Christ.

The catholics then covered the whole thing up, and made Magdalene a whore, and so forth.

It is a good read.
i never did finish it, but didn't the word "grail" come from the old french word "graal" which means blood? that the "holy grail" was really the holy bloodline -- jesus' bloodline. thus the title of the book.

[hasbeen99]

but if his treatment was so different than those around him, don't you think he'd have made some mention of it? it would seem logical if he thought it was important for him to have at least talked about once or twice.

He may very well have. As you say, it makes sense, but it's not like the apostles recorded every word He said. On the other hand, perhaps He thought His actions spoke louder and had more impact than anything He could've said.


this means either,
1. he didn't think it was that important
2. he did speak to it, but it was excised for some reason
3. he didn't actually have these views, but they were added in later (that is, his all-loving persona was enhanced by having his actions toward women depicted with the highest regard)

both 2 and 3 require a reworking of the account after the fact. 1 requires a somewhat strange view of what jesus was doing here (if it was to get his message out, it seems strange to leave off some of the message).

Your assertions make sense but I think in the case of women, He relied upon His actions and His teaching about how to treat each other to speak to the issue. I do think His example and teaching was expanded upon by Paul in his letters, though. One thing to keep in mind, Jesus' time was very limited. He only had 3 years, and He knew some of the apostles would have decades.

[hasbeen99]

Hey has-beens,

If you want to cut by all the 'fictional story', read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's pure research and specualtion, without a thriller movie intertwined.

Thanks for the recommendation, Meat. I'm always interested in conclusions other people draw about religious doctrine. I'll add it to my reading list. :)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Your assertions make sense but I think in the case of women, He relied upon His actions and His teaching about how to treat each other to speak to the issue. I do think His example and teaching was expanded upon by Paul in his letters, though. One thing to keep in mind, Jesus' time was very limited. He only had 3 years, and He knew some of the apostles would have decades.
so then he really should have been a lot more clear about things, right? if you've got limited time to teach something, wouldn't you be as explicit as you could? rather than hoping they pick up on his actions, telling them would be quicker and more efficient.

[hasbeen99]

rather than hoping they pick up on his actions, telling them would be quicker and more efficient.

True, but sometimes the action says more, and paints a more accurate picture of the message one is trying to convey. Maybe it was enough that the apostles relayed what they saw, so the rest of us might get it, even if they didn't.

[Superfluous_Nut]

True, but sometimes the action says more, and paints a more accurate picture of the message one is trying to convey. Maybe it was enough that the apostles relayed what they saw, so the rest of us might get it, even if they didn't.
could be. but then you'd think he wouldn't have said anything and just gone about his business, right?

i'm just wondering how he chose what to speak about and what not to speak about. of course, that's assuming perfect accuracy in what was written about what he said and did.... which i don't really believe to be the case.

[hasbeen99]

could be. but then you'd think he wouldn't have said anything and just gone about his business, right?

i'm just wondering how he chose what to speak about and what not to speak about.

In studying what He taught, and especially His teaching methods, He tended to root profoundly deep lessons in everyday examples and illustrations people could relate to -- farming, shepherding, parenthood, etc. But some things He tried to communicate are just too complicated to simplify. I suppose a parallel would be trying to teach calculus to a third grader.


...of course, that's assuming perfect accuracy in what was written about what he said and did.... which i don't really believe to be the case.

Of course. I'd hesitate to describe every letter of the Gospels as 100% authentic. There are subtle differences between translations and between the Gospels themselves. It's the consistencies I trust, and it's those consistencies that comprise the heart of Christian doctrine. The interpretations of the differences are mostly what keep the Christian church from being whole as it was intended.