My Take on the Da Vinci Code

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
< - - snip- - >
Yet, these Gnostic books begin with a lie, and they don't stop there.

What the heck does that have to do with Paul? What lie? A pseudonym? Not all of the books in the canon are written by the one whose name adorns the book. That is something easily researched. Does that make God’s word false? By no means; make every man a liar but God tells the truth.

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.

The spirit reveals every one of those saying as true—perhaps not easily understood but that only means we require help to know.

Yet, all the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are speculative, avoiding Christ's work of redemption on the cross.

So what? Wasn’t that covered many other places? Did Christ come only to do one thing? What kind of authority is that? It is opinion, once again: human opinion. Nothing in the bible says that is the way we measure. I guarantee the GoT is not out of line with the canon. I know because I have delved deep and the proof is there.

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.

And your supporting scripture is what?
What it actually says, in its complete expression is this:

(1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life."
(2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male,
so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you."
(3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

‘A living male spirit.’ You left that totally out and it has significant bearing on the meaning of the saying. Which you say is ‘dead wrong.’ So far that’s just proven as your opinion—you offer no support for saying it is ‘dead wrong.’

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:

Why are you trying to apply Paul’s words to Thomas’s gospel?
There is not really any sort of true context in Thomas…as the gospel of Thomas is presented as a list of ‘sayings’. But they all fit in with the bible and Thomas wasn’t preaching at all and so how can you compare it to what Paul preached—Thomas is sharing ‘secret sayings of Jesus’ and Paul was sent as an Ambassador for spreading the gospel of reconciliation.

There is nothing unbiblical about secret sayings coming from Christ, either.
Matthew 13:35 Luke 8:10 Mark 4:11 Revelation 2:17

If you want to explore lions in the canon, check out Samson’s wedding story in Judges, for starters. And surely you recollect passages that speak of fouls eating human flesh and such….

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?"

Matthew 6:18
6:9
6:4
Mark 7:18-19

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."

Matthew 19:18
Luke 6:31
1 Corinthians 4:5
Matthew 10:26

to be cont...

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?

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 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.



[edit on 6/6/2006 by queenannie38]

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?

Of course not. The saying about the fasting is #6 and the parable of the wise fisherman is #8!

In the Gospel of Mary, the physical resurrection of Jesus is rejected.

How is it rejected when it is not even mentioned? It mentions one time that she relates to the others that she saw Christ in a vision….Did not Paul see the same thing? And also Ananias in the 9th chapter of Acts?

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 Mary Magdalene is such a tattered fragment that it is foolish to try to insert all the missing parts. Why even include such a tidbit when there are better more enlightening texts that you could examine! You have yet to even put forth a reason for repeating this idea of a so-called rejection of the resurrection—you don’t know what they thought or saw—no one did except them. And even more so, you haven’t even paid enough attention to make a true case to support the pre-established judgments you came with.

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!

Why not quote the whole reference correctly, considering it has got some missing parts right in the middle of what you are quoting?

There are two trees growing in Paradise. The one bears animals, the other bears men. Adam ate from the tree which bore animals. He became an animal and he brought forth animals. For this reason the children of Adam worship animals. The tree [...] fruit is [...] increased. [...] ate the [...] fruit of the [...] bears men, [...] man. [...] God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!

But men do create gods to worship. That's like one of the major themes of the bible (that no one wants to see)! The gospel of Philip isn’t advising to do such a thing any more than Paul or Isaiah are when they warn of the subtle dangers of idolatry. The book of Revelation makes a special point of this very same grave error in chapter 13! That’s a very true statement.

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".

It is only a contradiction if you insist on making such a half-hearted closed minded effort at truly seeking to know. Get real, Jake! I know you are more intelligent and reasonable than this!

Really what you have demonstrated is what I was hoping you would prove me wrong about suspecting: your mind is closed to any possibilities that God might send because you already think you have all the answers. You probably do—your answers. But God’s answers come from every direction and you have really bricked yourself into your set doctrine.

Jake, I’m not saying lay aside the canon in favor of the truly fragmented, often deeply esoteric and mystical content that comprises the Nag Hammadi—I myself never considered such a thing—but by all means don’t forbid yourself any avenue at all that might possibly reveal more to you than you already have! Any person that truly trusts in God would not hesitate to study any and all sacred texts and spiritual approaches available—understanding the underlying truth that there is but one God for all of us—one Creator—to think that He cannot be found evidenced in every single morsel of our history—not complete and not completely, but every little bit of truth adds to a better multidimensional perspective of our Father-- and if He sent us a personal guide guaranteed to provide only truth and reality (as promised in the 4th Gospel) then how could it possibly be wrong or dangerous to seek God in every thing we encounter? It is a safe adventure that we need not fear will lead us somehow outside of our Creator. That is an impossible thing—to escape out of God.

He is not a god of our own design. He shapes us if we follow Him and love Him, we do not shape Him.

No, we are not supposed to. But religion has made a continual habit of it for all our human history. :shk:

Bravo Queenanny, briliant indeed friend, keep it going pls, for the sake of all of us interested in the topic

Everyone takes the Da Vinci Code as an attack to Christianity, even tho i still think the man purposes on writing the book (besides the money factor) wasnt at all an attack to Christ, or God. Its an attack yes but to the kind of interpretations given by RCC to the bible during all this time; read all Dan Brown books and you will see somewhere in the book the main caracter (always a non-believer) will start praying to God when he see´s himself in a life/death situation. Like in other religions where sacred books are used to sustain some theories, religious organisations use it to reach their intents (yes muslins organisations are also a good example of this so lets not beat christians to death on the subject).

This quest people talk about, dont have to be on if Christ had kids, if Mary Magdalene was the favorite disciple or other bible episodes. I found myself thru time trying to get answers on wether some episodes are actually true or false; bottomline i always get to the same thing: a convincing historical conclusion that proove some bible episodes are false on several sources, and convincing biblical evidence that these episodes are real and true also on several sources. This quest leads me to think, its pointless trying to reach a conclusion on who is actually right !

So again, ill get back to my main theory that institutions are the ones responsible for all this anti-religion thingy. Since the begining of these institutions more harm was done than good, and im not talking only about RCC, you may apply the same to several other ones.

Its ironic how these institutions act and ill give a real life personal example: every year me and my wife with friends go to a supermarket and buy food, drinks and toys to offer it to people that live in our neighbourhood in very bad conditions - social security here is a mess, so either you do it yourself or people end up dying of some stupid little disease because they dont eat at all. While giving them the food and all that, a woman said "Well, i dont know what your religion is, but certainly you do more than Church". My wife asked: "Why´s that?"; the woman replied: "Well, they all come and give us all the types of bibles to read, but as you know paper and book covers dont feed your stomach". I know many churches actually help out people in need, so no need to shout it out My point is, its more important to institutions to make this people read a book than offering them a piece of bread. I know also, that according to some religious principles if they read the sacred book and attend local church their life will get better yadda yadda.. well, ive been in these people houses (if you can call that an house) and they have images of Christ in the walls and saints, so i assumed they were all believers. Bottomline, they still need to eat more than reading a book.

All religions tend too (and well) to put up the idea that helping others is actually a good thing to do. These days when i talk to a religious fanatic, the most important thing is to accept his God, second most important thing will be attending the physical institution and the third will be reading and finding anwsers on the all mighty book. In all these discussions, people never talk about what people need, or to be more Da Vinci Code related, what Christ would want you to do regarding people in need In other forum about Christian life one of the moderators replying to a person about whats more important on a Christian lifestyle, the very first thing was "Church attendance". If you ask this person whats more important kinda likely she will tell ya helping out people that need to eat is more important, but her mind automatically anwsered in 1st place "church attendance". Sometimes the institution gets so deep in you, that you stop thinking, and that is Dan Brown warning, nothing more, nothing less.

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,

To this I would most heartily reply bovine feces. Of the first 5 books of the
NT Acts is the oldest . Written about 25 - 30 years after the purported events it relates,
and by a person who was not even involved or in attendance ( Saul). 3 of the other
four show undeniable pauline influence which is not surprising as the scribes of Matt and
Luke openly plagerized the scribe of Mark. There is no evidence that the name ascribed to any of them is the name of the person that wrote them.

In fact recent scholarship has opined that of all the writings attributed to paul only 8
are actually his. te rest were penned by his followers and given his name to gain plausibility.

The Gospel of John is the only one that has any internal identification that is possibly traceable the author of John identifies themselves as " The Beloved Disciple."
This title can be directly attributed to only 1 ( 2 if you include the Gnostic writings)
person. There is only one person refered to in the NT repeatedly as " He who thou
lovest." That Person is Lazarus. The other of course is the Magdalene who the GG refer to as the one he loved more than the others. She is also refered to as "one of the four that knew the ALL."


If all in the NT is verifiable and proveable, Please provide the documentation and
proof that Nazareth existed in the time in question, CA. 6BCE - 40CE. There is
no ( to my knowledge) evidence in Roman records or anyplace else of its existance
until after 70 CE.

There is however evidence ( both biblical, gnostic and otherwise) of sects associated with the essene community and earlier that Nazareth could be a corruption of intentionall or not. Nazorites and Nazoreans one of which Samson of the OT was a member of. ( Nazorite as i recall).

Again as I recall one of the GG( I would have to go look up the exact location) states clearly that Jesus wore a line/mark on his forehead after the manner of the Nazoreans.

Originally posted by MikePhilEveryone takes the Da Vinci Code as an attack to Christianity,

Or at least christians do. I see the DaVinci Code as either an entertainment read,
a somewhat thrilling movie experience, or--at it's most potent: a catalyst related the stirring up of human consciousness that is underway.

Many 'outside' the church have seen it coming. A lot of people are questioning thing because those hidden things Christ promised would be revealed are being revealed. Man's spiritual thinking power is being restored and he's becoming aware of the transformation that's on the horizon. But those who remain within the so-called shelters of any church of any sort--these things are not being detected there—what slips in is promptly swatted like a cockroach.

There is nothing new under the sun. What were Pharisees 2000 years ago are called christians today. Sorry for the jab, anyone that felt that--but if you did--maybe you should consider it an 'ox-goad' instead of some sort of personal attack and realize that just like Paul, you are persecuting Christ by not standing firm on His commandments. Matthew 5-7 provides pretty much all the information anyone needs to be able to get to a state of deep internal peace in these days of turmoil. And then again--everyone's own heart is born with sufficient spark pumping blood that had been made alive by Christ 2000 years ago--if you follow your conscience and treat others as you'd want to be treated, you find God. Everyone can get close to the Creator these days. EVERYONE. And that is 100% supported in straightforward statements in the bible.

even tho i still think the man purposes on writing the book (besides the money factor) wasnt at all an attack to Christ, or God. Its an attack yes but to the kind of interpretations given by RCC to the bible during all this time; read all Dan Brown books and you will see somewhere in the book the main caracter (always a non-believer) will start praying to God when he see´s himself in a life/death situation.

I haven't read the book--simply because I just don't have time or any extra $ these days to read for pleasure. I sure do miss the library, though--but I at least there is now the internet to satisfy my need for input. So I did go to Dan Brown's website because there was a poster here at ATS making claims Dan Brown was Jewish. I did know that wasn't true, but I still thought it prudent to verify, if possible, before I replied that it was a bunch of rubbish. I think we are all free to say what we want but I really hate to see senseless rubbish posted and if I can, I'll refute it. We've got enough confusion without adding to with a 'show and tell' of our personal delusions. Turns out Dan Brown stated he is a christian. He made the comment somewhat to the effect that the word means many things these days, but it is something that is a personal issue and he left it at that. He did also say that he thought it was wonderful that there was so much discussion being stirred up because of it--and not because he wants fame or fortune (which he's probably got now, but he's not earned it dishonestly) but because he sees it as adding a little bit of vivification to a pool that had been growing stagnant and more brackish in these recent times. Tom Hanks said basically the same thing, and supposedly he is currently a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian. The thing that this book does is cause people to question things that, truly, they shouldn't have to be reminded to question. Not about Christ's divinity--or whatever--that's not in question, by any of us anyway. What He is, He is...

And even though research has revealed to me that it's more fiction that fact, even when it comes to 'facts' (which, BTW, is still addressed on the page after he plainly states it is a work of fiction). Once you turn the title page of a novel to begin to read--all things should be considered fact in the world that the book opens up in your imagination as you read. When you close the book, you just put away your Narnia so that you can return later. There are definitely 'facts' in Narnia (for example) yet those facts are only true in Narnia. The Priory of Scion exists only in works of fiction--but Leonardo is a 'fact' and the Fibonacci numbers are a fact. Opus Dei exists (and I saw an interview of someone who had been 'exit counseled' out of that order as a young adult *ding* *ding* hear the warning bells? 'exit counseled?' yikes!) and she said, on camera,with her person and identity clearly exposed for all, that the claims Dan Brown made about their oppressive practices and extreme masochism in the name of penitence were things she had experienced. She even had one of those leg things that had been hers and it was every bit as cruel as described! I think it was the NG channel.

So the general attitude of 'maybe we've been rationed on our information feed via the so-called religious authority of this word' represented by the Vatican that is conveyed in the book is the heart of its catalytic qualities. And that is 'truth,' no doubt--it has proven itself #1 by the public's response to the idea there might be something more to fill in the gaps that make understanding nonsensical or impossible for many people and #2 the christian institution's general offended/defense reaction to a novel. And that includes both horns of the dragon-voiced 'lamb'=protestant and catholic. The ‘left behind’ books are novels that they esteem much higher than they should. What’s the difference? There’s more truth in the Code than there is in that dime store apocalyptic fluff. No one needs to prove there has been less than candid conversation going on within these institutions--it has proved itself! People are starving to know something--anything--about whatever it is that we call 'truth.' It wasn't Dan Brown's alleged defamation of Jesus (which is nonsense!) that sold so many books! It was the fact that Jesus was the subject. And Mary Magdalene. Because deep in our hearts, we know there’s something more to this that isn’t yet out on the table...

This quest leads me to think, its pointless trying to reach a conclusion on who is actually right !

In reality ‘right’ is nothing more than the opposite of ‘left.’ So I agree, it’s pointless. My tirade here at ATS is not driven by trying to force what I think is right (because I don’t—it’s something beyond mere true or false pop quizzes) but I do know, with certainty, many many things that the bible does not say, in any way shape, or form. On any level. And those are the things that interfere with a person’s private choices and personal journey toward God—and those are walls that keep people from getting where their hearts desire them to be.

So again, ill get back to my main theory that institutions are the ones responsible for all this anti-religion thingy.

Religion is the #1 leading cause of atheism. You can quote me.

Bottomline, they still need to eat more than reading a book.

Nothing sours a person quicker on religious grouping together than when times get hard and if maybe some sort of ‘sin’ and even if chronic poverty is part of the cause, especially, that’s one sheep family left outside in the cold snow….

All religions tend too (and well) to put up the idea that helping others is actually a good thing to do.

They serve with their mouths but not their hearts and bodies.

These days when i talk to a religious fanatic, the most important thing is to accept his God,

His God!

If he’s got his own, then I don’t want to share it. Because I know my God is the same God who created everyone. He is their God, too—maybe they don’t know it yet but I think when they die they will see. Because He is waiting for each and every one of us beyond the doorway of death.

second most important thing will be attending the physical institution and the third will be reading and finding anwsers on the all mighty book.

And so it is more ironic than even I can almost stomach—because what does that all mighty book say? Well, I don’t think they’re really all that sure. I know they are wrong in what they preach because they preach empty words. I do not criticize anyone individually—we’re all the same, anyway—but there is nothing worth salvaging out of the dying beast of religion other than the people. And they’ll be okay, but that beast they so fear in Revelation is the same one who’s skeleton they sit in every week to hear the dragon/lamb play marionette and preach to the choir.

Nothing sours a person quicker on religious grouping together than when times get hard and if maybe some sort of ‘sin’ and even if chronic poverty is part of the cause, especially, that’s one sheep family left outside in the cold snow….

All religions tend too (and well) to put up the idea that helping others is actually a good thing to do.

They serve with their mouths but not their hearts and bodies.

These days when i talk to a religious fanatic, the most important thing is to accept his God,

His God! If he’s got his own, then I don’t want to share it. Because I know my God is the same God who created everyone.

second most important thing will be attending the physical institution and the third will be reading and finding anwsers on the all mighty book.

And so it is more ironic than even I can almost stomach—because what does that all mighty book say? Well, I don’t think they’re really all that sure. I know they are wrong in what they preach because they preach empty words. I do not criticize anyone individually—we’re all the same, anyway—but there is nothing to support their case aside from opinions, in the bible, that is. There is no case for trying to attack this book just because their rock is shaky.

The bible has NOT passed all of the historical accuracy checks. For example, many of the texts were written alot later than they supposedly occured.

We have no evidence of a world wide historical flood. Also, there is question about the supposed captivity of the Hebrews in Egypt as described. There is little evidence of a great nation of Israel as described in the bible. Nor is there any evidence that the world is about 6,000 years old.

The bible is like the Greek myths. Alot of stories that grew with the telling, a little fact wrapped up in alot of myth.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
The Gospel of John is the only one that has any internal identification that is possibly traceable the author of John identifies themselves as " The Beloved Disciple."

Something which, if it were really John the disciple writing this and calling himself such an immodest thing would pretty much cause a problem in the humility aspect of the holy Spirit. Which I know is true, so therefore, this is a stupid way to try to divert. I've always thought so. Because it is incongruent!

If all in the NT is verifiable and proveable, Please provide the documentation and
proof that Nazareth existed in the time in question, CA. 6BCE - 40CE. There is
no ( to my knowledge) evidence in Roman records or anyplace else of its existance
until after 70 CE.

Not only that, but there are new discoveries of a jewish catacomb/burial cave pretty close by that was in use during the time Nazareth was uninhabitated. Jewish law prohibits living within a certain range from rotting corpses. Jesus would not have lived there if anyone had beside a sheep herder or two.

There is however evidence ( both biblical, gnostic and otherwise) of sects associated with the essene community and earlier that Nazareth could be a corruption of intentionall or not. Nazorites and Nazoreans one of which Samson of the OT was a member of. ( Nazorite as i recall).

Right! Two orders, actually--one started by Enoch, they say, and the other was the School of Elijah. The latter (the Essenes of Qumran) was where John the Baptist was raised (as a nazorite) and Mt Carmel was where Jesus was raised (as a nazorite). Look at the map and notice where Mt. Carmel is/was. Near the Galilee sea--no conflicts there. Also that gives meaning to Nathanael's comment about any good coming from 'Nazareth.' No Jewish sect was very fond of the Nazorites because they were virtually left alone by Roman rule.

Again as I recall one of the GG( I would have to go look up the exact location) states clearly that Jesus wore a line/mark on his forehead after the manner of the Nazoreans.

I don't recall reading that. I do know that the water into wine miracle that starts off the 4th Gospel is a direct instruction about the fact that Jesus's vow time was fulfilled--maybe before he desired it--hence the comment 'Woman it is not yet my time.' Nazorites can only drink water until their vow is fulfilled--they cannot cut their hair and they cannot touch dead bodies, ever.
So then he had to get to work--he was then able to touch dead bodies and many other things--He had been purified for his priesthood by fulfilling his vow to God as a Nazorite. That is the permanent priesthood, and those who were priests of the order of Aaron no doubt despised Jesus for the threat he probably was to their spiritual monopoly over the remaining Children of Israel.

A Nazorite is a 'branch' and it also means 'truth.'

The 4th Gospel is the best one, IMO--always I liked it best before I realized the truth about John and Mary and how she is in the accounts more than any other, in important situations. But it is probably the most accurate one if all I say is true--something written by someone who was really and truly a constant companion and therefore witness to the events related concerning Jesus's life.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The bible has NOT passed all of the historical accuracy checks.

And why should it have to? Its not a historical document--it a spiritual growth and development guidebook.

For example, many of the texts were written alot later than they supposedly occured.

True--but that's neither proof or disproof of anything. It is the norm in the way humans have recorded their cultural lore and legends. And all these things come from some true event or root cause--all stories that the world tells about its ancestors are basically truth. They're in different flavors and dressed up and dressed down over the years, remodeled and patched a bit here and there. But that's a normal process if you study this aspect of ancient literature, etc.

We have no evidence of a world wide historical flood.

Pending. Not global but pretty near. That is unless a miracle deep freeze puts a sudden stop to the melting ice that is going to wreak havoc on all our worlds! But what will that prove by the time it happens? It won't really matter, then, I don't think.

Also, there is question about the supposed captivity of the Hebrews in Egypt as described.

There are questions--but there have been some recent digs revealing what might be an 'asiatic' people who were 'employed' but the Egyptians (usually their slaves were a motly lot instead of an actual group of a certain culture). These people did not share the religion of the Egyptians and they seemed to have a strange habit of burying things under their living quarters. It was deserted within a very short time but I can't recall the exact year. I need to find that, again, because it was very intriguing.

Not proof--just interesting possibilities.

And I've done a lot of research personally that is really beginning to show there's more than a good chance that the Exodus is based on true events--which took place around 1450 BC or whenever it was that Santorini had it's worst volcanic explosion--the one that wiped out the Minoan civilization.

There is a major faultline up the Jordan river valley--and the Dea Sea expanded because of some tectonic hydrothermal disruption in the early bronze age. There are mass graves along the north end of the Dead Sea--and it seems quite possible that there were a few towns that sprung up following the destruction of 5 cities that had existed where on that faultline but which were taken over when it sunk and extended the Dead Sea. There is extant historical evidence of those 5 Kings Abram defeated in Genesis--who's realm were those 5 cities which included Sodom and Gomorrha.

Now there is a new development on that faultline--there is a crack opening up that seems likely to rid us of the horn of Africa in the near future.

There is little evidence of a great nation of Israel as described in the bible.

Not true. That's been pretty much established. Not as securely as a lot of collateral evidence, such as Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, but there is no doubt there was an Israel and there were great for a brief period of time. You have realize that the time that Israel was truly a 'great nation' was only about 80 years. The combined lifetimes of King David and of King Solomon. 80 years in the midst of 4 to 6 thousand is not much, in perspective. And we do know there was indeed a Babylon captivity.

Nor is there any evidence that the world is about 6,000 years old.

That's ludicrous! Of course there is no proof of such an impossible 'fact.'

The bible is like the Greek myths. Alot of stories that grew with the telling, a little fact wrapped up in alot of myth.

Well sort of. I think there is a whole lot of good truth traipsing around within our global lore--but it's like a costume party, that's all. Just disguises that make things appear to be something totally different when they are all just the same underneath.

None of these things are really important to prove, either way, though--in the interest of being able to gain something of value from reading/studying the bible. Not becoming religious or anything of that nature--but in fact reading Sacred Texts of all the world is something that would enrich anyone's understanding. I've found God comes in all flavors and colors, but yet God is God and we are all children in the same family.

You and I are wretched sinners who deserve death.

Wrong again. How do you know that I am a Sinner? Anyway - I DON'T BELIEVE in "Sin" - I Believe in KARMA!!!

Originally posted by queenannie38
And why should it have to? Its not a historical document--it a spiritual growth and development guidebook.

This is exactly my point. A religous/spiritual text. My problem arises is when people try to use it as a historical account. It would be like me trying to use the Illiyad to teach history. Some parts are based on some historical fact, but most of it is grandiose myths and fables to entertain, enlighten, or reveal some deeper spiritual truth.

Al, would you nitpick? You can find scholars these days who will believe anything. That's not to say that they believe whatever they hear, but rather with so many out there, you will have individuals who believe something completely different than the majority of scholars believe. It's easy to say a debate is raging, because it's true, even if it's one outspoken individual against the entire archaeological community. So nitpick, I'd like to know more details. Thanks!

Originally posted by queenannie38
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

That's awesome, QueenAnnie. All too often people never make that surrender to God for Him to lead their lives, always trying to hold on and go through life in their own strength. There's a song by Rebecca St. James with a great line, "For too long I walked alone. I tried to prove that I was strong. But now that part of me is gone." It's really pride that keeps us from giving the reins to God, from putting on His yoke and letting Him guide us through life. He gives us the option to be our guide, to walk with us through life and point out the local hotspots and never lead us astray, but all too often we ask Him to just give us a map instead.

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?

No! He has written that He will guide us and help us persevere through all trials. Nowhere, however, does He say there will not be trials. In fact, He tells us the opposite. The forces of darkness despise Him, and thereby despise we who are reflecting His glory on the Earth. Christians are prime targets for the Prince of Lies because he does not want us to be able to spread the truth, to help others reflect the glory of God as well.

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

It is good to see that you have trusted to God by faith; I was not the same way. I went into my investigation of Christianity with the intention to prove it false. I was a doubting Thomas, who would not believe until I weighed the evidence. As Josh McDowell puts it, evidence that demands a verdict. I could have lied to myself or I could have accepted the overwhelming evidence supporting God's word.

Continue to walk with God, trusting in Him alone. Do not hold onto doctrines and beliefs when He exposes them to be incorrect. There have been many things that, through my walk with God, He has revealed to me through many means. I have had to change my stance on beliefs and understandings that seemed so completely true, yet went against scripture. I believed them because I didn't know the scripture well enough and I didn't want to believe them; they were hard things to accept. Don't let pride cause you to stumble on your walk as it has me. I don't have all the answers, nor do you, but we are called to be disciples of Christ, that is students. As students, we must always be willing and able to learn what He teaches us.

stalkingwolf, there is the Q document theory in regards to the synoptic gospels, though this is probably inaccurate. If the other two synoptic gospels were copies of what Luke wrote for Theophilus, though, why would there be discrepancies? Why would one talk of one angel while the other talks of two at the tomb? That would only make it more difficult to understand. However, historians expect and rely on these discrepancies from multiple recountings of the same events. They expect very similar, though slightly differing accounts if they're by different authors relating the same events, which the synoptic gospels do.

As to Nazareth, there is quite a bit of evidence that it existed even though it was not in Josephus' history of Israeli cities. A cemetery has been found near the valley of Armageddon, as has a tablet written threatening death to any who would defile the graves of Nazareth. It was customary to say there would be a fine for defiling a grave, but death is unheard of. I'll have to give you the specifics later, though, as I don't have my resources here at work.

As to the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, books have been written about this and I don't have the time right now to get into the debate that rages, though, as I said to Al, it is a relatively few who believe it is not John. As to John's supposed pride in calling himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, Jesus loved the world. However, throughout the gospel, there were three disciples set apart from the other 9, and only one who laid his head on Jesus' breast at the last supper. John really loved Jesus with all of his heart.

Seraphim_Serpente, because you are human. I have made mistakes in my life. Not only have I sinned, but I have planned to sin. Though I know I am going against God, doing that which I know He doesn't want me to do and doing that which I don't want to do, I still do it. In Romans 7:15, Paul says,

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Have you ever run into that? Maybe in an addiction, maybe in a burst of anger, maybe seeing something bad taking place, you did something that you did not want to do? Did you want to quit, yet still fall back into the addiction? Did you want to reconcile something, but instead pushed the other person further away? Did you want to help, but instead kept on going? Paul continues in Romans 7:21-25a,

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

[edit on 6/7/06/07 by junglejake]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

You and I are wretched sinners who deserve death.

Wrong again. How do you know that I am a Sinner? Anyway - I DON'T BELIEVE in "Sin" - I Believe in KARMA!!!

Think about this:

death = 'the wages of sin' = results from 'the law'

Now, aren't you mortal? And you understand, obviously that there is a law of balance that governs all life--that which you understand as 'karma.'

Karma is a word that comes from the sanskrit root language and it means: deed; it is an action that has consequences.

But in the end karma is no different than the law that those who hold the bible in authority talk about.

The bible derives from a different linguistic root from the three that we know of--I don't know what the third's equivalent is, but in the bible the 'law' is what concerns this same concept--that all of our deeds and actions have consequence. If we kill, we will be killed. That's not a hateful thing for God to say, it is just the function of the law. An eye for an eye is an example of the balance which governs materiality.

Biblically speaking, this law lasted until the OT was over--for the world, but even now, on the individual level, most of us still are held within Karma's neverending wheel. We can never pay our karmic debts to the point that we get out of the wheel alive. And until we realize this we will remain owing something which actually has already been paid on our behalf.

Jesus said it a different way:

"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?
For example, when you go with your opponent in front of a ruler, do your best to settle with him on the way there.
Otherwise, you will be dragged in front of the judge, and the judge will hand you over to an officer, and the officer will throw you into prison.
I tell you, you will never get out of there until you pay back the last penny!"
(Luke 12:57-59)

I usually quote the KJV, but this is from the ISV, in this case the archaic words aren't as helpful.

The prison of which he speaks is not a building but our skin covered jail which we all know is destined to die the moment it is born.

We are not 'sinners' because we are criminals or scum or because we 'sin. We sin because we are sinner. OR: we err because we do not know. And we are not wretched except in the terms of realizing our humanity, and it's not a condemnation but a wail. Obviously none of us truly deserved death in God's eyes, or else He'd never planned an exit out of this place for the whole entire human race.

It's the idea of owing so much you cannot pay it back, but being given pardon for the entire debt. What debt? What we do to each other and what we do to ourselves, out of ignorance, arrogance, and pride.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
(Romans 7:24)

Paul isn't saying this for all of us--it is something we will one day say for ourselves. To be what Paul meant by wretched is to be miserable, to be in the state of enduring trials and misfortunes which really is nothing more than just being an average human being who knows he ever makes mistakes. But Paul also knew that mistakes bring understanding--they are part of the whole for all of us. And without having the law anymore over one's heart is to know what it means to be free of karma and be justified by faith of Christ.

Not faith as in you believe some prescribed set of doctrines--but the essence is that one person kept the faith for all of us and did what He said He would do and because He was true we can have trust in what's promised to us just the same.

We don't have to worry about dying anymore, we are set free in order to live and to love one another.

I'm not desiring to change your outlook, only wanting to share my own. I think ultimately that we all understand the same things, just not quite in the same way.

Originally posted by junglejake
That's awesome, QueenAnnie.

That's right. God is awesome. And it's one of the few things I will say I know is true without a single doubt. I don't know much but I do know God IS. I started off just trusting the story of Jesus and hoping my heart was telling me right. Nothing special about my part of the story.

All too often people never make that surrender to God for Him to lead their lives, always trying to hold on and go through life in their own strength.

I think it is surely more than surrendering the steering wheel-- I think it is indeed a form of death. We must die to the flesh before dying in the flesh if we seek the gift of the Holy Spirit in this life. We are all saved by Grace. But Grace has more to give, for those who get to the point of dying in their spirit. It was not an accomplishment, it was what I consider, in worldly terms, the most absolute and dismal failure of my life. My mortal spirit was a strong one, and my neck was stiffer than most. I fought like the dickens and never gave up for personal endeavors, thinking I'd get somewhere on my own.

It's really pride that keeps us from giving the reins to God, from putting on His yoke and letting Him guide us through life.

Exactly. Pride = ego = sin.

He gives us the option to be our guide,

Yes, and this is the gift of the Holy Spirit. But salvation from death is not the same thing and it is also not an option. If it had been left up to any of us to choose to be saved, the whole thing would be ruined before it started. And that's the very first lesson we get in the bible, starting in Genesis.

to walk with us through life and point out the local hotspots and never lead us astray, but all too often we ask Him to just give us a map instead.

You surely know that often commercialized poem about 'Footprints in the Sand?' It's about being carried where the heart of the matter lies.

And also--yes we think we ask Him for a map, but if we really were asking we'd know there is no map. What happens, I think, is that we draw a map based on what we believe and what we've been told and what seems right in our eyes. But of course, that's exactly how we got lost in the first place! Once again, an early lesson in Genesis! Repeated often until the end!

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?

No! He has written that He will guide us and help us persevere through all trials. Nowhere, however, does He say there will not be trials.

This I know, dear Jake. I don't share things that really aren't going to maybe help someone else. The stories of the first half of my life would likely raise the hairs on many a good christian's neck. But it's not about what we go through--or even about the foolish things we do to cause the effects that we suffer. It's a threshing floor--who will listen and who will stop up their ears?

Remember there are two sorts of trials: there is 'wilderness testing' and this is a time of temptation and sorrows and all sorts of confusion--it happens after you repent. You turn away from the world and the world tries all it can do to entice you to look back down it's path. And God provides this before He bestows the Spirit within you. The Spirit guards you all along, but it's kind of like you're on your own (at least it might seem that way)

The narration of Christ's baptism and subsequent time in the wilderness in the 1st gospel show us exactly what we can expect. The Spirit of God descended upon Jesus, but it was not until He returned from the testing did the Spirit of God fill Him up. The spirit led Him toward the place of temptation, as well.
And in that wilderness what he fought with was only three simple truths:

-Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
-Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
-Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The other sort of trial is the one that comes as a result of being 'a stranger in a strange land.' Jesus suffered the most, of course--but the Apostles bear witness with their lives and their deaths just how hard it can be to serve God in man's world.

I have experienced them both--the first sort lasted for about 30 years! I'm not sure why so long--I doubt everyone has to go that long, and some surely a bit longer. Whatever is necessary I am sure. Because, in a way, this is the bruising and crushing. Then we die and the Spirit comes to rebuild us for our part in the temple.

In fact, He tells us the opposite. The forces of darkness despise Him, and thereby despise we who are reflecting His glory on the Earth.

Yes, but often we think we are shining but it is darkness in our eye, not Christ's light.
Just being despised by others doesn't mean you're shining light. Jesus hates hypocrites, and so do human beings. But no one hates love when that's what they seek. This is a general observation and in no way is directed toward you.

Christians are prime targets for the Prince of Lies because he does not want us to be able to spread the truth, to help others reflect the glory of God as well.

Well, I know what you are saying but I have to be honest in telling you that it is those who feel they are Christians who persecute those who come in the name of the LORD. I know that I come in the name of the LORD, if I didn't I would surely not be sharing myself on the internet. It is not my human nature to be so public, especially about God. I dared never aver I knew something about God to anyone else until God called me out to do things I'd never dreamt of doing. And often, things I wish I didn't have to do. God didn't send me a message to deliver until He had completely prepared me. And yet, despite the preparation and despite my willingness and fair treatment of all I meet, refusing to judge anyone for what they wear or think or do or say—for speaking the truth that is God is love and seeks reconciliation with all of us- it is Christians who abuse me by calling me a liar and saying the devil’s got me fooled. Atheists don’t hate me—non-believers don’t feel cause to call me a liar. It’s not because I’m saying things they agree with—it is because I do not offend them. I don’t include you, Jake, you have never been hateful or ugly to me in the least. I know God’s love is within you. But I do know that somehow you are resistant to me every step of the way. I'm not saying you should submit to me, but there's no call for not giving me a fair hearing and then being Berean in response.

The Glory of God is not the threat and promise of punishment and death! That is not the message we are to spread! Does an ambassador enter a foreign country and issue new conditions that will nullify a treaty that’s already been signed and ratified? Does he come to spread fear and aversion toward the Ruler he represents? No, an ambassador brings good will and tidings for all citizens on behalf of his King.

We are not saviors, we are ambassadors. We are not here to persuade, convince, or recruit. We are here to spread the word far and wide that Christ is alive and God loves us all! God reconciled us to Him. He fixed the rent from both sides, ours AND His! Nothing more for us to do but know we are now free to approach Him. A relatively small cross to bear when you consider the road to Golgotha. That road has been traveled for all of us and that is the bottom line truth.

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

It is good to see that you have trusted to God by faith; I was not the same way.

I was just born that way—it was not faith that I had ability to make or create. I often wondered why others didn’t have the certainty in their heart that I did and why would faith send me to heaven and them to hell if it seemed like something none of us could control? I knew it wasn’t me! And I knew God was fair beyond my understanding! If God put love in my heart for all other people that I would never have been able to have--and that love made me see the world through the loving eyes that God has--it was then made known to me that the true message is love. The only choice is love. Love is an action, not a sermon, and not an altar call.
It is Jesus who had faith and whose faith is working in us. But it is not by our faith that we get anywhere at all because it is impossible to know God until He draws us near. God calls us to the altar and it can happen at any time, any place, to anyone whether they've even read the bible or not. To love others and to love truth is something we can all make effort at. And that's all that's required. We don't even have to succeed! We can't! He will lift our burden, though, before it's too big to carry.

I went into my investigation of Christianity with the intention to prove it false.

I think that’s a neat way to be given this same gift—I find it a fascinating method of conversion.

I have had to change my stance on beliefs and understandings that seemed so completely true, yet went against scripture.

Yes I know how that is.

Don't let pride cause you to stumble on your walk as it has me.

The pride that led me to fall and die was the turning point in my life. I thank God every day that I fell like I did. I appreciate your advice. Remember that Christ in you = love and love is not proud.

Thank you, Jake, for hearing me out.

QueenAnnie, you are correct! Jesus was trying to teach us about Karma (= the Law of Cause & Effect) - especially in our Interaction with others:
-> "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" & "Love your Neighbor as yourself".


[edit on 7-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]