DaVinci Code Part 15 - Liar, Lunatic, or Son of God
In blog 14 in this series, I promised we’d answer the question, “What does all this have to do with any of us in 2006?” If you are reading my blogs as a person who is investigating Christianity, you probably want to know why Christians see Jesus’ divinity as essential to our faith. You may ask, “Why can’t we just follow his teachings, seeing him as a good teacher and a good man?”
The fundamental problem with this question lies in the fact that neither Jesus, his disciples, or the church leave the option open. He cannot be seen as a good teacher and a great man. C.S. Lewis sums the issue up better than most in the following explanation:
'I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.'
So, we are left with a choice – dismiss Jesus as a liar, conclude he was a lunatic, or accept him as God in the flesh. He claimed to be God in the flesh. A man who would claim to be God and knew he wasn’t is a liar and cannot be called good or moral. A man who would claim to be God and believe it, but not really be God, is a crazy man (many of whom are in hospitals today). A crazy man should not be followed under any circumstances. The only other option is that he claimed to be God and was in fact God! Then he would be both a good teacher, perfectly trustworthy, and worthy of our submission. We must all decide who we say that Jesus is. There are three choices. Have you decided? I have.
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 14
DaVinci Code Part 14 - The Vote at Nicea
Today, I’m going to answer the question, “Did the bishops at the Council of Nicea vote of Jesus’ deity in 325 AD? If so, was the vote close? These are the claims made by Dan Brown’s fiction novel the DaVinci Code. This one is pretty easy to answer because we have the record of the proceedings at the Council of Nicea. The council was convened for the purpose of gathering the 318 bishops of the Christian church to discuss doctrinal differences. The goal was to leave with agreement and unity among the church on important matters of faith. The Nicene Creed was the ultimate result.
There were several votes on doctrinal issues at the council, one of which had to do with Jesus. The question was, “Was there a time when Christ was not?” Each and every bishop viewed Jesus just as Jesus and his followers did – God in the flesh. So, there was no debate about Jesus being deity as Brown’s fictional characters assert in the DaVinci Code. These leaders were wrestling with the fact that there was one God but that he had reveals Himself in three Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some asked if it was not possible that Jesus was equal with God the Father in every way except one: some suggested that Jesus had not existed for eternity past, thus the question, “Was there a time when Christ was not?”
They never saw Jesus as merely a mortal man. Even the vote one the issue of his past eternality was not close. Of the 318 bishops at the council only five had questions about this and only two – that’s right two – dissenting votes were registered. The rest, over three hundred – voted that Jesus was and is fully God in every way and at the same time fully man.
Well, there you have it! Can you believe I wrote a short blog?
Think about what other topics you want me to address in my blog in the coming weeks and months and I’ll make every effort to write about them from a biblical worldview. Just message me about the topics you have in mind. We’ll have one, maybe two, more blogs on Brown’s book and then we’ll be done with the subject.
We’ll also ask the very important question – what does all this have to do with any of us in 2006? If you are reading my blogs as a person who is investigating Christianity, you probably want to know why Christians see Jesus’ divinity as essential to our faith. You may ask, ‘why can’t we just follow his teachings, seeing him as a good teacher and a good man?’ We’ll look at these questions in the next few blogs as well!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Today, I’m going to answer the question, “Did the bishops at the Council of Nicea vote of Jesus’ deity in 325 AD? If so, was the vote close? These are the claims made by Dan Brown’s fiction novel the DaVinci Code. This one is pretty easy to answer because we have the record of the proceedings at the Council of Nicea. The council was convened for the purpose of gathering the 318 bishops of the Christian church to discuss doctrinal differences. The goal was to leave with agreement and unity among the church on important matters of faith. The Nicene Creed was the ultimate result.
There were several votes on doctrinal issues at the council, one of which had to do with Jesus. The question was, “Was there a time when Christ was not?” Each and every bishop viewed Jesus just as Jesus and his followers did – God in the flesh. So, there was no debate about Jesus being deity as Brown’s fictional characters assert in the DaVinci Code. These leaders were wrestling with the fact that there was one God but that he had reveals Himself in three Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some asked if it was not possible that Jesus was equal with God the Father in every way except one: some suggested that Jesus had not existed for eternity past, thus the question, “Was there a time when Christ was not?”
They never saw Jesus as merely a mortal man. Even the vote one the issue of his past eternality was not close. Of the 318 bishops at the council only five had questions about this and only two – that’s right two – dissenting votes were registered. The rest, over three hundred – voted that Jesus was and is fully God in every way and at the same time fully man.
Well, there you have it! Can you believe I wrote a short blog?
Think about what other topics you want me to address in my blog in the coming weeks and months and I’ll make every effort to write about them from a biblical worldview. Just message me about the topics you have in mind. We’ll have one, maybe two, more blogs on Brown’s book and then we’ll be done with the subject.
We’ll also ask the very important question – what does all this have to do with any of us in 2006? If you are reading my blogs as a person who is investigating Christianity, you probably want to know why Christians see Jesus’ divinity as essential to our faith. You may ask, ‘why can’t we just follow his teachings, seeing him as a good teacher and a good man?’ We’ll look at these questions in the next few blogs as well!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Friday, May 19, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 13
DaVinci Part 13 - Deity of Jesus
Deity of Christ –
Of all the issues that we’ve dealt with in response to claims made by characters in the DaVinci Code, the deity of Jesus is the one that I enjoy addressing the most! The subject still occupies the time of many theologians and philosophers. It will comfort many of you to know, however, that there was absolutely no debate as to the divinity of Christ among His contemporaries, His disciples, and the early church fathers. According to Lea Teabing, a fictional character in Dan Brown’s book, Jesus’ deity was dreamed up by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century. Here’s the dialogue from the book:
“…until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal."
"Not the Son of God?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."
"Hold on. You're saying Jesus divinity was the result of a vote?" (DVC p.233)
Later on the same character says that the vote was very close!
Is this true? Did Constantine come up with the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh in the fourth century? Did Jesus and His followers consider Him to be a “powerful man, but a man nevertheless?” Was Jesus divinity voted on at the Council of Nicea?
First, Constantine did not invent the idea of Christ’s divinity. Jesus Himself can be credited with this! Jesus was being threatened by the Jewish people of His day for claiming to be God! Read the following passage from John –
30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:30-33)
Further, Mark 2:5-11 shows that Jesus has the ability to forgive sins, something that only God can do. Another great passage is John 14:6 where Jesus claims to be the same as God the Father! (Notice that I haven’t put these passages in the blog to try to encourage my readers at every turn to get into the Bible – I’m here to help ).
Jesus not only claimed to be God but His followers (contemporaries) claimed He was God in the flesh as well -
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ… (Titus 2:11-13)
John 1:1-14 also reveals that Jesus is God and was God from the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among us.
The early leaders of the church shared the same perspective about Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch (who died in 107 AD) said Jesus was “Very flesh, yet spirit too; uncreated and yet born; God-and-man in one agreed.” Irenaeus said this about Jesus and his mother Mary, "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]). Others including Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian all spoke of Jesus as God before the Council of Nicea.
Finally, Jesus did things only God can do. He saved men (Matthew 1:23), created (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-20), judged (John 5:27), raised men from the dead (John 5:25), among other things only God Himself can do.
So, Dan Brown’s claim that Constantine was responsible for deifying Jesus is false. Jesus, his followers, and leaders of the church in the first century all saw Jesus as God in the flesh.
We’ll look at the last questions in my next blog. “Did the bishops at the Council of Nicea vote of Jesus’ deity in 325 AD? If so, was the vote close? We’ll also ask the very important question – what does all this have to do with any of us in 2006? If you are reading my blogs as a person who is investigating Christianity, you probably want to know why Christians see Jesus’ divinity as essential to our faith. You may ask, ‘why can’t we just follow his teachings, seeing him as a good teacher and a good man?’ We’ll look at these questions in the next few blogs as well!
I’ll close with a request of my readers. I know each of you likely have questions about God, the Bible, or Christianity in general. If so, please message me from my main page at www.myspace.com/ipreach and let me know what questions you have. Ask anything! I won’t guarantee when I will address any question because there are hundreds of you who subscribe to the blog. But, I will make a genuine effort to get to them in my blog.
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Deity of Christ –
Of all the issues that we’ve dealt with in response to claims made by characters in the DaVinci Code, the deity of Jesus is the one that I enjoy addressing the most! The subject still occupies the time of many theologians and philosophers. It will comfort many of you to know, however, that there was absolutely no debate as to the divinity of Christ among His contemporaries, His disciples, and the early church fathers. According to Lea Teabing, a fictional character in Dan Brown’s book, Jesus’ deity was dreamed up by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century. Here’s the dialogue from the book:
“…until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal."
"Not the Son of God?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."
"Hold on. You're saying Jesus divinity was the result of a vote?" (DVC p.233)
Later on the same character says that the vote was very close!
Is this true? Did Constantine come up with the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh in the fourth century? Did Jesus and His followers consider Him to be a “powerful man, but a man nevertheless?” Was Jesus divinity voted on at the Council of Nicea?
First, Constantine did not invent the idea of Christ’s divinity. Jesus Himself can be credited with this! Jesus was being threatened by the Jewish people of His day for claiming to be God! Read the following passage from John –
30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:30-33)
Further, Mark 2:5-11 shows that Jesus has the ability to forgive sins, something that only God can do. Another great passage is John 14:6 where Jesus claims to be the same as God the Father! (Notice that I haven’t put these passages in the blog to try to encourage my readers at every turn to get into the Bible – I’m here to help ).
Jesus not only claimed to be God but His followers (contemporaries) claimed He was God in the flesh as well -
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ… (Titus 2:11-13)
John 1:1-14 also reveals that Jesus is God and was God from the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among us.
The early leaders of the church shared the same perspective about Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch (who died in 107 AD) said Jesus was “Very flesh, yet spirit too; uncreated and yet born; God-and-man in one agreed.” Irenaeus said this about Jesus and his mother Mary, "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]). Others including Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian all spoke of Jesus as God before the Council of Nicea.
Finally, Jesus did things only God can do. He saved men (Matthew 1:23), created (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-20), judged (John 5:27), raised men from the dead (John 5:25), among other things only God Himself can do.
So, Dan Brown’s claim that Constantine was responsible for deifying Jesus is false. Jesus, his followers, and leaders of the church in the first century all saw Jesus as God in the flesh.
We’ll look at the last questions in my next blog. “Did the bishops at the Council of Nicea vote of Jesus’ deity in 325 AD? If so, was the vote close? We’ll also ask the very important question – what does all this have to do with any of us in 2006? If you are reading my blogs as a person who is investigating Christianity, you probably want to know why Christians see Jesus’ divinity as essential to our faith. You may ask, ‘why can’t we just follow his teachings, seeing him as a good teacher and a good man?’ We’ll look at these questions in the next few blogs as well!
I’ll close with a request of my readers. I know each of you likely have questions about God, the Bible, or Christianity in general. If so, please message me from my main page at www.myspace.com/ipreach and let me know what questions you have. Ask anything! I won’t guarantee when I will address any question because there are hundreds of you who subscribe to the blog. But, I will make a genuine effort to get to them in my blog.
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 12
DaVinci Code Part 12 - Constantine
From my last blog… “Next time we'll look at Constantine who is mentioned often as a major contributor to the overall conspiracy posited in the DaVinci Code.” So, what’s up with this guy Constantine anyway? Well, first of all he gets a bad rap in The DaVinci Code. He’s blamed for all sorts of treachery against our present-day church. He is accused by the characters in the book of creating the idea of Jesus’ divinity and collating the books of the Bible as they exist today – all for political rather than religious reasons. The novel also claims that Constantine was not a Christian.
In one quote the character Teabing says, “The Bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” (DVC p. 231) Here the novel claims that Constantine was not a Christian and that he is responsible for collating our current form of the Bible.
Let’s look first at Constantine’s connection to Christianity. We know for certain that he was the first Roman emperor to freely allow Christianity throughout the land. He was converted to Christianity, according to sources of the time, after a vision of the Christian cross in the sky before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. He gave credit to Jesus for his success on the battle field. One year later, in 313, he issued the Edict of Milan de-criminalizing the profession of Christianity. As Christianity grew in popularity because of this newfound freedom within Rome, Constantine saw a need to convene leaders of the Christian church to address certain doctrinal disagreements among different sects of Christianity, namely Arianism and Docetism.
The Arian argument centered on the issue of “whether there was a time when Christ was not.” In other words, the church leaders were given charge to determine whether Jesus was “of the same essence” as God or “of a different essence” from God. Was Jesus God in the flesh OR was he in all way equal to God the father but in one way – he was not eternal as God the Father is. THE CHURCH NEVER THOUGHT JESUS WAS A MORTAL MAN OR JUST A PROPHET. THEY ALWAYS SAW HIM AS DEITY. The only issue was whether or not he was eternal as the Father is! The idea that they debated his divinity is ludicrous and the minutes of the council prove this beyond any doubt. Brown goes on to say that a “very close” vote determined then that he was a god. Again, no one was voting on his deity – his deity was never in question. They were merely voting on the extent of His deity and the outcome of the vote was 300 to 2. That’s right – 300 to 2. Yes, that means that Brown blatantly misrepresented the historical facts which he shouldn’t be faulted for – it’s a fiction novel!
Lastly, the current form of our Bible was already in use 150 years before the Council of Nicea. Further, the Council didn’t discuss the canon at all! There was no discussion and therefore no determination of which books would be included in the Bible at the Council of Nicea. Again, this all comes from the vivid imagination of a fiction writer. This can also be verified by the reading of the minutes from the Nicea meetings.
If I had to guess, based on the amazing number of churches built under his reign, his mother’s trips to the Holy Land during her life, and other notable circumstances, it is likely that Constantine was a Christian. We can never know for sure just as we cannot know for certain if the person next to us in church is a believer, Constantine’s fruits bear witness to a man who was devoted to Christ.
Remember, this Sunday May 21st at 5:30PM and 7:30PM marks the kick off of the DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction. The series will last for three weeks and is a perfect opportunity for you to invite and un-churched friend.
See you Sunday!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
From my last blog… “Next time we'll look at Constantine who is mentioned often as a major contributor to the overall conspiracy posited in the DaVinci Code.” So, what’s up with this guy Constantine anyway? Well, first of all he gets a bad rap in The DaVinci Code. He’s blamed for all sorts of treachery against our present-day church. He is accused by the characters in the book of creating the idea of Jesus’ divinity and collating the books of the Bible as they exist today – all for political rather than religious reasons. The novel also claims that Constantine was not a Christian.
In one quote the character Teabing says, “The Bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” (DVC p. 231) Here the novel claims that Constantine was not a Christian and that he is responsible for collating our current form of the Bible.
Let’s look first at Constantine’s connection to Christianity. We know for certain that he was the first Roman emperor to freely allow Christianity throughout the land. He was converted to Christianity, according to sources of the time, after a vision of the Christian cross in the sky before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. He gave credit to Jesus for his success on the battle field. One year later, in 313, he issued the Edict of Milan de-criminalizing the profession of Christianity. As Christianity grew in popularity because of this newfound freedom within Rome, Constantine saw a need to convene leaders of the Christian church to address certain doctrinal disagreements among different sects of Christianity, namely Arianism and Docetism.
The Arian argument centered on the issue of “whether there was a time when Christ was not.” In other words, the church leaders were given charge to determine whether Jesus was “of the same essence” as God or “of a different essence” from God. Was Jesus God in the flesh OR was he in all way equal to God the father but in one way – he was not eternal as God the Father is. THE CHURCH NEVER THOUGHT JESUS WAS A MORTAL MAN OR JUST A PROPHET. THEY ALWAYS SAW HIM AS DEITY. The only issue was whether or not he was eternal as the Father is! The idea that they debated his divinity is ludicrous and the minutes of the council prove this beyond any doubt. Brown goes on to say that a “very close” vote determined then that he was a god. Again, no one was voting on his deity – his deity was never in question. They were merely voting on the extent of His deity and the outcome of the vote was 300 to 2. That’s right – 300 to 2. Yes, that means that Brown blatantly misrepresented the historical facts which he shouldn’t be faulted for – it’s a fiction novel!
Lastly, the current form of our Bible was already in use 150 years before the Council of Nicea. Further, the Council didn’t discuss the canon at all! There was no discussion and therefore no determination of which books would be included in the Bible at the Council of Nicea. Again, this all comes from the vivid imagination of a fiction writer. This can also be verified by the reading of the minutes from the Nicea meetings.
If I had to guess, based on the amazing number of churches built under his reign, his mother’s trips to the Holy Land during her life, and other notable circumstances, it is likely that Constantine was a Christian. We can never know for sure just as we cannot know for certain if the person next to us in church is a believer, Constantine’s fruits bear witness to a man who was devoted to Christ.
Remember, this Sunday May 21st at 5:30PM and 7:30PM marks the kick off of the DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction. The series will last for three weeks and is a perfect opportunity for you to invite and un-churched friend.
See you Sunday!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Sunday, May 14, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 11
DaVinci Code part 11 - Other Gospels
In my last post I closed by asking the following questions:
In my next post, we’ll take one last look at these “other gospels” that are mentioned so many times in the DaVinci Code. Not only are the Gospels of Mary and Philip mentioned but the Gospel of Thomas and others are mentioned in the novel. Are there other ‘gospels’ that should have been included in the Bible? Are there more accurate accounts of the life of Jesus than we have in the New Testament? Did the church conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons?
I think these questions can be addressed relatively briefly (believe it or not).
First, one of the characters in the DaVinci Code claims that “more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relatively few were chosen.” (p.231) Then another claim is made about these “more than eighty gospels” when Brown has another character claim “Constantine commissioned and financed the new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike.” (p.234)
So, where do I start…let’s deal with the number of documents called gospels known to exist. In actuality, we have only eleven such documents and only twenty eight are even referenced in other literature of the time. So, the number ‘eighty’ is a number created by the fiction writer to make his story more sensational. Also, most of the works are from a religious sect called the Gnostics and most were written far after the death of the supposed author.
I think the most interesting and twisted part of these claims is that Constantine (who had nothing to do with the books that were chosen for the Bible) omitted these Gnostic “gospels” because they spoke of Christ’s human traits and opted instead to include and embellish gospels that made Jesus godlike. You simply cannot twist the truth more than that! First, the Gnostics and their ‘gospels’ actually did NOT believe that Jesus was human at all! They believed flesh was inherently evil so Christ could not have come “in the flesh.” So, if there were any documents that would have negated his humanity and pushed his deistic qualities, it would have been these Gnostic documents.
Secondly, the true Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the ones who give us both the human and deistic traits of Jesus. We see Jesus eating, sleeping, weeping, experiencing hunger and thirst in the true gospels. None of these traits are claimed by the Gnostic writings. We also see Jesus performing miracles like walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising Lazarus from the dead – all in these same four true Gospels.
To answer the questions in our first paragraph: 1) No, there are no “other gospels” that should have been included in the Bible. Most of these documents are from a heretical Gnostic group who was trying to make Jesus into a god with no human qualities. 2) No, these other documents do not give a more accurate account of Jesus than the true Gospels of the New Testament. In fact, most were written over a hundred years after the death of the people that were supposed to have written them and no scholar worth his or her salt gives these documents and historical credence. 3) No, the Catholic church did not conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons. Brown suggests in the book that they kept out the documents that would have showed the human side of Jesus in order to make him seem more godlike. In fact, it is the Gnostic texts referred to in the DaVinci Code that negate Jesus’ humanity so the whole premise falls flat on even the most cursory inspection.
We’ve looked at where the Bible came from and considered the evidence for its Divine origins. We’ve looked at Mary Magdalene and answered the question, ‘Was Jesus married?” We’ve considered the “other gospels” that Brown references and answered many questions regarding their authenticity. Next time we’ll look at Constantine who is mentioned often as a major contributor to the overall conspiracy posited in the DaVinci Code.
By the way, the series “DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction” begins May 21st at Frontline. You can take the hyperlink a few words back and go straight to our site to get the details, but in summary: the dates are May 21st, May 28th, and June 4th at 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM each night. Please consider bringing an unchurched friend to all three messages. If you attend Frontline and are not planning to bring a visitor with you please consider attending the 7:30 PM service so we will have room for guests at the 5:30 PM service. Your decision to do this if you don’t have a guest with you will be a huge help!
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
In my last post I closed by asking the following questions:
In my next post, we’ll take one last look at these “other gospels” that are mentioned so many times in the DaVinci Code. Not only are the Gospels of Mary and Philip mentioned but the Gospel of Thomas and others are mentioned in the novel. Are there other ‘gospels’ that should have been included in the Bible? Are there more accurate accounts of the life of Jesus than we have in the New Testament? Did the church conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons?
I think these questions can be addressed relatively briefly (believe it or not).
First, one of the characters in the DaVinci Code claims that “more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relatively few were chosen.” (p.231) Then another claim is made about these “more than eighty gospels” when Brown has another character claim “Constantine commissioned and financed the new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike.” (p.234)
So, where do I start…let’s deal with the number of documents called gospels known to exist. In actuality, we have only eleven such documents and only twenty eight are even referenced in other literature of the time. So, the number ‘eighty’ is a number created by the fiction writer to make his story more sensational. Also, most of the works are from a religious sect called the Gnostics and most were written far after the death of the supposed author.
I think the most interesting and twisted part of these claims is that Constantine (who had nothing to do with the books that were chosen for the Bible) omitted these Gnostic “gospels” because they spoke of Christ’s human traits and opted instead to include and embellish gospels that made Jesus godlike. You simply cannot twist the truth more than that! First, the Gnostics and their ‘gospels’ actually did NOT believe that Jesus was human at all! They believed flesh was inherently evil so Christ could not have come “in the flesh.” So, if there were any documents that would have negated his humanity and pushed his deistic qualities, it would have been these Gnostic documents.
Secondly, the true Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the ones who give us both the human and deistic traits of Jesus. We see Jesus eating, sleeping, weeping, experiencing hunger and thirst in the true gospels. None of these traits are claimed by the Gnostic writings. We also see Jesus performing miracles like walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising Lazarus from the dead – all in these same four true Gospels.
To answer the questions in our first paragraph: 1) No, there are no “other gospels” that should have been included in the Bible. Most of these documents are from a heretical Gnostic group who was trying to make Jesus into a god with no human qualities. 2) No, these other documents do not give a more accurate account of Jesus than the true Gospels of the New Testament. In fact, most were written over a hundred years after the death of the people that were supposed to have written them and no scholar worth his or her salt gives these documents and historical credence. 3) No, the Catholic church did not conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons. Brown suggests in the book that they kept out the documents that would have showed the human side of Jesus in order to make him seem more godlike. In fact, it is the Gnostic texts referred to in the DaVinci Code that negate Jesus’ humanity so the whole premise falls flat on even the most cursory inspection.
We’ve looked at where the Bible came from and considered the evidence for its Divine origins. We’ve looked at Mary Magdalene and answered the question, ‘Was Jesus married?” We’ve considered the “other gospels” that Brown references and answered many questions regarding their authenticity. Next time we’ll look at Constantine who is mentioned often as a major contributor to the overall conspiracy posited in the DaVinci Code.
By the way, the series “DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction” begins May 21st at Frontline. You can take the hyperlink a few words back and go straight to our site to get the details, but in summary: the dates are May 21st, May 28th, and June 4th at 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM each night. Please consider bringing an unchurched friend to all three messages. If you attend Frontline and are not planning to bring a visitor with you please consider attending the 7:30 PM service so we will have room for guests at the 5:30 PM service. Your decision to do this if you don’t have a guest with you will be a huge help!
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Sunday, May 07, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 10
DaVinci Code Part 10 - Mary Magdelene 3
In my last post (just yesterday!), I left each of you with the passage from the document known as the Gospel of Mary:
Mary 17:10 – 18:21. “When Mary had said this to the disciples [she was re-telling some of the secrets Jesus had just confided in her privately], she was silent, since the Savior had spoken thus far with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly, these teachings are of other ideas.’” Mary says, “This is what Jesus just confided in me privately.” Andrew says, “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Jesus told you that. Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. ‘Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And then Mary grieved and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?’”
Let me reiterate – this document was written a few hundred years after Mary lived. It was not written by her and should not be read as a reliable source of information about the life of Christ. So, this document and the so-called Gospel of Philip are not viewed as historically accurate accounts at all. However, they merit our scrutiny because they are the two documents that are used to support those who want to support their claim that Jesus was married.
So, did you find any information in the passage above that would support the marriage hypothesis? Of course, the answer is “no.” But, those who would use this passage to suggest Jesus was married to Mary say that this shows a special relationship between the two. Again, we can’t assume the dialogue in this passage ever happened but we can all be in agreement that we find nothing to support the assertion that they were married.
Let’s take a quick look at a passage from the book of 1 Corinthians:
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:3-6)
This passage settles the matter for all but the most stubborn scholars. Paul talks of his right to take a wife as other apostles have already done. He specifically singles out Jesus’ half-brother Cephas. If Jesus was married, Paul would have most certainly used Jesus as the best example of the right to marry. Yet, Jesus is obviously not mentioned here even though his half-brother is.
We’ve looked at the possibility of Jesus being married and found that not a single one of the ancient documents that we have found through history suggests that Jesus was married to anyone. Further, our most reliable source for information regarding the life of Jesus, the New Testament, gives a very strong argument against this idea.
In my next post, we’ll take one last look at these “other gospels” that are mentioned so many times in the DaVinci Code. Not only are the Gospels of Mary and Philip mentioned but the Gospel of Thomas and others are mentioned in the novel. Are there other ‘gospels’ that should have been included in the Bible? Are there more accurate accounts of the life of Jesus than we have in the New Testament? Did the church conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons? You probably know the answer to these questions but we’ll put the issue of the ‘other gospels’ to bed the next time we meet!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
In my last post (just yesterday!), I left each of you with the passage from the document known as the Gospel of Mary:
Mary 17:10 – 18:21. “When Mary had said this to the disciples [she was re-telling some of the secrets Jesus had just confided in her privately], she was silent, since the Savior had spoken thus far with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly, these teachings are of other ideas.’” Mary says, “This is what Jesus just confided in me privately.” Andrew says, “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Jesus told you that. Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. ‘Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And then Mary grieved and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?’”
Let me reiterate – this document was written a few hundred years after Mary lived. It was not written by her and should not be read as a reliable source of information about the life of Christ. So, this document and the so-called Gospel of Philip are not viewed as historically accurate accounts at all. However, they merit our scrutiny because they are the two documents that are used to support those who want to support their claim that Jesus was married.
So, did you find any information in the passage above that would support the marriage hypothesis? Of course, the answer is “no.” But, those who would use this passage to suggest Jesus was married to Mary say that this shows a special relationship between the two. Again, we can’t assume the dialogue in this passage ever happened but we can all be in agreement that we find nothing to support the assertion that they were married.
Let’s take a quick look at a passage from the book of 1 Corinthians:
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:3-6)
This passage settles the matter for all but the most stubborn scholars. Paul talks of his right to take a wife as other apostles have already done. He specifically singles out Jesus’ half-brother Cephas. If Jesus was married, Paul would have most certainly used Jesus as the best example of the right to marry. Yet, Jesus is obviously not mentioned here even though his half-brother is.
We’ve looked at the possibility of Jesus being married and found that not a single one of the ancient documents that we have found through history suggests that Jesus was married to anyone. Further, our most reliable source for information regarding the life of Jesus, the New Testament, gives a very strong argument against this idea.
In my next post, we’ll take one last look at these “other gospels” that are mentioned so many times in the DaVinci Code. Not only are the Gospels of Mary and Philip mentioned but the Gospel of Thomas and others are mentioned in the novel. Are there other ‘gospels’ that should have been included in the Bible? Are there more accurate accounts of the life of Jesus than we have in the New Testament? Did the church conspire to keep these documents out of the hands of believers for political reasons? You probably know the answer to these questions but we’ll put the issue of the ‘other gospels’ to bed the next time we meet!
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
www.toddphillips.net
Saturday, May 06, 2006
DaVinci Code: The Truth Behind the Fiction - Part 9
DaVince Code Part 9: Mary Magdelene 2
In my last post, I looked at one of the two documents that are often cited to suggest that Jesus was married. We looked at the first document called the Gospel of Philip and I explained why this is not a reliable source for gathering any accurate information about Jesus (please read the last DaVinci post if you have questions about the Gospel of Philip). Then I provided a copy of the text:
Philip 63:33-36: “And a companion of the … Lord [probably], Mary Magdalene. He loved Mary more than [all] the disciples, and he used to kiss her [often] on the ________. He used to kiss her ________ on the ________. The rest of [the disciples were offended]. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’”
I addressed the fact that those who use this passage to support the idea that Jesus was married will put the word “mouth” in the third blank space saying that Jesus kissed her “on the mouth” and that he would only kiss his wife on the mouth. The obvious problem is that many words can go in that blank and we simply cannot know what the original writer wrote. But, beyond the fact that we don’t know how the text reads, this argument is full of holes.
The first problem is that if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene then why would the disciples have a problem with Jesus kissing his supposed wife on the mouth? Answer – they wouldn’t! A kiss on the mouth would be totally appropriate if they were married. So, the fact that the disciples would be upset at a married couple kissing doesn’t make sense.
Even more problematic for this passage is that the disciples WERE supposedly “offended” at the action that Jesus took. So, it is much more plausible that Jesus would have kissed Mary on the cheek. In Jewish tradition men would kiss each other on the cheek so if Jesus kissed Mary on the cheek the disciples might have been offended and responded with the question, “Why do you love her more than us?”
The last way this text is used by those who support the idea of Jesus and Mary being married will point to the use of the word “companion” to describe Mary’s relationship to Jesus. In fact, characters in Dan Brown’s book claim that there’s a word for “companion” in Aramaic that means “wife.” This argument comes from those who lack any historical insight into these later writings like the Gospel of Philip. These second or third century texts weren’t written in Aramaic but were written in the Coptic language. The Coptic word that is used in Philip is borrowed from a Greek word (from which these writings were originally written). The same word is used to describe the business partnership Peter had with James and John (Luke 5:10). So, this word could be used to describe a partnership between men as well as it could describe a husband/wife relationship.
So, when all these problems with the text (any one single issue discredits this passage as a good support to the marriage theory) are considered together they discredit this passage as good defense of the marriage theory. I will though say once again that this document was NOT written by Philip but centuries after Philips death.
The second document that supporters of the marriage theory use is the Gospel of Mary. Again, like the Gospel of Philip, this text was not written by Mary Magdalene but was written long after her death. They use the following passage:
Mary 17:10 – 18:21. “When Mary had said this to the disciples [she was re-telling some of the secrets Jesus had just confided in her privately], she was silent, since the Savior had spoken thus far with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly, these teachings are of other ideas.’” Mary says, “This is what Jesus just confided in me privately.” Andrew says, “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Jesus told you that. Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. ‘Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And then Mary grieved and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?’”
I’ll give you a day to read over this text a few times and see if you find anything in this passage to support the supposed marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
In my last post, I looked at one of the two documents that are often cited to suggest that Jesus was married. We looked at the first document called the Gospel of Philip and I explained why this is not a reliable source for gathering any accurate information about Jesus (please read the last DaVinci post if you have questions about the Gospel of Philip). Then I provided a copy of the text:
Philip 63:33-36: “And a companion of the … Lord [probably], Mary Magdalene. He loved Mary more than [all] the disciples, and he used to kiss her [often] on the ________. He used to kiss her ________ on the ________. The rest of [the disciples were offended]. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’”
I addressed the fact that those who use this passage to support the idea that Jesus was married will put the word “mouth” in the third blank space saying that Jesus kissed her “on the mouth” and that he would only kiss his wife on the mouth. The obvious problem is that many words can go in that blank and we simply cannot know what the original writer wrote. But, beyond the fact that we don’t know how the text reads, this argument is full of holes.
The first problem is that if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene then why would the disciples have a problem with Jesus kissing his supposed wife on the mouth? Answer – they wouldn’t! A kiss on the mouth would be totally appropriate if they were married. So, the fact that the disciples would be upset at a married couple kissing doesn’t make sense.
Even more problematic for this passage is that the disciples WERE supposedly “offended” at the action that Jesus took. So, it is much more plausible that Jesus would have kissed Mary on the cheek. In Jewish tradition men would kiss each other on the cheek so if Jesus kissed Mary on the cheek the disciples might have been offended and responded with the question, “Why do you love her more than us?”
The last way this text is used by those who support the idea of Jesus and Mary being married will point to the use of the word “companion” to describe Mary’s relationship to Jesus. In fact, characters in Dan Brown’s book claim that there’s a word for “companion” in Aramaic that means “wife.” This argument comes from those who lack any historical insight into these later writings like the Gospel of Philip. These second or third century texts weren’t written in Aramaic but were written in the Coptic language. The Coptic word that is used in Philip is borrowed from a Greek word (from which these writings were originally written). The same word is used to describe the business partnership Peter had with James and John (Luke 5:10). So, this word could be used to describe a partnership between men as well as it could describe a husband/wife relationship.
So, when all these problems with the text (any one single issue discredits this passage as a good support to the marriage theory) are considered together they discredit this passage as good defense of the marriage theory. I will though say once again that this document was NOT written by Philip but centuries after Philips death.
The second document that supporters of the marriage theory use is the Gospel of Mary. Again, like the Gospel of Philip, this text was not written by Mary Magdalene but was written long after her death. They use the following passage:
Mary 17:10 – 18:21. “When Mary had said this to the disciples [she was re-telling some of the secrets Jesus had just confided in her privately], she was silent, since the Savior had spoken thus far with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, ‘Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly, these teachings are of other ideas.’” Mary says, “This is what Jesus just confided in me privately.” Andrew says, “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Jesus told you that. Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. ‘Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And then Mary grieved and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?’”
I’ll give you a day to read over this text a few times and see if you find anything in this passage to support the supposed marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Until then…
Carpe Deum! (Seize God!)
Todd Phillips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
