It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Take on the Da Vinci Code

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Well I just got done watching the Da Vinci Code Movie. Of-course after the movie we all take that time to reflect - I would like to share my thoughts with you.

The first question that pops to mind is - how much do we really know about history - about the Crusades & even Jesus' time. How about even before that - I am talking REALLY Ancient History. Just how many Sects or Churches of Christianity & Judaism are there? I guess what it all comes down to in the end is ones own personal Interpretation of these Holy Symbols/Texts & their meanings - the teachings of these Religions.

So what was the "BIG SECRET" of the Da Vinci Code - you know the one that could "destroy Christianity" if revealed - that Jesus was a Man - actually FULLY HUMAN. That Peter was not the Main #1 Disciple but that it was Mary Magdalene. That SHE carried the True Teachings of Christ.

This does NOT threaten Christianity - only the Catholic Church that has taught that Jesus = GOD (& gave Peter the sole Authority to create "His Church") for all of these many years. That they would destroy all traces of the Truth - in-fact all traces of *TRUE CHRISTIANITY* - just to keep their Monopoly on Power! Is it any wonder that "Secret Societies" were formed? They were BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE!!!

Perhaps this is the true secret of the "Holy Grail" - that Man can become like God (after all were we not Created in God's own Image) - that we could Evolve into Holy & Spiritual Beings - that God became a Man in order to teach us how = Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the professor was correct in his statement at the end - one that would solve this problem - perhaps HUMANITY ITSELF is DIVINE! If you want to "KNOW GOD" then simply "KNOW THYSELF".

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
as usual there were many things " left out "by the makers of the movie. One of those
things was a statement made by Sophies Grandmother to the effect of " it is not the grail
that is important. It is the quest."

IMO they would have been better to leave out things like the extended fights ,protracted high speed chase scenes, the time consuming assembly of the Priory, and of course
the finding of documents in the open archive. They would have done better to develope
the characters more.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
my take on it was that Opie did what everybody else in Hollywood does to books - dumbed it down, added more thrills, chills, and spills, and generally made it commercially viable to a typical short-attention-span American audience.

In other words, they made the movie so that it would make tons of money - that's the whole purpose of it, anyway. Anybody who thinks this movie is some kind of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian conspiracy thing is just missing the obvious - the only thing related to religion about this movie was that the producers want to have more money than G-d!



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente


So what was the "BIG SECRET" of the Da Vinci Code - you know the one that could "destroy Christianity" if revealed
- that Jesus was a Man - actually FULLY HUMAN.


That Peter was not the Main #1 Disciple but that it was Mary Magdalene.
That SHE carried the True Teachings of Christ.



the 1st part of your right-on discernment, is basically what the Gnostics'
said all along...we are all just human animals and it is up to each of us individually to connect & develop ones connection to the divine & divine wisdom.

the church which consolidated at the Vatican, squelched the Gnostic teachings once before...but can/will they do it again?

i kinda feel that this Da Vinci Code moment will soon fade away



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I would like to say a couple of things here.
Number one: only Catholics believe that Jesus=God? Have you gone to a non-Catholic church lately?
Number two: Lets say for a moment that Jesus was indeed a man, this fact would take away from his divinity. Which would then beg the question of how a mere man can die for my sins and cleanse my soul.
Number three: If Jesus imparted his teachings to Mary Magdalen as opposed to Peter or any other disciple one would have to wonder why have women always been down played in the Cristian church from the very beginning? According to the book of acts the church was always male dominated.
So in conclusion I would have to say that if the facts of “The Da Vinci Code”, Or more properly “Holy Blood Holy Grail” are true then this would have a devastating impact on the validity of the Christian faith.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well you are skirting around the point Mr Mxyztplk. You are talking about todays Christianity. What we are talking about is the evidence that "Christianity" has been changed *SUBSTANTIALLY* from its origins by the so-called "Church Fathers". A Divine Jesus' Death for the Forgiveness of sins was THEIR concept. Salvation via the Enlightenment found in Christ's Teachings (which has also been corrupted for you see if you can control what came out of Christ's mouth - that you can have your own Customized form of Christianity) is our esoteric viewpoint - the same one that the Catholic Church tried to suppress - why else would they have Inquisitions & Destroy Gnostic Scripture? If Mary Magdelene & other Women played a Powerful Role in Early Christianity (which would be confirmed in recently discovered Gnostic Scripture) - would that not contradict the statement you just made? Yes the Validity of certain forms of Christianity stands in question - there is more than one form of Christianity however - who knows maybe the Original is still around, in Disguise, in Hiding, as to not cast Pearls before Profane & Vulgar Swine!

[edit on 4-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 4-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 4-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Seraphim_Serpent,
I have never herd of any form of Christianity that does not teach that Jesus is the Christ son of God. And as far as I can tell that is how its always been. And further more if that was not the teaching of Christ why did the Jews want to crucify him, why a few years latter when the Christian religion was spreading did the various whitenesses not come up and say “Hey Jesus never said that he was the son of God”.
As for the Gnostic scriptures, I don't know anything about them, but now that you have made me aware I will look into it thanks.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
The first question that pops to mind is - how much do we really know about history - about the Crusades & even Jesus' time.


That is a great question, because a lot of people don't always see what goes into establishing and verifying history, especially ancient history. Today, we have text books that give us an outline of history, but then we see contrary takes on the same history. From the perspective of the text books, it really looks as though history is only written by the victors and, until just recently, the losers were never given any voice.

This assumption, however, is grossly inaccurate. There are ancient historical texts that exist, describing history. Some of the best known are Ptolemy's account of Alexander the Great and Josephus' account of Israel during Roman times. Yet even these texts, so well known on which so much history has been framed, were extremely suspect when discovered. After all, the earliest copy of Ptolemy's historical account comes from over 600 years after it had been written. No earlier copy exists. This is where our historical detectives come in, the archaeologists. The historical records are tested against geographic accuracy (if a city doesn't currently exist but did when the earliest known copy was written, did that city exist when the events supposedly occur? For how long did the landmarks described in the work exist after the original was supposed to have been written? Were their descriptions accurate?), cultural accuracy (Cultures shift dramatically over time. Was the account of the mundane cultural elements accurate according to artifacts dug up? Did behaviors fit with other works found from the same time period? Were the values the same?), documentary evidence (Are the words used the same as other works discovered that came out of the same time period the work was supposedly written? Is the grammar the same? Do they use the same slang?), and external evidence (was this source ever quoted by other sources from an earlier time than the earliest copy discovered to date? Was it ever referenced? Are there records of the author from the time period? Were they positive or negative?).

There is a lot more that goes into history than just works written by people. Many ancient works have been dismissed as propaganda written by the victor (or, in a few cases, the loser). Those that remain as historical records have either passed all of these tests, or enough to convince historians they are accurate. There are times that elements can't be tested because we haven't discovered more information about what we're trying to check. Even so, if an ancient historian can be trusted on minor details, such as a description of a fountain destroyed 30 years after the work was supposed to have been written, while also being trustworthy in major events, an assumption is made that they are honest in their representation.

That's what makes the Bible so incredible. It has undergone all of these tests. Yet, despite it passing with flying colors, individuals still refuse to use it as a historical record of the times. One of the most famous archaeologists of the 20th century, and considered to be one of the greatest ever to have lived, Sir William Ramsay assumed the books of Luke and Acts were inaccurate in their depiction of history. Yet, after a few discoveries right where the books said they would be, Ramsay started using the book of Acts as a guide to discover ancient cities. It was then that he became famous. You can guess why.

History, from a scholastic level, appears questionable. We are given one side of a story from a textbook that was probably written based off of another textbook. Dan Brown counts on this assumption, and fictionalizes history in order to create a compelling story. Yet, when we dig into the methods of how history is established, it is anything but trusting. If historical works can't be verified in these ways, they are deemed false until proven otherwise. History is anything but subjective, it is an objective science that is verifying more and more of our understanding of ancient civilizations every day.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
As for the Gnostic scriptures, I don't know anything about them, but now that you have made me aware I will look into it thanks.


If you read my previous post, then a word of advice on the gnostic scriptures. They were written in such a way as to be unverifiable. Read through them looking for geographic references. You'll find few if any. Read through them looking for ancient Israeli cultural elements pre-roman conquest of 70AD. You'll find none. Read through them looking for something verifiable. You won't find it. You can find that with what is contained in the Bible. Christianity is a factual religion, as Josh McDowell puts it. You don't have to believe anything on blind faith, it can all be verified. Some is more difficult to verify than other parts, so it depends on the time you're willing to invest in it, but the scripture will not come out wanting. Several years ago I believed it would. I investigated. I came out of that investigation a Christian. If you enter into your investigation of the scripture with an open and discerning mind, you will discover the truth that lies within.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Mr Mxyztplk - first off - Jesus called himself "Son of Man". Was Humanity not Created by God? Jesus acknowledged his Earthly Father & Mother but he also states that he has a Heavenly Father (i.e. God) & Mother (i.e. Holy Spirit). He states that if we Believe in Him & follow his Teaching on how his Heavenly Father (i.e. God) wants us to now live life that we will become the
**"Children of the LIVING God" & "Filled with Light"**.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Jake--how can anything be unverifiable if one is trusting in God to do the verifying?

There is a difference between being 'unverifiable' to all as opposed to not being verified on a personal level--through the direct energy of the Holy Spirit.

The world is full of treasures for us--why would some certain scrolls found in the Egyptian desert be 'legit' and others of a different level of communication be 'taboo?'

Are not all things pure to he that is pure?

Which of the Nag Hammadi texts have you ever really read (if any)?
If you haven't, then why not?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Annie, I agree, and He left us clear evidence allowing us to verify His Word. As to the Gnostic books being verifiable, there is another test you can apply to them though they don't have anything that could support their veracity in the same terms as the Biblical scripture.

Biblical scripture can be verified, and has not been found wanting. It's the only ancient historical text that some historians have decided every element is false until solid evidence is presented supporting it, but if the same historical measure is applied to the Bible as is applied to every other ancient text out there, the Bible is the most likely to be accurate ever. Working off of this assumption, we can test the Gnostic books against the Bible. Is there anything in there that directly contradicts events depicted in the Bible, the personalities of the people described in the Bible, or tells a different message than that Jesus told? If so (and the answer is yes), why would you accept those books over the reliable ones?

As to my education of the Gnostic books, I've read several. I haven't read them all, but I have read several and tested them against scripture. I'm also not saying they're taboo, just that they're false.

Now to the theological. No, not all things are pure to God. Perfection does not mean that He finds everything to be perfect, including our rebellion against Him. Sin is not pure, and God despises it.

Seraphim_Serpente, the title "Son of Man" was a direct claim of divinity takes from Daniel 7. This is why the Pharisees reacted so negatively to when Jesus used this title. They were the biblical scholars of the time, and they knew the Word inside and out. While the general layperson may not have recognized this claim to divinity when Christ said it, the Pharisees most definitely did. There are many other things that Jesus called Himself and did that add even more weight to the divinity of Christ.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Ah yes JungleJake - I knew that someone was going to mention it eventually!
The so-called "Gnostic Heresy".

JungleJake do you believe in a persons right to Interpret any given scripture (whether or not others deem it to be Valid or Invalid) in the way that they choose (You know that "Free Thought" thing)? If your answer is No - would you try to Destroy these scriptures & Destroy the Believers in these scriptures as well - Calling them "Heretics" & the like - Burning them alive at the stake?

I know one such "Church" that has done this in History. They didn't just stop with the Gnostics either - they even went after the Jews!



just that they're false.


Says YOU! That is YOUR opinion!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Yes, it is my opinion based on research and evidence. What is your opinion based on?

As to your comment about the church's behavior towards those who were not Christian or disagreed with other Christian's interpretation of scripture, you're preaching to the choir. I fully agree with you that it was a horrible chapter in history, and that what was done was completely against scripture. As to me, as I said, the Gnostic books aren't taboo. They don't have to be destroyed or silenced. They are, however, false. You would have to come with some pretty darned compelling evidence showing otherwise to convince me that this is not the case, because there is a mountain of evidence, secular, theological and Biblical, that says they are.

EDIT to add: I also don't have a problem with someone interpreting scripture differently than myself. I will not, however, say they are right in their interpretation unless they convince me I have been the one misinterpreting it.

[edit on 6/5/06/05 by junglejake]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
As to the Gnostic books being verifiable, there is another test you can apply to them though they don't have anything that could support their veracity in the same terms as the Biblical scripture.

I have tested them, Jake--I am dedicated to holding all things against the bible. And of course you know I will include the version of the christian religion that you currently adhere to. I don't judge you for it, but I can't do right by keeping silent about the fact that one must search thoroughly for the most complete truth.

I agree that some of the Nag Hammadi are what I perceive to be unlearned and misguided (not necessarily false, just in a different aspect of seeking what we all seek). I also have found several gems that not only correlated perfectly with the message in the bible but I began to get a true glimpse of what we are needing to see.

The world is round. Truth is therefore not two dimensional or black and white --it is a sphere as well--all things are harmonically balanced when they are in some sort of spherical shape.

Knowledge is the partner of faith and if direct guidance by the Holy Spirit is a valid concept why is not the idea of 'gnosis' which is the condition of truly understanding. If you read your NT in Greek, you'd find it to be full of the word
gnosis and gnostic.


Biblical scripture can be verified, and has not been found wanting.

It is more truly used as verification for personally hypothesis about God by most people. The world can be verified according to the scriptures, Jake--they don't require proof but rather are the proof.


It's the only ancient historical text that some historians have decided every element is false until solid evidence is presented supporting it, but if the same historical measure is applied to the Bible as is applied to every other ancient text out there, the Bible is the most likely to be accurate ever.

And so that means you have verifiable proof that these historians were being guided by the Spirit when they made these decisions?

Of course the bible is likely to be accurate--it is not 'likely'; it is

established
. But it is not something that sways--it is a rod. No historian i's more qualified than a mr nobody who is allowing himself to be guided to the truth by God.


Working off of this assumption, we can test the Gnostic books against the Bible.

You may feel confident 'working off an assumption' in the process of 'testing the spirits' so to speak, but I don't.


Is there anything in there that directly contradicts events depicted in the Bible, the personalities of the people described in the Bible, or tells a different message than that Jesus told? If so (and the answer is yes),

I trust you're prepare to show me exactly where, at least one or two examples, then?


why would you accept those books over the reliable ones?

Why is that the only option? Throwing the bathwater out with the baby is a wasteful action.
There is no reason to choose either a one-sided clutching to a favorite canonical translation at the exclusion of everything else. If you throw the rest out, why even use the bible? It is truly meant to largely serve as a yardstick, but if you only measure a couple of things and make a decision, what have you gained but a little bit more narrow of a viewpoint? God's viewpoint as it is revealed to us is not a narrowing mechanism--it is definitely something that constantly widens yet remains true until it compasses everything. The bible is our most valuable tool. But the bible is not life and it is not the whole of human experience.


As to my education of the Gnostic books, I've read several. I haven't read them all, but I have read several and tested them against scripture. I'm also not saying they're taboo, just that they're false.

Completely 100%? There were absolutely no hints of anything you recognized as truth, Jake? Which ones did you read? Surely you got something out of the Gospel of Thomas? Is there really something that is 100% false and totally devoid of truth that exists in this world? By that I mean something that man created? Is any man 100% false? Are not all of us capable of hearing God and expressing it? Even if it is just a 5 word sentence but it is revealed truth and we are able to record it somewhere--isn't it still worth ferreting out if it will increase our understanding of our LORD?


Now to the theological. No, not all things are pure to God.

All things are of God. Theology just clouds the issue, anyway. Who said this and made it to be fact? What for? What is their authority?

Theology is man's educational means, not God's.


Perfection does not mean that He finds everything to be perfect, including our rebellion against Him. Sin is not pure, and God despises it.


What are you saying? I'm not following your line of thought.

Read Romans chapter 14. Your words are not supported by Paul's testimony.

God is perfection. He knows what is perfect and although we can conceive of what 'perfect' means, we cannot truly recognize it.

But more importantly, um, hello?
Jake? God despises sin?
What era are you in? AD or BC ?

God no longer sees sin--He's already got it all taken care of and worked out - the cross incident on Golgotha? Remember? That was not an incomplete sacrifice and it is definitely in effect right as we speak, 2000 years later. Now God sees the blood when it comes our time to be seen.


There are many other things that Jesus called Himself and did that add even more weight to the divinity of Christ.


The divinity part isn't what you're lacking on--but I'm not sure where you are on the human side.

Do you believe that Christ was just as fully human as He was divine--or do you consider that something that is a false teaching?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Before I enter a critique of Gnostic books, I'd like to say a few things. First, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you, and not the enemy? In regards to sin no longer being seen and everything being pure in God's eyes, why, in Romans 12:9, would Paul say,


9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.


How can there be evil if everything is pure? What is it Paul is asking us to hate? Finally, yes, I have read the gospel of Thomas. And yes, there was some truth to it. However, that's exactly my point, there was some truth to it. The most believable lies are those based on the truth that twist it. Look at Dan Brown's book. He takes well known or fairly well known facts, and uses those as a basis upon which to build his lies. How many people believe there could be some truth to his work of fiction based on this? How many would have believed if he hadn't used historical facts as his springboard?

Now, you asked me for two examples of where the Gnostic books go against the Word. I'll do better; it's time for a critique of the Gnostic "gospels".

First, we have their names. You have the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary, all names of people who were prominent in the Bible. None written by those people. The names were added to give a resemblance of authority to these books. There is no book in the Bible where a pseudonym was used, yet all the Gnostic books with a name attached to them did exactly that. Why? Why wouldn't the author use their own name? In Second Thessalonians 2:1-2, Paul writes,


1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.


Paul was writing a warning stating people trying to further their own false doctrine were writing to the churches in Paul's name. They were falsely teaching, and attaching Paul's name to their false teachings in order to convince the churches of their authenticity. What's more, Psalm 12:6 says,

The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tied in a furnace on the earth, refined 7 times
That's a "no duh" statement, but Paul writes in First Thessalonians 2:13,

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
Now if God's words are pure, and Paul is pointing out that the scripture is the word of God, how can a lie be considered God's word? God wouldn't have to use deception because God is Truth. Yet, these Gnostic books begin with a lie, and they don't stop there.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the most well known of the Gnostic books, and the first one I read. This book is a collection of sayings Jesus supposedly said. It does contain some of Christ's sayings in there, too, so if someone was familiar with the true Gospel, they might be taken in by recognizing some sayings. Yet, all the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are speculative, avoiding Christ's work of redemption on the cross. The easy attack on the Gospel of Thomas involves Jesus supposedly saying that He would make Mary Magdalene into a man so she could enter the kingdom of heaven, as it is not fit for women. Dead wrong, but the defense is that some believe this part was added to the gospel later. So we'll move on. The Gospel of Thomas states,


Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

Everything is pure, except the guy who is eaten by a lion? Well, maybe it means something and we can take it in context. Let's take a look at the verses surrounding this one. Above:


His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"

Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."


Below:

And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"


Uh...fasting and choosing the larger of two fish is the context?

In the Gospel of Mary, the physical resurrection of Jesus is rejected. They are interpreted as visions, dreams and trances. This is not the case in the true Gospel. Jesus ate with the disciples, Jesus offered to Thomas the opportunity to test his doubt by placing his hand in His side and his fingers in Christ's hands. This book, like the other Gnostic books, ignores Christ's ultimate sacrifice and redemption. This is because they did not see Christ's death as atonement, but instead the opportunity to discover the divine within themselves.

The Gospel of Philip mentions that God created us, but now we create Him. It goes on to say,


That is the way it is in the world -- human beings make gods, and worship their creation. It would be appropriate for the gods to worship human beings!


That is in direct contradiction to Christ saying, "I am the way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me". There is one truth, one God, and He wants you to get to know Him. He has character, He has personality, He is distinctive. He is not a god of our own design. He shapes us if we follow Him and love Him, we do not shape Him.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   


Yes, it is my opinion based on research... What is your opinion based on?


You have NO IDEA how much Research I have done & am still doing!



They are, however, false... there is a mountain of evidence, secular, theological and Biblical, that says they are.


Well this is obviously your opinion. Sorry, I like to think for *MYSELF*! I have my own Interpretation of Scripture as well! It is just as valid as yours!

As for that line in the Gospel of Thomas - look at it again:

"Jesus said, "Behold, I shall guide her so AS TO (=*NOT LITERAL*) make her male, that she too may become a Living Spirit like you men."

What does Gender matter to the Spirit is what Jesus was saying - in response to Peter's Male Chauvinism.



Do you believe that Christ was just as FULLY HUMAN as He was Divine.


Bingo - QueenAnnie, you have got the idea!


I now leave you by quoting the (KJV) Gospel of John (which leans toward the Gnostic point of view BTW - yet made it into the Canonical Bible - are you shocked?) 1:9 - 1:14 :

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as... of the Father) full of Grace and Truth."


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as... of the Father) full of Grace and Truth."


You missed a spot, the full text of John 9:14 in the KJV is (emphesis added):


14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


I agree with queen_annie and yourself that Christ was fully human and yet fully divine. He was, to requote the scripture you quoted,

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus was in the beginning, and was made flesh to walk among us and to die for our sins on the cross, as the perfect sacrifice, that whosoever would accept His gift would have everlasting life with the Father. You and I are not Jesus, He was unique, hallowed. You and I are wretched sinners who deserve death except for the mercy and grace of God the Father, who covered our sin with the blood of the Lamb not to cause judgement, but to help us cross the void between our wretched condition and God's overwhelming and perfect glory. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; we are nothing compared to Him.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I'm unclear as to what parts of the bible you (JJ) refer to as being "verfied" or "verifiable" - if it's just the religion/theology/philosophical parts well, then, everybody can believe what they want to believe.

If you are referring more to people, places, events, etc. then, your claim of verfiable is in serious dispute in many instances - too many to even list (not to mention that others have listed them ad nauseum on ATS). As far back as the 1950's there have been Christian OT scholars and full professors at some of this countries most distinguished seminaries that have taught that there is plenty of reason to seriously doubt the whole series of Moses legends - just as one example. And, I picked an example so you can't call it "nit-picking".

I haven't read the Gnostic texts but I've read many works of commentary on them (actually, I probably have read them since almost every verse is quoted in the commentaries) but, I can't see why anybody would think that they were less valid than any of the canonical Gospels since we know that we don't really know the real story (and certainly not the whole story) and we also know quite a bit about how the selection process happened - if you broaden your outlook to include the context of all the outside influences. All we know is that we don't know and that there is plenty of room to doubt that those who claim to know really don't know what they don't know.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Before I enter a critique of Gnostic books, I'd like to say a few things. First, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding you, and not the enemy?

Because I do not belong to the enemy! And I'm not trusting the enemy. I trust God and believe Christ lives--I have always been blessed to believe that and I was baptised at 8 years old because I wanted to obey God. For the next 30 or so years I just lived and did my best to follow Christ's commandments--basically love and love and the finer nuances expanded upon in the Sermon on the Mount. I'm not perfect nor am I special but I did do as we are instructed and I was also patient--or more honestly--unaware of the astounding transformation that the Spirit brings into our lives. In fact, I had no idea that the Spirit actually comes to live inside you and guide you at all--I did not listen to men about these things--which is a good thing--most talk of what they don't know. And the only way to know this is to be given the revelation through the Spirit. It came upon me without warning--I didn't seek it or fool myself--and I always refrained from discussing my personal beliefs--I really didn't feel it was necessary nor was it something I was qualified to do. By not declaring things we are not forced to grope for understandings which are not yet made available to us. If someone asked me if I was a Christian or something like that I would only say ‘I believe in Christ and I trust the resurrection. I’ve been baptized.’ And that’s all I said. And I didn’t realize that over the years God was preparing me and when I finally threw in the towel and gave up my desire to live for myself, totally—God rushed in and picked me up with a power that was unmistakable and I began to learn of things that were new to me through direct experience. And the bible supported everything that happened to me and it began to reveal itself to me with a clarity and consistency that is undeniably truth—I know who is within me—how could I doubt God’s promise that if I sought His righteousness all things would be added unto me? Would he allow the spirits of falseness take over a soul that sincerely and constantly desired only to obey Him and draw close in order to know Him? Is God cruel? Does He lie? No and no. Why should I doubt?

And do you claim the same and how do you know?


In regards to sin no longer being seen and everything being pure in God's eyes, why, in Romans 12:9, would Paul say,


9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.


Why are you asking me, Jake? Surely you don’t think that chapters and 14 and 12 are treating the exact same subject from the exact same perspective? That’s something you’re going to have to work out because it is a context thing that you’re overlooking and it’s not relevant to this discussion.


How can there be evil if everything is pure?
What is it Paul is asking us to hate?


Read Titus 1:15. Are you pure or are you defiled?


Finally, yes, I have read the gospel of Thomas. And yes, there was some truth to it. However, that's exactly my point, there was some truth to it.

No you said it was all false. Which is it? Do you really view the world as either black or white—all truth or all false and nothing in between to be sorted out?


The most believable lies are those based on the truth that twist it.

No, Jake, the most believable lies are the ones that we tell ourselves.
The world is full of all sorts of everything that are composed partly of truth and partly are marred with falsehood. We are given the offer of assistance required to make things clear for us—but unless we trust and seek truth we will not get access to it just because it’s possible. If we listen to men we will not hear God. Plain and simple.


Look at Dan Brown's book. He takes well known or fairly well known facts, and uses those as a basis upon which to build his lies. How many people believe there could be some truth to his work of fiction based on this? How many would have believed if he hadn't used historical facts as his springboard?

Who knows? Did he not cite that it was work of fiction on the very first page? And did he do anything different than what countless other novelists have done before him? He is not accountable for someone else turning his creative work into some basis for a false belief that they esteem as the truth! We are each accountable for our filtering of truth and fiction! Who is tested by the strong delusion mentioned in 2 Thessalonians? Dan Brown? Or is it those who would prefer unrighteousness over the love of truth?
We are each to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling! Dan Brown says he is a Christian…is he promoting his book as reliable Christian teachings? If someone doesn’t do their homework, is it Dan Brown’s fault?
You are judging someone whom you do not even know based solely on the fact that he wrote a book which you feel undermines Christianity. That’s not what you are to be doing and you know it.


First, we have their names. You have the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary, all names of people who were prominent in the Bible. None written by those people. The names were added to give a resemblance of authority to these books. There is no book in the Bible where a pseudonym was used, yet all the Gnostic books with a name attached to them did exactly that. Why? Why wouldn't the author use their own name?

Further research into the writing styles of the day would help you out on that. The main problem with your statement is that you don’t know they didn’t write those books. I don’t know. The pope doesn’t know. A pseudonym does not make the piece of literature it adorns false by default. That is not using the bible as a measuring rod—it is using what you believe to support what you believe.

And I can tell you that there a is a major pseudonym issue in the NT—but I don’t desire to try to convince you. The remnants of that tattered Gospel of Mary are throwaways, truly, because we not only have the Gospel of Mary in the canon, we have 3 epistles, and the final Revelation of Jesus Christ. Mary watched Him die, cleaned up his body, and after the Sabbath she went at the earliest possible hour to his grave and so she was also the one who was first to see Him! Can you imagine that kind of roller coaster ride? We can surely assume she loved Him in similar fashion to Peter and we are told she sat at His feet hour after hour just to learn and obey what He said…surely she would merit the final revelation of this age—she was not married to Christ—but on the other side she is the bride but the fact that she’s rising to recognition is because she’s ready for the wedding, or at least almost! You know what that means!

to be continued...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join