Duh Vinci Code

Interesting, Don.  It's been a long time since I read that book and when I did I was more interested in the collection of and relationship of works of art to "history" as he was recounting it.  (please realize quotes to mean I don't take it as real history - trying not to go off topic.)  I don't really remember if he got into Jesus' mortality.

Let me ask you this question and I'm posing it outside of the context of the book.  Can the possibility of a 'married' Jesus, or a Jesus who had relations with a woman be discussed without it affecting our concept of his mortality?  In other words, is there any reason that Christ couldn't have still died on the cross and been resurrected after his alleged relations with a woman?

Again, Dan Brown may or not be double talking with what's in the book and what's in his quote you posted but it has been so long since I read it that I'm sorry I can't discuss it on those terms.

hmm...

Well, it certainly can be discussed without affecting His mortality, or maybe it's more accurate to say His divinity. Just thinking about it a bit, though, I'd say that yes, if Jesus were married than His divinity would come into serious question.

First, we have to assume that if he had relations with a woman it was within a marriage. Being God, He did not sin. So it would have been impossible for Him to have sex outside of marriage and still be God.

Second, what point would His marriage serve in the context of all of scripture that came before Him? It makes no sense from that aspect. And what of His offspring? Would they be divine also?

Third, there is not a shred of evidence in the Gospels or in Acts, or in the Letters that would even remotely suggest that Jesus was married, let alone to Mary Magdalene. On the contrary, He uses the image of Himself as the bridegroom and we as the bride. It's why the Church is refered to with the feminine gender. She understands this relationship to her spouse.

One things for sure, if this Gnostic notion of Jesus being married and not divine were true, it would clearly completely change our understanding of Christianity. That's why it's a heresy. It's been around since near the beginning, and it was never considered to be authoritative in any way by anyone except the proponents.

I've never met Dan Brown. I don't know if he is a devious soul bent on the descruction of the Church, or a monkey who managed to type one of the best selling novels of all time. The more I read about him, the more I think it's the latter.

As many have pointed out, it's just a novel. However, it's a novel purporting to be based on history. And many, many, people seem to believe this version of history without, apparently, doing any investigation of the facts. If one is a believer, than you understand that the danger here is putting people's souls in jeopardy.

Well, let me start off by saying that I've never read the Da Vinci Code, so I don't really know that much about it...

And I'll stop right there.

Don - I agree with you about Dan Brown and what you state as your "latter" theory.  I think he assembled the pieces and produced a work of fiction at a good time for it to be received by the public.  And the questions I'm asking are merely for asking the questions, you are far more educated in this area than I am. 

The nature of Christ is that He is God made man, right?  He is God.  He is also man.  He is not half and half.  He was not made man, then turned into God.  He is all of both.  If fact, the nature of His being both at the same time may not be able to be understood by us, other than as a matter of faith.  Is this how you see it?  It's what I was brought up to believe.  If this is true, why does His divinity come into question if He was married or had offspring.  (assuming offspring would mean he was married).  I know you state that there is no evidence that supports this, but I'm not trying to argue that it did happen.  I also realize all of the corollary problems resulting from "what if" discussions.  There would be different consequences for lots of people if it turned out that He did marry/have offspring.  My question is why would it affect his divinity?  If he's man, all man, it does not mean His children would be any more divine than the rest of us.  We are all His children.  What would the ceremony of marriage have to do with his status as God's only Son?  Is there something in Scripture that specifically states differently and therefore we would have a discrepancy in the Word of God?  (this is where I am leaning heavily on your knowledge, because I don't know).

I can't quite wrap my mind around a debate of real-life yet hypothetical issues about a fictional Christ.  Postulating on how the life of a fictional Christ affects real life Christian dogma... my brain is short-circuiting.

I remember when extreme Muslim clerics called for the real life murder of Salman Rushdie because he wrote a work of fiction about Mohammad (Satanic Verses). I didn't understand that either.

disclaimer - just self-educated. I have a big amazon.com bill.

Is this where the Mormons who (used to) support polygamy jump in and shout "GOTCHA!"? 

I guess the reason I bring all of this hypothetical stuff up is this.  The blogger responding to Dan Brown's comment kind of comes at him at a right angle.  The accusation that the gist of his book is that Jesus was merely mortal seems to propose a view of Christ that is not in agreement with mine.  I'm not saying I believe Christ married and had kids, but my belief in Him does not preclude the possibility that He could have.  There is so much to criticize Dan Brown for, why do it poorly?  Not only do I not think that this was the gist of his book, even if it was I don't have a problem with it.  Christ was mortal.  He died on the cross, right?  Doesn't that prove he was mortal?

Again, I'm not a Brown supporter or apologist, but I would like the people criticizing him to hold themselves up to the same standards that they are applying to him.

The Christology that is presented as fact in the Da Vinci Code, is a reworking of the old heresy of Arianism.

The history of this heresy ought to matter to all Christians, it predates the reformation by more than one thousand years, because if it were true, then we have the nature of Christianity all wrong.

Basically, it denies the divinity of Christ.

I think I understand what you're saying, that it is different than speculation about "what if" Jesus did this, or Jesus did that as a human. IOW, "what if" He did this or that may not affect his divinity.

But it's important to remember that folks in our mutual history did try to use arguements like those to prove that Jesus was not divine.

And plenty of folks today will say that their belief in Jesus is like that of an enlightened teacher, similar to the Buddah, but that He was not God.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

'cmon Renee... Friday is coming up... eat lots of fish... it's good for your brain...  

Yeah, Renee, eat the fish.... It won't hurt ya.

This just made me think of this random and not-so-on-topic thing. Once I was hanging out with a friend and had to head off to church (Catholic), I asked him if he wanted to come with me and he said "Sorry, Kim, but I forgot my sacrificial goat." He he he.

Perhaps because others hold a different view of the situation than you do?

You asked a question, and I answered it.  That's why people get upset.  It's pretty clear.

Don, thanks for the link on Arianism.  I read as much as I could.  It's heavy stuff, not enough pictures .  I will say this.  Reading that will make a person thankful for the freedom and ability we have to discuss and research these issues in today's world.  Just like people from those times cannot imagine communication in our world, I cannot imagine what it must have been like back then.  Well, maybe I can imagine it, but I shudder when I do.

It is good to be on guard for theories which only claim to go so far down a line of thinking, but open the door later for going further down that line.  I think that is what you are saying about Brown's comment.  I understand that.

To me, and maybe I'm not understanding the blogger's comment, she boils her problem with the book down to "the gist of your (Brown's) book is that Jesus was "merely mortal"...

I've tried to type the next paragraph about six times.  Each time I end up with questions I can't phrase properly.  I think I'm not capable of continuing the discussion without simply repeating myself.  I guess the bottom line is that I read "merely mortal", put it into my beliefs and come out with the answer, yes He was mortal and God at the same time.  Maybe others read "merely mortal" to infer that he was not in any way divine and therein lies the difference.  If you interpret it my way then her comment doesn't make a lot of sense.  If you interpret it the other way it does make sense.

MUL98 - 2006-03-15 3:57 PM The Da Vinci Code is a best selling book of fiction - just like the bible. Why get upset that one contradicts the other? Reasonable people don't get upset if a Grisham book contradicts a Dr Seuss book do they?

I wouldn't go as far to say that the Bible is a work of fiction, but at the very least a historical reference. The Da Vinci Code IS a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical references.

Having read huge amounts on Rennaissance art, christian theology with a secret crush on Da Vinci himself, I was dissapointed with the Da Vinci Code. The book barely even scratched the surfaces of the many layers of numerology and metaphysics contained in the religious, and not so religious works of the time. Not to sound elitist, but the fact that this book is a fictional best-seller (easily read by the common folk) attests to the fact that it shouldn't be considered a true mastery if the subject.

I suppose that got to be rambling...but I think the movie and book has been taken too seriously by nearly everyone.

Yea, I know that she meant the latter, using the word "merely " to mean that Brown would go on to say that Jesus was not divine.

She definitely does not mean "merely" in the sense that being mortal is somehow not a good and important thing, or that it is not an important part of understand who Jesus is.  From reading her on a daily basis, I'm confident of that.

I am really enjoying this thread. 

I have read the book. And I've read his other books.  He's a good writer.  I enjoyed the DaVinci Code because it was a great conspiracy theory thriller.  Aside from the subject matter that contradicts my Christian upbringing, and my continued Christian beliefs, I thought the book was good because it made you think.  That may be a complete layman's answer.  But ya know, sometimes I want to read a book because it's NOT based on always-believable topics.  I love to lose myself in a novel because it takes me OUT of life for a while. 

Funny, one of the most religious men I know made me read that book...and like me, he loved it because of what it was...a sometimes exciting work of fiction that turned into a blockbuster Tom Hanks movie.

I'm reading the "Left Behind" series now.  VERY religious-based stuff.  Based directly on Biblical history.  And I gotta tell ya.  It's like reading Harry Potter.  I'm enjoying the series, but it's not as exciting (well sometimes it is) as DVC or Angels and Demons.  It's alot less intellectually written.  Even so, I am enjoying THOSE books because they relate more directly to my Christian faith and force me to think in a different way than DVC did.

OK, what the hell am I trying to say here?  Hmm...I guess my bottom line would be...I try not to lead myself into believing everything I read, even if it IS "based on historical accounts".  There was so much reference to the Knights Templar in the DVC that it almost parallels the references to the Knights in "National Treasure"...which was a fictional Disney movie.  In a lot of ways, the DVC is the same thing.  Just a little more 'adult' in nature. 

The Bible?  Yep.  I've read that too.  Not cover to cover, but more than enough of it to believe that THAT is what I base my understanding of my Christian faith on, and I won't let a fictional novel that tasks to undermine my faith shake me of that understanding. 

Wow, I wrote more than I thought to write!

I've read both the "Left Behind" books and "Davinci Code" and frankly, I think the Left Behind books are more of a threat to Christianity than the Davinci Code. I'm with the folks who take Davinci Code as nothing more than a fictional, thriller type book - fun to read, interesting ideas, but nothing more than that.  The Left Behind books, while also fictional, are touted among conservative Christian circles as THE way to interpret the Book of Revelations and/or imagine what the end times will be like.  I think they promote an all too literal interpretation of Scripture, which is the source of many of my differences of opinion with conservative Christianity.

I've never read the Left Behind books, but I've heard them mentioned a lot.

What are they about?