The Da Vinci code

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Could you please give an example of one of the pre-Jesus "moral teachers" who taught that legalistic observances were what mattered, not whether the platitudes came from the heart?

Certainly not the Buddha, Confucius, Mencius, Socrates, Amos, Micah, Hillel, Mahavira...

A moral teacher who doesn't believe that what is in the heart matters would seem to be a bit of an oxymoron, no?

But first GM, I'm confused: you say to give you an example of a teacher who taught that legalistic observances were what mattered, not wether the platitudes came from the heart?

But if I read Inked correctly, he was saying that Christ did not teach anything new, as far as Socrates or another moralist are concerned, but the Jewish Rabbis of the day were the ones Inked is referring when he says that Jesus taught that the heart etc...

When we christians say that Christ did not teach anything new, its not really correct always. What we like to say is that Christ as simply a Moral Teacher is no better than Socrates or Confucius. But we believe that he was not just a teacher, but God.

More later, gotta run!

[inked]

You go, HB! HE's right, GM!

Hey the NEW YORKER review of the movie is pretty entertaining:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cin...529crci_cinema

and, this review is really of why Hollywood won't do the same thing to Islam,

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...E25717,00.html

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And Sappho was a priestess, that's why it's relevant. Her Marriage Ceremony, presumably a large multi-media work involving dance, music, and poetry, was considered one of her greatest pieces. But of course, being a priestess of the Goddess, it had to be destroyed, and she had to be villified in the same manner the Church villifies most people is seeks to weaken, her island is now synonymous with homosexuality. Are we surprised?

reallly? http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/05/d...tholicism.html

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

You go, HB! HE's right, GM!

Hey the NEW YORKER review of the movie is pretty entertaining:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cin...529crci_cinema

and, this review is really of why Hollywood won't do the same thing to Islam,

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...E25717,00.html

The NYorker review was great...

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

reallly? http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/05/d...tholicism.html

I hope you can forgive me, inked, but I haven't the time to waste arguing with other people's blogs.

After a quick read my take was this. It has nothing to do with Sappho. It has flaws not unlike those we accuse Dan Brown of having, such as quote out of context and quantume leaps of imagination over gaps that should be properly bridged. Everyone's entitled to his opinion, and that's all it is.

I must be going now. Half of you deserve to be liked twice as much.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

particularly when those blogs give linkes to historians who say things like:

You seem to argue that Christianity was an overwhelmingly good social force for women.
RS: It was! Christian women had tremendous advantages compared to the woman next door, who was like them in every way except that she was a pagan. First, when did you get married? Most pagan girls were married off around age 11, before puberty, and they had nothing to say about it, and they got married to some 35-year-old guy. Christian women had plenty of say in the matter and tended to marry around age 18.
Abortion was a huge killer of women in this period, but Christian women were spared that. And infanticide—pagans killed little girls left and right. We’ve unearthed sewers clogged with the bones of newborn girls. But Christians prohibited this. Consequently, the sex ratio changed and Christians didn’t have the enormous shortage of women that plagued the rest of the empire. http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/is.../13-1pg44.html

Eh?

I just love the way people blow off a blog source as though it was less reliable. Only happens when the data aren't the kind to make happy feet, I suppose. But let any old yeloow rag journalist say a desired thing and it becomes established fact.

Oh well, the relevant data and links on certain *factual* errors and assumptions at large are documented for perusal and evaluation as you like (or not).

[Elfhelm]

I just love the way people blow off a blog source as though it was less reliable.[/QUOTE]
Or like the way they blow off Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...negationism%29

[TreebeardQuickbeam]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Anyone read the book?

What do you think of the theory that Christ was a mortal?

the theory has more holes than swiss cheese. People weren't Marrtyred for the first Four centuries of Christianity because of a man who "claimed to be God" They were martyred, and in many cases cruelly tortured. I don't know of anyone who would go through that for a lie.

[TreebeardQuickbeam]

Originally Posted by Beor

Yeah, man, that book kicks ass!

Check it out, I think that theory is quite a theory. Being brought up a Lutheran, it is hard to totally go back on everything I have ever learned, but hey, here we go. I think it is a valid theory. I can imagine the church doing that kind of stuff, espically back then. And the divine feminine thing is quite a thing too, espically since I think that women could run this place a lot better than guys for the most part anyway. I like the book, but I like the stuff presented in the book better. It is pretty incredible

On what basis do you believe Dan Brown's account of History? What credentials does he have that make him an expert? Do you believe everyone who says something is true without investigating their credibility? Are you aware of how many historical, theological, artistic, and place name errors are in that book?

1) There are no monks in Opus Dei
2) All the Places in France Mentioned in the book are in error, the French publishers corrected those errors after Dan Brown refused to.
3) The Church does not hate women-if it did it wouldn't have called Mary Queen of Heaven and Earth or cannonized hundreds of women saints,-one of which, by the way is St. Mary Magdaline.
4) There was a fraudulant Priory of Zion founded in 1956 as a political manuver. The original Priory of Zion Merged with the Jessuits sometime arround the 16th century
5) The Pope who supposedly threw ashes into the Tiber was living in France at the time. If he can throw something from France to Rome he should try out for the big leagues.
6) The Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Mary Magdaline do not Say Mary Magdaline Married Jesus. The Kiss Jesus supposedly gave Mary Magdaline was exchanged with his disciples as well. This wasn't a sign of affection, it was the way the Gnostics communicated secret knowledge. Gnosis=Knowledgle. The Gnostics would never have Mary marrying Jesus because they hated matter. Marriage was evil. Far from believing that the feminine is sacred, there is a passage in the Gospel of Thomas where The apostles object to Mary Magdaline and Jesus says not to worry, she must become a man to be saved.
7) Would you die for a lie? Would you be tortured for a lie? The early martyrs of the first four centuries were tortured and murdered for what they believed. We're not talking about a few suicidal crazies here-there were hundreds of martyrs in those centuries. Why would they subject themselves to this Brutality for a lie?
8) Read the Church Fathers and the Gospels. Jesus Said He was God, the Pharisees reacted to his claims by trying to stone him in the Gospel of John. They knew what he was claiming and thought it was blasphemy. The Church fathers for the first several centuries all believed Jesus was God. This wasn't an invention of Constantine, nor was the vote at Nicea a close vote. Ouit of 300 attendees exactly 2 supported Arius in his claim that Jesus was not God. 298 for divinity, 2 against is hardly a close vote. There was no reason for Constantine to want to declare Christianity a State religion unless he believed it, but he didn't declare it, he granted permission for Christians to worship freely.
9) Dan Brown says the Church executed 5 million people. Some protestants have claimed 90 Million were killed in Spain. There are Pagan Witch sites that think 30,000 is a generous estimate. In the Middle ages There weren't 90 Million people living in all of Europe. To Kill 90 Million in Spain they would have had to import people from Africa and Asia, and I think the Witches would have known about it if they had. By the way, Most of those executions of witches and heretics were carried out by seccular governments without Church approval. There was noi such thing as Freedom of religion in the middle ages, and so to defy the state religion was considered Treason. There was a case of a Woman who was tried in an English kangaroo court, falsely accused of being a witch and burned at the stake. the Church exonerated her and cannonized her St. Joan of Arc.
10) Art experts and professionals consider Dan Brown to be inccompetant. He claims the paiinting is a fresco when it isn't. It was painted on a wall and began to deteriorate within a few years of being painted. Dan Brown claims John is Mary Magdaline, but there is no evidence for that. In fact, it was common to paint young men with effeminite attributes durring the Rennaissance. The scene depicted is where Peter is asking John to ask Jesus who will betray him. If that's Mary, she looks like she's all over St. Peter. If my wife were doing that in front of me, I think I'd be upset! Further, a Magnifying glass taken to the now restored original painting will show that there is no bosom on St. John.

11) there are lots more. If anyone is interested, read the books "The Davinci Deception," and the "Davinci Hoax" especially since I'm typing from memory and may have made some mistakes along the way.st. Joan of Arc

[TreebeardQuickbeam]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But why don't we actually discuss these "facts"? Why is it mostly watering down. For instance, all I've heard so far is some revisionist attitude about the NUMBER of women murdered by the Church. What possible motive could there be to revise the casualty figures? Eh? A white-wash?
So as far as I'm concerned, the Church has done a VAST amount of misrepresentation on its own. Just think of all the witches with crooked noses on brooms we see every Halloween. They have a lot of nerve whining about being misrepresented in reverse. That's like a white guy who couldn't make it into a college whining about racial quotas. If we were to take all the falsehoods told by the Church about pagans and compare them to the details of this book (trying to change 5 million murdered women into 40 thousand, for instance), I am certain the Church has about a thousand times more factual distortion to amend for.

I suggest you read my post (see above) if you're really interested in the facts

[Elfhelm]

Fact is a latin word meaning "to make". Facts are made. Whether facts have any bearing on reality is yet another issue altogether.

I realize it is a waste of time to defend this book. First of all, I was only playing devil's advocate because last week was boring. Secondly, I can punch my own holes through all of it.

The case remains, if we state that Jesus was celibate, and we point to Josephus to argue that it was in fact possible for a 30 year old man to be celibate in Galilee in those days without being assumed to be gay, then we have to conclude that Jesus was an Essene. Don't we?

Because if Jesus was not an Essene, then you can't use Josephus to prove he was celibate. Isn't that clear?

And if Jesus was an Essene, then so was James. And the Dead Sea Scrolls have to be re-examined in light of Christianity. And I have a huge slippery slope that takes off from there... Because then Christianity has to be re-examined in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

=====================

edit:

Well, since nobody is replying, I'll put the historical evidence of celibate Essenes into the mix.

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17

Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honours which they confer on them.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2

These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5

It also deserves our admiration, how much [the Essenes] exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another.
==================================


and another tidbit...

Ever heard of the Ebionites? It merits investigation. They chose poverty, just like the Franciscans. Some say that "Blessed are the meek" refers to the Ebionites. Nobody seems to want to explore these topics. I know why. Because they don't want to admit that Jesus was Jewish, and that many of his ideas were taught to him by elders.

[frodosampippinmerry]

There is no logical connection between celibacy and having to be an essene in order to be celibate. The fact is that anyone can say no to sex if they want to. If they couldn't, forbidding or restricti8ng the behavior would be pointless. You have made the assumption that only reason a man can say no to a woman is if He's Gay. You've also made the assumption that sexual inactivity would be judged as a sign of homosexuality. The fact is that there were many places in scripture where men were required to take a vow to not have relations with women-one of them was in war. Uriah wouldn't have relations with his wife while Israel was at war, which is why King David murdered him, pointing to a tradition of abstaining in wartimes. Don't tell me people can't say no to sex. They Can if they want to. The Historical record even among Gnostics is that Jesus never married. The reason is simple. A traveling teacher could not give himself completely to his ministry AND a wife and kids. On the other hand The Church is called the Bride of Christ in Revelation because in Relationship to God we are the receivers of salvation, Just like on the carnal level a Woman is the reciever of the gift of life given by God and the man through his seed, and yet the bride-groom relationship between christ and Church is an analogy. Christ isn't a groom after the manner of the flesh. It is an analogy of a much more intimate union to be fulfilled in Heaven.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Fact is a latin word meaning "to make". Facts are made. Whether facts have any bearing on reality is yet another issue altogether.

I realize it is a waste of time to defend this book. First of all, I was only playing devil's advocate because last week was boring. Secondly, I can punch my own holes through all of it.

The case remains, if we state that Jesus was celibate, and we point to Josephus to argue that it was in fact possible for a 30 year old man to be celibate in Galilee in those days without being assumed to be gay, then we have to conclude that Jesus was an Essene. Don't we?

Because if Jesus was not an Essene, then you can't use Josephus to prove he was celibate. Isn't that clear?

And if Jesus was an Essene, then so was James. And the Dead Sea Scrolls have to be re-examined in light of Christianity. And I have a huge slippery slope that takes off from there... Because then Christianity has to be re-examined in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

=====================

edit:

Well, since nobody is replying, I'll put the historical evidence of celibate Essenes into the mix.

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17

Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honours which they confer on them.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2

These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5

It also deserves our admiration, how much [the Essenes] exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another.
==================================


and another tidbit...

Ever heard of the Ebionites? It merits investigation. They chose poverty, just like the Franciscans. Some say that "Blessed are the meek" refers to the Ebionites. Nobody seems to want to explore these topics. I know why. Because they don't want to admit that Jesus was Jewish, and that many of his ideas were taught to him by elders.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Fact is a latin word meaning "to make". Facts are made. Whether facts have any bearing on reality is yet another issue altogether.

Interestingly enough, it actually is the past participle, so that it means "made thing" or "done thing".

The case remains, if we state that Jesus was celibate, and we point to Josephus to argue that it was in fact possible for a 30 year old man to be celibate in Galilee in those days without being assumed to be gay, then we have to conclude that Jesus was an Essene. Don't we?

I don't think homosexuality was an issue in such a way back then. These days, if someone is alone by the age 50, we tend to assume he or she is homosexual, but I rather doubt it was the same way among first-century Palestinian Jews.


And if Jesus was an Essene, then so was James. And the Dead Sea Scrolls have to be re-examined in light of Christianity. And I have a huge slippery slope that takes off from there... Because then Christianity has to be re-examined in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

=====================

edit:

Well, since nobody is replying, I'll put the historical evidence of celibate Essenes into the mix.

Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-17

Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife . . . . This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honours which they confer on them.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2

These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5

It also deserves our admiration, how much [the Essenes] exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another.
==================================


and another tidbit...

Ever heard of the Ebionites? It merits investigation. They chose poverty, just like the Franciscans. Some say that "Blessed are the meek" refers to the Ebionites. Nobody seems to want to explore these topics.

Yes. They were a Judaic Christian sect. I fail to see how the words of Christ could be considered to refer to them, though, as they came after.

I know why. Because they don't want to admit that Jesus was Jewish, and that many of his ideas were taught to him by elders.

Absurd. Elfhelm, you seem to have this skewed idea of us. I will be the first to admit that Jesus was Jewish, and DID BOTH INKED AND I NOT JUST SAY TO YOU THAT MANY OF CHRIST'S IDEAS CAME TO HIM FROM THE JUDAIC TRADITION? The answer is Yes.

[Elfhelm]

Well, then...

If Jesus was an Essene, which I believe to be true, then we have in the Dead Sea Scrolls an example of what the Essenes believed.

And that means, to my mind (and I will lay out the logic if you want), that the mystery cult symbols of the bread and wine canabalism were added AFTERWARDS by some sort of syncretic process. And there are other ways that Christianity was altered away from Jesus' original idea. I don't suppose it serves much to discuss it here.

Either you accept that the received tradition is 100% valid and was never altered by man, or you must, like me, take a skeptical view and begin a search for what is the true way.

And I can tell well enough that some people above accept it as 100% untainted by man.

But all our images of each other are skewed, aren't they? This medium is part of the problem. Sorry, in advance, for my wrong assumptions.

But this whole grail thing is just silly. It's a 15th century invention.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Now, Elfhelm. Jesus may very well have been an Essene (but saying that he is celibate, and saying that Essenes are celibate does not necessitate that he is an Essene; it's like saying "Derek Jacobi is not married. Monks are not married. Therefore, Derek Jacobi is a monk"), I could go either way on that. But, if He was, that does not by any means necessitate that any way in which Christianity diverges from the Essene practices is a later addition. In fact, there is such a short gap between Christ and clear indications of divergence from Essenism that it seems highly unlikely that they are syncretic additions.

[Elfhelm]

I would agree about the construction of syllogisms, but this isn't one of those. It's more like this:

- The only documented Jewish mystics of Jesus' day who were known to be celibate were Essenes.

- Jesus appears to have been celibate.

- This supports the idea that Jesus was probably an Essene.

In other words, I am not making such a syllogism here.

==================================

For what it's worth, I have personally come to the conclusion that communal property and pacifism or true Christian values. Just so you know. I have other heresies, too.

But I don't believe this grail nonsense. In fact, I have weird reasons for that, which are heresies of their own. I'm sure glad I live now because I'd have been burned at the stake for my opinions in the past.

I actually think The Name of the Rose is a far more fascinating conspiracy theory novel.

[frodosampippinmerry]

It doesn't support that conclusion at all. It's an unwarranted presumption on your part to arrive at such a conclusion

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I just love the way people blow off a blog source as though it was less reliable.

Or like the way they blow off Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...negationism%29[/QUOTE]

You seem very practiced in historical revisionism, Elfhelm. Just what is getting blown is truth. By whom depends on the revisionist and the hypotheses they produce as "fact" missed for millenia. Amazing how the concept of chronological snobbery has devastated history. Nobody could possibly have it correct before us - cause we know the mostest and is the smartest.

Rather like evolutionists, you know the canard: evolution theroists are proof of Darwinian selection, they select what they want and variegate at prodigious rates.

edit: All Essenes were celibate in not equivalent to all celibates are Essenes. Another revision of history bites. You are certainly free to "believe" that Jesus was an Essene and that the world is flat. However, as you well know, neither of those beliefs alter reality.

Of course there are similarities between Jewish sects just as there are similarities between Christian sects and Islamic sects. The shared commonalities are just that, however, and the differences are the acute issues. Rather like the various sects of Islam trying to kill each other in Bagdad when they aren't killing soldiers. Are all Islamics killers? But they have commonalities! See?

I have no doubt that study of the DSC can enlighten us on the milieu in which the Incarnation took place and enlighten us on the influences swirling around the Incarnacy. But to suggest that they are inherently a suppressed aspect of Christianity that suddenly makes all clear is rather much. That's rather like saying Scientologist explain all New Age confusions, I mean, religions. It's just not so, even if TC and what's her name had a baby in silence. See?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

I have no doubt that study of the DSC can enlighten us on the milieu in which the Incarnation took place and enlighten us on the influences swirling around the Incarnacy. But to suggest that they are inherently a suppressed aspect of Christianity that suddenly makes all clear is rather much.

Au contraire, mon frere.

It is clear to me that the IGNORED (not supressed) teachings of Jesus are available for any and all who can read. But the illiteracy of people over the last two millenia has made it so that false teachers can construe his teachings*, using methods not unlike those used by Dan Brown in his novel. So in my opinion, the Church getting all twisted about Dan Brown is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

As to your assertion that women under Christianity were treated better than women under paganism, I do think it is negationism. Women have been treated as second-class citizens throughout the entire Christian Era. Any attempt to whitewash it, minimize it, apologize for it, or deny it, is exactly the same as saying the Holocaust didn't happen. And that is called negationism, a form of revisionism that ultimately uses the rhetorical fallacy called "begging the question".

* edit: ... and these false teachings have become dogma. Yes, that is what I am saying.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

You dogmatically assert the dogma of the Church is wrong. Methinks you need see which pot calls what kettle black. I suggest a mirror. However, as to your dogmatic assertions, they are referred to in polite society as bunkum, total and absolute bunkum. Less kind individuals might allude to bovine feces in the more vernacular. I shall limit myself to totally invalid statements based on pure speculation and absence of evidence.

I note, too, the exalted state of womanhood in Hinduism, Buddhism, animistic religions, and Islam. And you think the Church has held women back. Poor deluded imbiber of feminist hokum! Ah, well, I doubt I can convince you otherwise since this is clearly a matter of choice. So I shan't try to do that.
However I must note for our readers less capable of ascertaining your speculative assertions as equivalent to fact, that it is not so. And that is an historically established fact verifiable through competent scholars in world-wide institutions unlikely to participate in the coverup you allege.

I am impressed in your faith in this, however. So little evidence so much construction. Perhaps, next, a novel?