Da Vinci Code: Historical or Historical Fiction?

[franko]

skilly said:

It is the criteria I question. What was the criteria? Story "A" makes Jesus seem like a great man , but Story "B" is iffy - let's scrap Story "B"? People should have access to all the information, and let them make their own minds up.

The criteria for accepting a gospel was, I believe, that it had to be written by an eye-witness to Jesus' walk on earth (I know, I know . . . how do we know what was and what wasn't? "Tradition" is the answer. Was tradition right? Hopefully!

I tend to think they would have been the 300 theologians the church chose. Not necessarily the best scholars or thinkers.

I guess we don't know. There were many ideas and theologies and philosophies floating about. Much of the gnostic literature was considered iffy. The whole idea behind it was that it was difficult to understand and only one or two people were gifted with the knowledge of interpreting it. Unfortunately, there was conflicting gnosis/knowledge, and much argument about who and what were/was right/wrong.

Let us also remember that by and large the church was persecuted (or at the very least not a major religion) until Constantine made it legal, so the many religious leaders were able to teach their particular point of view to a local crowd with little supervision oversight, which meant that there were many churches, not one (sounds like the Baptists today -- forgive me for the jibe, all you Baptists out there!)

hasn't the church dispelled the myth that Mary Magdelan was a prostitute?

Hmm . . . not that I'm aware of.

Actually, I think the Bible provides enough conclusive evidence (if you believe the Bible) to show that Jesus was not born on December 25. It is more likely he was born in April or May.

I know -- it is very unlikely He was born in December. The date was "appropriated" (some say it was an accommodation) for Christian use from those who celebrated Saturnalia -- the turning of the bleak season at equinox.

Astrologers have dated the "star" that was in the sky when Jesus was born to be Jupiter and Saturn which occurs on earth every 805 years. Working backwards they discovered that the most likely time this happened was around 4-6 AD.

Or 4 or 3 BC to coincide with the census Luke talks about. Does it matter? Naw.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

franko said:

I used the terms carefully and advisedly so as not to come across as dogmatic (even though I realize that I am). If the terms trouble I shall refrain from using them. Accepted does indeed mean "as far as we understand and believe". "Codified" means that the Council, after much deliberation and debate, felt or believed that certain books and letters were the best . . . portrayal? depiction? explanation? [take your choice or find another word] of who Jesus was.

It appears to me, that they wanted the best accounts (and truly that is all it is ..accounts, since there was no record) that met their needs. 300 catholic bishops sitting around deciding what was best for the Catholic faith. I wonder why others outside the catholic church were not invited to give their accounts ... why wasnt Aristotle invited? He was a "scholar" ... or were they afraid they wouldn't hear what they wanted to? Also, Jesus touched the lives of more than just catholic bishops. In fact, I would go as far to say that the decendants of the lepers that Jesus healed, the people he fed, the vast majority of the ordinary he came into contact would have a clearer image of who Jesus was that the catholic bishops.




When I say dispel free thought that is going too far ... I mean they did not want to hear other interpretations of the scriptures. (Remember I keep falling back to the ambiguity of the Bible) The Council put Arius on "trial - so to speak" by quoting scriptures to prove his way of thought was wrong. Arius used the same scriptures against the bishops by showing how it could be interpreted another way .... yet they did not want to hear that. I believe the 283 bishops, managed to "convince" (I prefer the word threaten, but I have no proof ) all but 3 Arian bishops that it was wrong to interpret the scriptures different from what was accepted. Hmmmm ... seems that they wer enot there to discuss anything, seems they were there to stop discussion from spreading.




It is the criteria I question. What was the criteria? Story "A" makes Jesus seem like a great man , but Story "B" is iffy - let's scrap Story "B"? People should have access to all the information, and let them make their own minds up.



I tend to think they would have been the 300 theologians the church chose. Not necessarily the best scholars or thinkers.



Now that's a good idea. No proof, plausible .... I like it! But hasn't the church dispelled the myth that Mary Magdelan was a prostitute? But now we are finally getting into one of those "what if's" I was referring to. ;D. But which Apostle to pin the blame on .... hmmmm? My money is on either Judas (Jesus should never have trusted that guy) or Thomas (that explains all that doubt - he can't have risen from the dead, he'll find out what I have done!!)

March 25.

Actually, I think the Bible provides enough conclusive evidence (if you believe the Bible) to show that Jesus was not born on December 25. It is more likely he was born in April or May.

The shephards were watching their flock by night. Even in the Middle East they would have taken their sheep inside during the winter months to protect them from the cold and rain.

Astrologers have dated the "star" that was in the sky when Jesus was born to be Jupiter and Saturn which occurs on earth every 805 years. Working backwards they discovered that the most likely time this happened was around 4-6 AD.

You are stating that if you want the truth about Jesus, avoid the people Jesus personally selected, aurthorized and commanded to deliver this truth, and their appointed and authorized successors the Bishops of the Catholic church.

Theologians do theology. Bishops in communion with other bishops and the bishop of Rome give us Christ in the sacraments and in the church'c teachings.

This is the inescapable fact of the matter as evidenced in the early church instituted by Christ himself.

The idea that at Nicea one is dealing with some group that was not organically and immediately connected to the apostles and Christ has no relation to the real world.




Incidentally, the works of Aristotle were introduced in the west cleaned up by the catholic church and her most famous theologian, St Thomas Aquinas.