Christians Around The World Call For Banning 'The DaVinci Code'

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Kinda like Gays isn't it, if you don't understand or agree with it, ban it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Code secret is out: critics hate it
By Mike Collett-White Wed May 17, 10:01 AM ET

CANNES, France (Reuters) - Critics panned "The Da Vinci Code" on Wednesday ahead of the world premiere of the year's most eagerly awaited movie.

Opening the annual Cannes film festival, Ron Howard's adaptation of the Dan Brown bestseller was described variously as "grim," "unwieldy" and "plodding."


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060517/2006_05_17t104952_450x300_us_leisure_cannes_davinc i.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=ddnhfcRW1aGjH2Mcou2pVg--
Audrey Tatou and Tom Hanks in a scene from 'The Da Vinci Code' from director Ron Howard. (Columbia Pictures/Handout/Reuters)



Even before its general release on May 18 and 19, the movie starring Tom Hanks generated much controversy as Christians around the world called for it to be banned.

The novel has enraged religious groups because one of its characters argues that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had a child by her, and that elements within the Catholic Church resorted to murder to hide the truth.

In Thailand on Wednesday, a police-run censorship board overturned an earlier decision to cut the last 10 minutes of the film, but insisted the distributor added disclaimers stating it was fiction.

And in addition to
Vatican calls to boycott the picture, the Indian government said it would show the movie to Christian groups before clearing it for release. In the mainly Catholic Philippines the censors have given it an "adult only" rating.

At a news conference, Howard and Hanks defended the film, calling it a piece of fiction. British actor Alfred Molina, who plays a Machiavellian bishop in the movie, blamed the media for creating controversy where there was little or none.

At a screening late on Tuesday in Cannes, members of the audience laughed at the thriller's pivotal moment, and the end of the $125 million picture was greeted with stony silence.

Trade publication Variety had barely a nice word to say.

"A pulpy page-turner in its original incarnation as a huge international bestseller has become a stodgy, grim thing in the exceedingly literal-minded film version of The Da Vinci Code," wrote Todd McCarthy.

Lee Marshall of Screen International agreed.

"I haven't read the book, but I just thought there was a ridiculous amount of exposition," he told Reuters.

"I thought it was plodding and there was a complete lack of chemistry between Audrey Tautou and Tom Hanks."

BOX OFFICE BLOW?

While critics argue the controversy surrounding the film, and the fact that more than 40 million people have bought the book, will ensure a strong box office performance, word-of-mouth is likely to hit sales later on.

The movie industry will be watching The Da Vinci Code particularly closely after the first two summer blockbusters -- "Mission: Impossible III" and "Poseidon" -- failed to find the Hollywood Grail of box office success.

Hanks defended the film against its critics.

"This is not a documentary. This is not something that is pulled up and says 'These are the facts and this is exactly what happened.' ... People who think things are true might be more dangerous than people who ponder the possibilities that maybe they are and maybe they aren't."

Howard had some advice for those who objected to the story.

"There's no question that the film is likely to be upsetting to some people. My advice is ... to not go and see the movie if you think you're going to be upset."

Ian McKellen, an openly gay actor who plays Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code, sought to make light of the controversy.

"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married," he said. "I know the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay."

The Da Vinci Code premiere late on Wednesday kicks off 12 hectic days of screenings, interviews, photocalls and partying in Cannes, the world's biggest film festival.
http://tinyurl.com/q5mkt

[Falconer]

Talk of banning this movie is just ridiculous. I know that there are probably Christians around the world who would like it banned, but most of the Christian leaders that I have heard in no way want it banned. Most of them either are keeping quiet about the whole thing, or are telling Christians to use this movie as a way to introduce Christ to people.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Funny, i can't find a single decree or quote from the Vatican calling for a boycott of this film. I've seen many rebuttals against the 'facts' that Mr. Brown claims but no definitive Catholic boycott orders.

What i have seen is one Monsignor 'hoping' that we all boycott the film, not some organized effort. The hopes and opinions of one Monsignor don't equal a Vatican call to boycott, sorry. I can't speak for other Christian traditions, however. Cardinal Bertone has struck back against the author and his book but hasn't once called for a boycott, not that that would hold any authority.

[Falconer]

Funny, i can't find a single decree or quote from the Vatican calling for a boycott of this film. I've seen many rebuttals against the 'facts' that Mr. Brown claims but no definitive Catholic boycott orders.

What i have seen is one Monsignor 'hoping' that we all boycott the film, not some organized effort. The hopes and opinions of one Monsignor don't equal a Vatican call to boycott, sorry. I can't speak for other Christian traditions, however. Cardinal Bertone has struck back against the author and his book but hasn't once called for a boycott, not that that would hold any authority.

I think maybe the producers of the Da Vinci Code are trying to create a controversy that really isn't there in hope that it will drive up the box office. I am sure there are a couple of people out there calling for a banning, but not in the way the article makes it out to be.

[Smiling Assassin27]

agreed. the only bad publicity is no publicity at all.

[Crushaholic]

I think a lot of people can separate a work of fiction from personal beliefs. I call myself a Christian, but I went to see "Last Temptation of Christ". I'm a Bush supporter, but I went to see "Farenheit 911". My only beef with this movie is that it looks rather boring, and the critics have apparently agreed with me...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Funny, i can't find a single decree or quote from the Vatican calling for a boycott of this film.

"Boycott Da Vinci Code film": top Vatican official
By Philip Pullella Fri Apr 28, 11:10 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - The Vatican stepped up its offensive against "The Da Vinci Code" on Friday when a top official close to
Pope Benedict blasted the book as full of anti-Christian lies and urged Catholics to boycott the film.

The latest broadside came from Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year.

Amato, addressing a Catholic conference in Rome, called the book "stridently anti-Christian .. full of calumnies, offences and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospels and the Church."

He added: "I hope that you all will boycott the film."
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/qaxzg

[Smiling Assassin27]

yes, i saw that. he really, really, really hopes we boycott. ;)

[alkemical]

Hanks defended the film against its critics.

"This is not a documentary. This is not something that is pulled up and says 'These are the facts and this is exactly what happened.' ... People who think things are true might be more dangerous than people who ponder the possibilities that maybe they are and maybe they aren't."


____

Ya know.... there is some truth in that.

[Rohirrim]

From what I'm reading from the Cannes Film Festival, the movie stinks. If everybody who disagrees with it just shuts up, it will go away, and fast if it's really that bad.

[alkemical]

part of me thinks all of it is orchestrated.

I mean, why is all this info on templars, masons, etc finally permeating the mainstream?

maybe.... 'they' decided it was time.

[bendog]

I never thought the movie would translate to the screen. It reads really as one long chase to get the info scene, and the tension is mostly psychological. Of course I thought the woodward and bernstein movie with Hoffman and Redford was boring. I wonder if Audrey Tautou's in any nude scenes

[ludo21]

I never thought the movie would translate to the screen. It reads really as one long chase to get the info scene, and the tension is mostly psychological. Of course I thought the woodward and bernstein movie with Hoffman and Redford was boring. I wonder if Audrey Tautou's in any nude scenes

The book is fantastic, i cant imagine the movie touching it.

IMO, this is a great chance for us Christians to talk about Jesus, this movie will be talked about everywhere. Even if it does suck, its bound to raise some questions for everyone.

[Rohirrim]

The book is fantastic, i cant imagine the movie touching it.

IMO, this is a great chance for us Christians to talk about Jesus, this movie will be talked about everywhere. Even if it does suck, its bound to raise some questions for everyone.

I'm looking into the Gnostic gospels. I didn't even know such a thing existed until a few months ago. I didn't even know that there were hundreds of books to the bible and that a Roman Emperor, Constantine, had gathered together a bunch of people to weed out 73 of the books and call that the Bible. Nobody ever mentioned any of that to me when I was a kid going through Catechism. They never give you the whole story.

[bendog]

What's funny about the evangelicals take on this is:

People want to believe the Da Vinci Code so badly because they want a Christ who is manageable, a Jesus that is not going to challenge you or threaten your lifestyle."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/us_nm/leisure_davinci_evangelicals_dc

A gnostic view of Jesus is going to be a challange, LOL. I read a book containing and commenting on the Gospel of Mary. It's "classified" as gnostic, because Mary is thought to have made it to France and started a gnostic community. That's in the Brown book. But the Gospel is interesting in that it is Jesus' teaching of what happens to the soul in death. I found it both comforting and sort of what I've expected.

I see that nutter Kennedy from Coral Ridge and Wildmon from my neck (-: of the woods have made a movie the Devince Delusion, that they're giving free to churchs.

[alkemical]

Ro,

some good stuff in those too -

[Falconer]

I'm looking into the Gnostic gospels. I didn't even know such a thing existed until a few months ago. I didn't even know that there were hundreds of books to the bible and that a Roman Emperor, Constantine, had gathered together a bunch of people to weed out 73 of the books and call that the Bible. Nobody ever mentioned any of that to me when I was a kid going through Catechism. They never give you the whole story.

Ok, this is starting to get a little out of hand. Constantine never did convene a council to get rid of any books of the Bible. None of the Gnostic texts were ever considered part of the Bible even from the first mention of canonical books as early as 150 A.D. There were disagreements whether texts like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John belonged in the Bible. Gnostic texts may have been distributed in local places, but I never have heard of them entering into the cannon at any time. The reason for this is that many of the Gnostic texts actually do have statements that go against the teachings of Christ, or at least make little sense when compared with his statements. The easy one is from the Gospel of Thomas, where it says a woman needs to “make herself male” to enter heaven.

[Rohirrim]

Ok, this is starting to get a little out of hand. Constantine never did convene a council to get rid of any books of the Bible. None of the Gnostic texts were ever considered part of the Bible even from the first mention of canonical books as early as 150 A.D. There were disagreements whether texts like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John belonged in the Bible. Gnostic texts may have been distributed in local places, but I never have heard of them entering into the cannon at any time. The reason for this is that many of the Gnostic texts actually do have statements that go against the teachings of Christ, or at least make little sense when compared with his statements. The easy one is from the Gospel of Thomas, where it says a woman needs to “make herself male” to enter heaven.

OK, Constantine convened the 300 members of the Council of Nicaea in order to bring to an end the infighting in the Christian church of that time with the promise that if they could all agree on a canon and a philosophy, then he would favor that church with recognition as the state religion. The burning and destruction of opposing texts was a side-effect. They came up with the Nicene Creed and burned the books of opposing philosophies and excommunicated (or whatever you want to call it) Arius, and two others (who I forget) who disagreed with their decisions.

The Gnostic stuff I can't comment on because I haven't studied all of it yet.

[bendog]

Ok, this is starting to get a little out of hand. Constantine never did convene a council to get rid of any books of the Bible. None of the Gnostic texts were ever considered part of the Bible even from the first mention of canonical books as early as 150 A.D. There were disagreements whether texts like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John belonged in the Bible. Gnostic texts may have been distributed in local places, but I never have heard of them entering into the cannon at any time. The reason for this is that many of the Gnostic texts actually do have statements that go against the teachings of Christ, or at least make little sense when compared with his statements. The easy one is from the Gospel of Thomas, where it says a woman needs to “make herself male” to enter heaven.

I think it makes sense and is consistent with his social message. His message was that God made us all, and loves us all equally. (Cain and Able aside). The notion that something like 25% of the population lived on the verge of starvation was unacceptable, and that poor people had to pay the Priests to even offer a prayer, so that many went without being allowed to pray. Jesus denied that a man had the right to divorce a wife. The gnostic passage(s) you're referring to go to that aspect. The "soul" is a-sexual. It has no earthly desires. It has no social standing.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Ok, this is starting to get a little out of hand. Constantine never did convene a council to get rid of any books of the Bible. None of the Gnostic texts were ever considered part of the Bible even from the first mention of canonical books as early as 150 A.D. There were disagreements whether texts like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John belonged in the Bible. Gnostic texts may have been distributed in local places, but I never have heard of them entering into the cannon at any time. The reason for this is that many of the Gnostic texts actually do have statements that go against the teachings of Christ, or at least make little sense when compared with his statements. The easy one is from the Gospel of Thomas, where it says a woman needs to “make herself male” to enter heaven.

common sense, not paranoia, is the basis for your statement, IMO. whenever i present history and common sense to refute these Gnostic gospels as being canonical or written by whom they claim to be, i'm accused of being paranoid or afraid of truth. they never were part of the Canon, at least the one that was officially defined by the Christian Church. Apostolic successors, in fact, wrote plenty about these Gnostic writings and congregations with respect to their divergence from what the Apostles handed on. They, like any non-canonical writing, are interesting and fun to read, but don't fit the bill of inspiration, IMO.

p.s. Constantine had no authority to do half of the things Gnostics claim he did. he didn't become Christian until the day of his death and certainly was no part of the Church despite his sympathy toward it.

[bendog]

OK, Constantine convened the 300 members of the Council of Nicaea in order to bring to an end the infighting in the Christian church of that time with the promise that if they could all agree on a canon and a philosophy, then he would favor that church with recognition as the state religion. The burning and destruction of opposing texts was a side-effect. They came up with the Nicene Creed and burned the books of opposing philosophies and excommunicated (or whatever you want to call it) Arius, and two others (who I forget) who disagreed with their decisions.

The Gnostic stuff I can't comment on because I haven't studied all of it yet.
http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm

edit, btw, the parent site is
http://www.gnosis.org/gnostsoc/gnostsoc.htm

I haven't viewed any lectures online, but at the bottom of the page is a link to their library, which is extensive and has the gnostic texts online, as well as commentaries.

[Smiling Assassin27]

http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm


very objective source...:thumbs:

[Falconer]

OK, Constantine convened the 300 members of the Council of Nicaea in order to bring to an end the infighting in the Christian church of that time with the promise that if they could all agree on a canon and a philosophy, then he would favor that church with recognition as the state religion. The burning and destruction of opposing texts was a side-effect. They came up with the Nicene Creed and burned the books of opposing philosophies and excommunicated (or whatever you want to call it) Arius, and two others (who I forget) who disagreed with their decisions.

The Gnostic stuff I can't comment on because I haven't studied all of it yet.

You made it sound as though it was at this council that the books were selected. However, that was not the case. As early as 150 A.D. most of the cannon was agreed upon. Like I said earlier, there were some texts that were controversial but none of them were Gnostic texts. The Bible we have today closely mirrors the first mention of it, not just the late date that is becoming a kind of urban myth these days.

[Falconer]

I think it makes sense and is consistent with his social message. His message was that God made us all, and loves us all equally. (Cain and Able aside). The notion that something like 25% of the population lived on the verge of starvation was unacceptable, and that poor people had to pay the Priests to even offer a prayer, so that many went without being allowed to pray. Jesus denied that a man had the right to divorce a wife. The gnostic passage(s) you're referring to go to that aspect. The "soul" is a-sexual. It has no earthly desires. It has no social standing.

I am sorry, but your explaination makes no sense in relation to that passage that I can see.

[Rohirrim]

You made it sound as though it was at this council that the books were selected. However, that was not the case. As early as 150 A.D. most of the cannon was agreed upon. Like I said earlier, there were some texts that were controversial but none of them were Gnostic texts. The Bible we have today closely mirrors the first mention of it, not just the late date that is becoming a kind of urban myth these days.

There also seems to have been a good bit of disagreement over the influence of Paul, who was not a contemporary of Christ, and yet seems to have buried the influence of many of those who were, like James.

[Falconer]

Emperor Constantine- did he create our Bible?
by Garry Williams, Ph.D. , Tutor in Church History and Doctrine at Oak Hill Theological College in London.


The Da Vinci Code Claims that Emperor Constantine created the New Testament canon - the list of books to be counted as Christian Scripture alongside the Old Testament - and rejected thousands of alternative texts by the Gnostics. Brown writes: 'The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great' (p. 313).

Emperor Constantine was born after Lists of New Testament books existed
The claim that Constantine created the canon is not true. Emperor Constantine did ask bishop Eusebius of Caesarea to have fifty copies of the New Testament reproduced for the new imperial capital at Constantinople. But the work of collating the New Testament books had been done over the preceding centuries. The evidence for this is abundant. The most famous documentary example is a piece of writing known as the Muratorian fragment. This fragment dates from the end of the second century and is named after the Italian scholar who first published it in 1740. It is a list of books recognized by the church: four Gospels (though the first two are missing due to damage to the fragment), the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of Paul; three epistles of John; Jude; the Apocalypses of John and Peter. Significantly, the Muratorian canon rejects Gnostic works by Valentinus and others. This is important for showing that Brown is wrong, because it proves that as early as the end of the second century the church was already denying the truth of Gnosticism, and the canon of Scripture was being formed.

Emperor Constantine - Did he remove books from the Bible?
The Da Vinci Code Claims that the four Gospels were selected by Constantine from eighty others. Brown writes: 'Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned' (p. 317). Or again: 'More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion' (p. 313).

This is wrong. Many early Christian texts written well before Constantine's time say that there are and can be only four authoritative Gospels. Irenaeus, who died in around AD200, over a century before Constantine's reign, writes this in his great work Against the Heresies:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world [...] it is fitting that she should have four pillars [...]. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)

This may seem like a strange argument to us - four winds so four Gospels - but the point is clear. There is no evidence that there were ever anywhere near eighty Gospels, and the selection was made many years before Emperor Constantine was even born.

http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/emperor-constantine.html

[alkemical]

You made it sound as though it was at this council that the books were selected. However, that was not the case. As early as 150 A.D. most of the cannon was agreed upon. Like I said earlier, there were some texts that were controversial but none of them were Gnostic texts. The Bible we have today closely mirrors the first mention of it, not just the late date that is becoming a kind of urban myth these days.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


the date is not 150ad - but there is truth in history.

[bendog]

as would be the RCC or Don Wildmon. What's your point? That the NT that exists today accurately records who Jesus was and what he preached?

I simply disagree. We had a similar thread with ..... Mile High. At the crux, he believes that God, or the Holy Spirit, actually decided what was included, and excluded, from the council of nicea - book by book. I disagree.

The council of nicea was necessary. The gnostic, and nag hamadi, sources give us a glimpse into what Christianity was about in the first few hundred years. No one can even try to dispute that. IMO, for a Christian it's helpful to seek Jesus's message where it's possible to get as close to Jesus the Source in those texts (Thomas and Mary for example). But, for Christianity to survive, gnositicism had to go. Falconer is right in that a lot of the Gnostic stuff is truly off the wall. It was akin to the Mormons, with guys having "visions" and adding stuff, only the Mormons at least only let one guy have the visions. The gnostics were all over the place. I'd suggest taking it with a grain of salt.

But, not many scholars will dispute that around the same time as the council of nicea, really before, but really before, the Priesthood had been ousting women from power. That, imo, was as much a corruption of Jesus's message as the Gnostics. But again, having a male hierarchy was prolly necessary to Christianity surviving. It was(is) a male dominated world, and there had to be a Pope with total control.

[Falconer]

There also seems to have been a good bit of disagreement over the influence of Paul, who was not a contemporary of Christ, and yet seems to have buried the influence of many of those who were, like James.

I thought we were discussing when the Bible was originated, but maybe we have that down now.

I just checked my Bible and James does indeed have a book in there. ;D Also, Peter (a contemporary of Christ) talks about Paul in Peter 3:15-16 "15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

[Smiling Assassin27]

as would be the RCC or Don Wildmon. What's your point? That the NT that exists today accurately records who Jesus was and what he preached?

I simply disagree. We had a similar thread with ..... Mile High. At the crux, he believes that God, or the Holy Spirit, actually decided what was included, and excluded, from the council of nicea - book by book. I disagree.

The council of nicea was necessary. The gnostic, and nag hamadi, sources give us a glimpse into what Christianity was about in the first few hundred years. No one can even try to dispute that. IMO, for a Christian it's helpful to seek Jesus's message where it's possible to get as close to Jesus the Source in those texts (Thomas and Mary for example). But, for Christianity to survive, gnositicism had to go. Falconer is right in that a lot of the Gnostic stuff is truly off the wall. It was akin to the Mormons, with guys having "visions" and adding stuff, only the Mormons at least only let one guy have the visions. The gnostics were all over the place. I'd suggest taking it with a grain of salt.

But, not many scholars will dispute that around the same time as the council of nicea, really before, but really before, the Priesthood had been ousting women from power. That, imo, was as much a corruption of Jesus's message as the Gnostics. But again, having a male hierarchy was prolly necessary to Christianity surviving. It was(is) a male dominated world, and there had to be a Pope with total control.

sorry but there's no evidence that women were ever priests in the Christian Church. so ousting them could not occur if this is the case. all church history is clear that women were not part of the sacerdotal orders. in fact, this is one way that the Christian church knew that the Gnostic writings were not consistent with Apostolic teaching--Gnostics allowed female priestesses. Gnostics and Dan Brown seem to ignore the most noteworthy quote from these Gospels when Peter says 'Let Mary depart from us, for women are not worthy of life'. This is far from an egalitarian utopia being proposed by the Prince of the Apostles. Jesus says that women have to become men to get into the Kingdom--definitely NOT flattering of women. the Church knew that these writings were bunk because of statements like this.

even the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail admit that 150 is the EARLIEST that those Gnostics could've been written. if that's the case, they were clearly decades (in some cases centuries) after the Apostolic writings, attesting to their lack of authority. only 5 or 6 Gospels were being considered by the end of the 2nd century and this was officially settled by the Council of Hippo (and reaffirmed by every local synod and the pope thereafter) in 393.

[Falconer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea


the date is not 150ad - but there is truth in history.

What are you talking about? I wasn't saying that the Council of Nicaea took place in 150 A.D. I said that a canon was first mentioned as early as 150 A.D., and that is in fact very supportable. Please do not try to denigrate me, if you do not know what I am talking about.

[Smiling Assassin27]

some Gnostic sects claimed Paul as their own because of some questionable hermeneutics in Romans, both Corinthians, Philippians, and others.

[Rohirrim]

I thought we were discussing when the Bible was originated, but maybe we have that down now.

I just checked my Bible and James does indeed have a book in there. ;D Also, Peter (a contemporary of Christ) talks about Paul in Peter 3:15-16 "15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Geez, exactly how long did Peter live? I knew he was old, but does anybody know how old?

[alkemical]

What are you talking about? I wasn't saying that the Council of Nicaea took place in 150 A.D. I said that a canon was first mentioned as early as 150 A.D., and that is in fact very supportable. Please do not try to denigrate me, if you do not know what I am talking about.


**** off

[Falconer]

Geez, exactly how long did Peter live? I knew he was old, but does anybody know how old?

He and Paul were both crucified in 68 A.D. I believe, but as to when he was born I have no idea. I would guess him to be somewhere around Jesus' age, so that would make him between 60-70 years old, but that is only a guess.

[Falconer]

**** off

Nice.:thumbsup:

[Smiling Assassin27]

Geez, exactly how long did Peter live? I knew he was old, but does anybody know how old?

Eusebius and Jerome place Peter's death around 67-68 AD. Martyred in Rome.

[alkemical]

Nice.:thumbsup:


if ya'd remember your own **** ya type, i posted the wikipedia article to not just say the date is an urban myth, i was providing resources to your post to that comment.

But then, if i wanted to be a condescending prick, i could just go to bible camp and learn how to be more judgemental.

[Falconer]

if ya'd remember your own **** ya type, i posted the wikipedia article to not just say the date is an urban myth, i was providing resources to your post to that comment.

But then, if i wanted to be a condescending prick, i could just go to bible camp and learn how to be more judgemental.

The urban myth I mentioned was about canon not being pretty much agreed upon until the Council of Nicaea. The fact is that is was pretty much agreed upon before that time. Also, I would never use wikipedia as a creditable source, as anyone can add to it at any time.

By the way, I never went to Bible camp. :~ohyah!: Maybe I learned it from my new age years. ;)

[El Guapo]

Ive heard the movie sucks anyways. . .

[alkemical]

The urban myth I mentioned was about canon not being pretty much agreed upon until the Council of Nicaea. The fact is that is was pretty much agreed upon before that time. Also, I would never use wikipedia as a creditable source, as anyone can add to it at any time.

By the way, I never went to Bible camp. :~ohyah!: Maybe I learned it from my new age years. ;)


Funny, someone who believes a book written by men - is trying to discredit a source in argument. HA! Too funny too funny.


Well i'm sure many of my bretheren through out time who have been killed by your kind - would beg to differ on such openmindedness that many of people of the christian religion have used through out time.

[bendog]

I am sorry, but your explaination makes no sense in relation to that passage that I can see.
I read it as more a metaphor/allegory. I'll put quotes around gnostic terms.

Recall Genesis. Eve was made of Adam. The gnostics main thrust, imo, is that at creation and at death, we are with God. (which without trying to be offensive is perhaps what makes your Son so special. He is constantly near God)

The world "corrupts" our view and realtion with God. The NT we have shares this. The basic illustration is the deadly sins. Jesus saying "suffer the little children to come unto me, for they are closer to God ....." (or whatever, I don't recall the exact translation, having grown up with the King James and being drunk stoned for 25 years)

The gnostics use the term "root." At death we "return to the root." To the gnostic, at death there is no longer a distinction between male and female. (Neither is there at conception, btw, at least not until the DNA structure is completed, which is one reason that imo the gnostics were onto something.) Returnign to the root is consistent with Eve coming from Adam, literally, though I think the gnostics had a clue that Genesis was allegory, because they certainly use allegory to extreme. So, the female becoming male is the female "returning to her root." It's allegory explaining something. Did God really make Eve from Adam's extra rib? NO.

There is also an aspect of the Lilith myth. The gnostics, and btw Jung's archtype framework, tend to view the human being as needing male and female characteristics to be whole.

As I'm sure you know, the nicea "showdown" was over Jesus. From the earlier link to Valentinus:
The ignorance of the agencies that create the false system is thus undone and rectified by the spiritual Gnosis of the human being. The defect can be removed from being by Gnosis. There is no need whatsoever for guilt, for repentance from so-called sin, neither is there a need for a blind belief in a vicarious salvation by way of the death of Jesus. We don't need to be saved; we need to be transformed by Gnosis. The wrong-headedness, perversity, obtuseness, and malignancy of the existential condition of humanity can be changed into a glorious image of the fullness of being. This is done not by guilt, shame, and an eternal saviour but by the activation of the redemptive potential of self-knowledge.

Politically, that just isn't sellable. For Christianity to prevail, it had to offer a system that worked in the civil and legal society. Even today, we have a tension of whether laws should be based moral principles. Besides, practically speaking, psychoanalysis is beyond the mental ability of a good portion of humanity. Christianity had to emphasize Christ dying to save people from their inherent wickedness. So, the council of nicea may very well have been guided by the holy ghost, but at the same time it may have hacked off some of our ability to get at what Jesus was teaching.

[Falconer]

Funny, someone who believes a book written by men - is trying to discredit a source in argument. HA! Too funny too funny.


Well i'm sure many of my bretheren through out time who have been killed by your kind - would beg to differ on such openmindedness that many of people of the christian religion have used through out time.

I do believe it was written by men, but they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is a difference of opinion, however the problem with wikipedia is not. If you cannot see the difference I am sorry. I am glad to know that you have an idea about my "kind" and your's. That is quite a statement. It is funny that you just cannot own up to the fact that you made a small mistake of misreading something of mine, and now we are mortal enemies. I am sorry if I said something that offended you dearly, but I stick by my statement of the canon being mostly complete by 150 A.D. By the way here is a little something about the creditability of wikipedia.

Wikipedia Proves Fertile Ground for Political Shenanigans
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 30, 2006
ATLANTA, April 29 (AP) — Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that can be altered by anyone with a computer, has proved to be remarkably useful for political dirty tricksters.

Political operatives are covertly rewriting or editing candidates' biographical entries to make their bosses look good or opponents look ridiculous.

As a result, political campaigns are monitoring the Web site more closely than ever this election year.

Revisions made by Capitol Hill staffers became so frequent and disruptive earlier this year that Wikipedia temporarily blocked access to the site from some Congressional Internet addresses. The pranks included bumping up the age of the Senate's oldest member, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, to 180 from 88, and giving crude names to other lawmakers.

The entry for Representative Jim Marshall, Democrat of Georgia, labeled him "too liberal" for his state, in part because of a contribution he received from a political action committee run by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The man who doctored Mr. Marshall's biography now works for his Republican challenger.

In Georgia this week, the campaign manager for a candidate for governor, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, resigned amid accusations that he had altered the Wikipedia biography of Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, an opponent in the Democratic primary.

The campaign manager, Morton Brilliant, was accused of adding Mr. Taylor's son's arrest last August in a drunken driving accident that left his best friend dead. The information was accurate and had been in the news. But Ms. Cox declared the son's legal troubles out of bounds.

The link to Mr. Brilliant was discovered by the Taylor campaign, which immediately accused the Cox camp of engaging in "gutter politics."

Some 1,000 volunteer monitors scan changes to Wikipedia's entries to keep them free of obvious partisan editing, factual errors and profanity, said Wikipedia founder's, Jimmy Wales.

"The beauty of a forum like this is free speech," Mr. Wales said. "But we also promote a neutral point of view."

Mr. Wales said entries had to meet a standard of newsworthiness and, as a general rule, should not be written by an interested party — either a supporter or an opponent.

But finding out who is writing what on the site is not always easy. Internet addresses can be traced to a computer, but not necessarily to the person at the keyboard. And experts say people with computer savvy can easily cover their tracks.

Wikipedia had 25.6 million unique visitors in March, making it the 18th most popular site on the Internet.

Other changes are more subtle rewrites of history. The staff of Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, rewrote his biography to delete a reference to a promise, since broken, that he would serve only four terms.

Wikipedia leapt into the news last year after the journalist and former Kennedy administration aide John Seigenthaler Sr. complained that someone had edited his entry to say that he had been involved in the assassinations of John F. and Robert F. Kennedy. The man who posted the false information, Brian Chase, a 38-year-old delivery service manager in Nashville, said he had done it as a joke.

The incident prompted Wikipedia to adopt stricter controls, Mr. Wales said.

However, any oversight is probably minor, said Steven Jones, who teaches communications and technology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"Given the sheer size of Wikipedia and the sheer number of entries, it seems impossible that they could police it in an effective way," Mr. Jones said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/washington/30wiki.html?ex=1304049600&en=858163b09daf0ce9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Falconer]

I read it as more a metaphor/allegory. I'll put quotes around gnostic terms.

Recall Genesis. Eve was made of Adam. The gnostics main thrust, imo, is that at creation and at death, we are with God. (which without trying to be offensive is perhaps what makes your Son so special. He is constantly near God)

The world "corrupts" our view and realtion with God. The NT we have shares this. The basic illustration is the deadly sins. Jesus saying "suffer the little children to come unto me, for they are closer to God ....." (or whatever, I don't recall the exact translation, having grown up with the King James and being drunk stoned for 25 years)

The gnostics use the term "root." At death we "return to the root." To the gnostic, at death there is no longer a distinction between male and female. (Neither is there at conception, btw, at least not until the DNA structure is completed, which is one reason that imo the gnostics were onto something.) Returnign to the root is consistent with Eve coming from Adam, literally, though I think the gnostics had a clue that Genesis was allegory, because they certainly use allegory to extreme. So, the female becoming male is the female "returning to her root." It's allegory explaining something. Did God really make Eve from Adam's extra rib? NO.

There is also an aspect of the Lilith myth. The gnostics, and btw Jung's archtype framework, tend to view the human being as needing male and female characteristics to be whole.

As I'm sure you know, the nicea "showdown" was over Jesus. From the earlier link to Valentinus:
The ignorance of the agencies that create the false system is thus undone and rectified by the spiritual Gnosis of the human being. The defect can be removed from being by Gnosis. There is no need whatsoever for guilt, for repentance from so-called sin, neither is there a need for a blind belief in a vicarious salvation by way of the death of Jesus. We don't need to be saved; we need to be transformed by Gnosis. The wrong-headedness, perversity, obtuseness, and malignancy of the existential condition of humanity can be changed into a glorious image of the fullness of being. This is done not by guilt, shame, and an eternal saviour but by the activation of the redemptive potential of self-knowledge.

Politically, that just isn't sellable. For Christianity to prevail, it had to offer a system that worked in the civil and legal society. Even today, we have a tension of whether laws should be based moral principles. Besides, practically speaking, psychoanalysis is beyond the mental ability of a good portion of humanity. Christianity had to emphasize Christ dying to save people from their inherent wickedness. So, the council of nicea may very well have been guided by the holy ghost, but at the same time it may have hacked off some of our ability to get at what Jesus was teaching.

Ok, I see what you are saying. However, after reading GoT 114 I do not see that interpretation working. I am not saying that it couldn't for someone else, I just do not see it. It seems to go too far from the text in order to achieve what you want it to.

[bendog]

sorry but there's no evidence that women were ever priests in the Christian Church. so ousting them could not occur if this is the case. all church history is clear that women were not part of the sacerdotal orders. in fact, this is one way that the Christian church knew that the Gnostic writings were not consistent with Apostolic teaching--Gnostics allowed female priestesses. Gnostics and Dan Brown seem to ignore the most noteworthy quote from these Gospels when Peter says 'Let Mary depart from us, for women are not worthy of life'. This is far from an egalitarian utopia being proposed by the Prince of the Apostles. Jesus says that women have to become men to get into the Kingdom--definitely NOT flattering of women. the Church knew that these writings were bunk because of statements like this.

even the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail admit that 150 is the EARLIEST that those Gnostics could've been written. if that's the case, they were clearly decades (in some cases centuries) after the Apostolic writings, attesting to their lack of authority. only 5 or 6 Gospels were being considered by the end of the 2nd century and this was officially settled by the Council of Hippo (and reaffirmed by every local synod and the pope thereafter) in 393.

Women as leaders in the early church. (btw, you might want to google women early christian church)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html

http://store.yahoo.com/cti/is17woineach.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342854

http://arachnid.pepperdine.edu/slove/Spring%202001/Syllabus.612.htm

As for the writing of the gospels, the traditional view is that a follower of the apostyles at some pt reduced an oral history to writing, relying in differing degrees to each other an the Q document. Mark, as I recall, may be the earliest, but in any event:
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels.
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm

So arguing whether something is accurate on the date seems dubious. But, again, with the gnostics, the further out in time one goes, the more people who have their own take at things. Gnostics had the temptation to be the latest with the greatest take.

[alkemical]

I do believe it was written by men, but they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is a difference of opinion, however the problem with wikipedia is not. If you cannot see the difference I am sorry. I am glad to know that you have an idea about my "kind" and your's. That is quite a statement. It is funny that you just cannot own up to the fact that you made a small mistake of misreading something of mine, and now we are mortal enemies. I am sorry if I said something that offended you dearly, but I stick by my statement of the canon being mostly complete by 150 A.D. By the way here is a little something about the creditability of wikipedia.

Wikipedia Proves Fertile Ground for Political Shenanigans
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 30, 2006
ATLANTA, April 29 (AP) — Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that can be altered by anyone with a computer, has proved to be remarkably useful for political dirty tricksters.

Political operatives are covertly rewriting or editing candidates' biographical entries to make their bosses look good or opponents look ridiculous.

As a result, political campaigns are monitoring the Web site more closely than ever this election year.

Revisions made by Capitol Hill staffers became so frequent and disruptive earlier this year that Wikipedia temporarily blocked access to the site from some Congressional Internet addresses. The pranks included bumping up the age of the Senate's oldest member, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, to 180 from 88, and giving crude names to other lawmakers.

The entry for Representative Jim Marshall, Democrat of Georgia, labeled him "too liberal" for his state, in part because of a contribution he received from a political action committee run by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The man who doctored Mr. Marshall's biography now works for his Republican challenger.

In Georgia this week, the campaign manager for a candidate for governor, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, resigned amid accusations that he had altered the Wikipedia biography of Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, an opponent in the Democratic primary.

The campaign manager, Morton Brilliant, was accused of adding Mr. Taylor's son's arrest last August in a drunken driving accident that left his best friend dead. The information was accurate and had been in the news. But Ms. Cox declared the son's legal troubles out of bounds.

The link to Mr. Brilliant was discovered by the Taylor campaign, which immediately accused the Cox camp of engaging in "gutter politics."

Some 1,000 volunteer monitors scan changes to Wikipedia's entries to keep them free of obvious partisan editing, factual errors and profanity, said Wikipedia founder's, Jimmy Wales.

"The beauty of a forum like this is free speech," Mr. Wales said. "But we also promote a neutral point of view."

Mr. Wales said entries had to meet a standard of newsworthiness and, as a general rule, should not be written by an interested party — either a supporter or an opponent.

But finding out who is writing what on the site is not always easy. Internet addresses can be traced to a computer, but not necessarily to the person at the keyboard. And experts say people with computer savvy can easily cover their tracks.

Wikipedia had 25.6 million unique visitors in March, making it the 18th most popular site on the Internet.

Other changes are more subtle rewrites of history. The staff of Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, rewrote his biography to delete a reference to a promise, since broken, that he would serve only four terms.

Wikipedia leapt into the news last year after the journalist and former Kennedy administration aide John Seigenthaler Sr. complained that someone had edited his entry to say that he had been involved in the assassinations of John F. and Robert F. Kennedy. The man who posted the false information, Brian Chase, a 38-year-old delivery service manager in Nashville, said he had done it as a joke.

The incident prompted Wikipedia to adopt stricter controls, Mr. Wales said.

However, any oversight is probably minor, said Steven Jones, who teaches communications and technology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"Given the sheer size of Wikipedia and the sheer number of entries, it seems impossible that they could police it in an effective way," Mr. Jones said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/washington/30wiki.html?ex=1304049600&en=858163b09daf0ce9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



I know all about wikipedia, i just found it funny that you want to argue on one hand about the cannonizing of the bible and slandering of the gnostic teachings as invalid (when bible they may not be, but important history and spiritual allegories and matters are discussed and provide a deeper meaning of the bible) - and wikipedia.

When in fact - they are all 'argument from authority'. Just like i could dismiss your NYT links as well as your truth about divinci links...

[Falconer]

Women as leaders in the early church. (btw, you might want to google women early christian church)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html

http://store.yahoo.com/cti/is17woineach.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342854

http://arachnid.pepperdine.edu/slove/Spring%202001/Syllabus.612.htm

As for the writing of the gospels, the traditional view is that a follower of the apostyles at some pt reduced an oral history to writing, relying in differing degrees to each other an the Q document. Mark, as I recall, may be the earliest, but in any event:
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels.
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm

So arguing whether something is accurate on the date seems dubious. But, again, with the gnostics, the further out in time one goes, the more people who have their own take at things. Gnostics had the temptation to be the latest with the greatest take.

I guess as far as dating goes it is just who you choose to believe. The author I quote here believes no gospel is written after 70 A.D.

"It is often asked; when were the Gospels written? To this question we have to seek for both intrinsic evidence that we find in the Gospels themselves and extrinsic evidence which has been greatly developed with modern research.

In 1976, the eminent New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson, with his book: Redating the New Testament ( published by SCM Press )

maintained that there are no real grounds for putting any of the NT books later than 70 A.D. His main argument is that there is no clear reference in any of them to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple which occurred on September 26th of that year. This cataclysmic event brought to an end the sacrificial worship that was the center of the Jewish religion and it should have merited a mention in the NT books if they were written afterwards. In particular, one would have expected to find a reference to the event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for it would have greatly strengthened the author's argument that the Temple worship was now obsolete.Robinson dated the composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to indicate the traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first draft, and a continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting. Similarly, he dated Mark from 45 to 60, Luke from 55 to 62, and John from 40 to 65. Robinson decisively refutes the arguments brought forward to establish a later date, viz. the manner of referring to "the Jews," and the reference to excommunication in chapter 9.15 He adds: "There is nothing in the Gospel that suggests or presupposes that the Temple is already destroyed or that Jerusalem is in ruins-signs of which calamity are inescapably present in any Jewish or Christian literature that can with any certainty be dated to the period 70-100." (Ibid., p. 275)

Robinson also points out that John, when describing the cure of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, tells us that this pool "is surrounded by five porticos, or covered colonnades" (5:2). Since these porticos were destroyed in 70, John's use of the present tense-"is"-seems to imply that the porticos were still in being when he wrote. "Too much weight," he admits, "must not be put on this-though it is the only present tense in the context; and elsewhere (4:6; 11:18; 18:1; 19:41), John assimilates his topographical descriptions to the tense of the narrative." (Ibid., p. 278)."

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14454.htm

[bendog]

(114)
(1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life."
(2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male,
so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you."
(3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Honestly in posting to you I was recalling the Gospel of Mary which has a similar passage, but there's little difference. However, in Thomas there's also the interpretation of female roles in the church.
http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas114.html

btw the last comment on this linked page references to other "myths" where earthly aspects are female (the earth as mother) and heavenly aspects as father. I think that's sort of consistent with the notion of returning to the root, assuming that returning to the root is discarding the worldly concerns.

Funk and Hoover write: "In v. 3 Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer ot the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (which the evangelist equates with the female) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male). This transformation may possibly have involved ritual acts or ascetic practices." (The Five Gospels, p. 532)

......

John S. Kloppenborg, Marvin W. Meyer, Stephen J. Patterson, and Michael G. Steinhauser state: "Now, as is obvious, this saying does not really free itself from the mistaken notions of its day about the relative worth of men and women. Nonetheless, what it says, in its own 'back-handed' way, is very important for the history of early Christianity. First, it probably indicates that not all were in agreement on whether women should be allowed to participate fully in the Jesus movement. The opposition to women voiced by Peter in this saying is not isolated, but reminds one of later evidence of a similar dispute in the Gospel of Mary (BG 8502 17,7 - 18,15) and Pistis Sophia (I, 36; II, 72). This dispute was likely one which would be carried on within early Christianity for many years to come. The Gospel of Thomas, of course, comes down here in favor of women's participation, provided they engage in the same sort of regimen required of the men in the group. What is more, Mary (it is not clear which Mary is intended here) is taken as the predecessor of all women who would become disciples. This stands in contrast to the more traditional feminine roles assigned to Mary in the synoptic and Johannine traditions (whether one speaks of Mary the mother of Jesus or of Mary Magdalene). In Thomas, Mary is presented as the first female disciple of Jesus. Thus, Paul may well have had good precedent, even from out of the sayings tradition, for including both women and men in the organization of the Christian communities he founded." (Q-Thomas Reader, pp. 111-112)

[bendog]

Falconer, re dating the gospels. Yeah, I have no issue with when they were dated. There is some thought that some version of Thomas was in the hands of whomever wrote Mark, but I just skimmed over that, cause it's not important to me. Rather, arguing the validity of a gospel by date is imo not logical. Also, I doubt it was really as simple as one guy sitting down 50-100 years after Jesus and writing the gospel from some scraps. Rather, I suspect the gospels existed in some form before that, and someone at some time, got several copies of Mark (or whichever) along with some other documents, and tried to produce a unified and literary document. More a process than a date in time.

[Falconer]

I know all about wikipedia, i just found it funny that you want to argue on one hand about the cannonizing of the bible and slandering of the gnostic teachings as invalid (when bible they may not be, but important history and spiritual allegories and matters are discussed and provide a deeper meaning of the bible) - and wikipedia.

When in fact - they are all 'argument from authority'. Just like i could dismiss your NYT links as well as your truth about divinci links...

You can dismiss anything you want of what I put up. I hold the links I put up in the same regard as I read links that others put up; how much sense and reliability does the material presented have. I don't believe that wikipedia has very good reliability because of the way it is composed is all; I think that is reasonable. In regards to the canonizing of the Bible, there is very good information as to the earliest writings of what books were accepted.

I also hope that you don't think that I am slandering any Gnostic teachings, just because I have problems with them. All of the ones that I have had the opportunity to read (which are not that many I submit) have problems in regards as being consistent with what Jesus taught. That is hardly what I would call slandering. Again, I apologize if I offended you in any way. Sometimes I get overly aggressive with my words, and the problem of good communication on the internet makes it all that worse at times. I think that if you will remember back to our past discussions, you will find me to be very open, honest, and good willed.

[bendog]

I like wipedia to see what sources were used in an article. It's useful too for fast checking stuff. Like, I know nicea was "sometime' like around the 3rd centruy, but to get the exact date. My memories too shot to remember that. And yes, I meant to use the plural (-:

I think I actually found the Valentinus article via a wikpedia link a long time ago. I'd read a mainstream history of the RCC, and then forgot how he worked in with Marcion and Iraneus, so I looked him up via wikpedia.

Here's another conundrum from Thomas
God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men. (Logion 85: 1-4)

I probably read that twenty times saying "blasphemy"

Then I read the commentary:
Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only by Gnosis, or self-knowledge. When referring to the myth of the creation of the world by a god, Valentinus shifts the blame for the condition of cosmic defect from humanity to creative divinity. That God the creator could be at fault in anything is of course tantamount to blasphemy in the eyes of the orthodox. What we need to recognize, however, is that Valentinus does not view the creator with the worshipful eyes of the Judeo-Christian believer, but rather sees the creator - along with other divinities - as a mythologem. Much evidence could be adduced to demonstrate this, but one must suffice here, taken from the Gospel of Philip:

I'm not sure I completely buy that either. It's not blame. Certainly I accept God created the world, and there are things I simply cannot understand why God would do them (evolution for example, why all the pain to innocent animals?) I view God through MY perception. I have to. We all have to. But in doing so I must "corrupt" what God is. This is the same as the Plato -Cave myth with us seeing only shadows, rather that what's really there. So, "It would be fitting for the gods to worship men." It's really true. MY concept of God is undoubtedly false.

There's some country song about what will a guy do when he sees God's face. He doesn't know.

But the Gnostic stuff is hard to figure. Some of it is just over my head, or by my left ear.

Ah well, time to fix the kiddie dinner, and my martini ... from lousy generic vodka.

[alkemical]

wasn't what you said, but how you said it.

and i got assailed last night by fricken mormans and jevovah's!

I try to be nice and tell them i'm buddist, just to let them know - but nooooo doesn't end there. Fricken fricks!

[alkemical]

I like wipedia to see what sources were used in an article. It's useful too for fast checking stuff. Like, I know nicea was "sometime' like around the 3rd centruy, but to get the exact date. My memories too shot to remember that. And yes, I meant to use the plural (-:

I think I actually found the Valentinus article via a wikpedia link a long time ago. I'd read a mainstream history of the RCC, and then forgot how he worked in with Marcion and Iraneus, so I looked him up via wikpedia.

Here's another conundrum from Thomas
God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men. (Logion 85: 1-4)

I probably read that twenty times saying "blasphemy"

Then I read the commentary:
Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only by Gnosis, or self-knowledge. When referring to the myth of the creation of the world by a god, Valentinus shifts the blame for the condition of cosmic defect from humanity to creative divinity. That God the creator could be at fault in anything is of course tantamount to blasphemy in the eyes of the orthodox. What we need to recognize, however, is that Valentinus does not view the creator with the worshipful eyes of the Judeo-Christian believer, but rather sees the creator - along with other divinities - as a mythologem. Much evidence could be adduced to demonstrate this, but one must suffice here, taken from the Gospel of Philip:

I'm not sure I completely buy that either. It's not blame. Certainly I accept God created the world, and there are things I simply cannot understand why God would do them (evolution for example, why all the pain to innocent animals?) I view God through MY perception. I have to. We all have to. But in doing so I must "corrupt" what God is. This is the same as the Plato -Cave myth with us seeing only shadows, rather that what's really there. So, "It would be fitting for the gods to worship men." It's really true. MY concept of God is undoubtedly false.

There's some country song about what will a guy do when he sees God's face. He doesn't know.

But the Gnostic stuff is hard to figure. Some of it is just over my head, or by my left ear.

Ah well, time to fix the kiddie dinner, and my martini ... from lousy generic vodka.


Bendog,

some of it is hard to figure out, and some of it.... is just plain lost in translation. What i mean by that is - some stuff was written and saved, and maybe another jar wasn't found, thus the meaning or revelence is lost upon the text.

[spdirty]

got this in an email. Figure Ill share it, but I certainly don't see what the big deal is to begin with.

The divinity of Christ was a fourth-century fabrication of the emperor Constantine; Jesus faked his death on the cross; The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke John are false, but a number of quite different contemporaneous texts—the Gnostic gospels—tell the truth about Jesus’ life and teaching.



And that’s not even mentioning the silly allegations about murderous albino monks, Jesus’ blood descendants, DaVinci’s encoded art, the sacred feminine, blah blah blah and a bunch of other drivel that was incorporated into a work of fiction that claims to incorporate the long suppressed truth about Christ and Christianity.



Instead of expressing disapproval at blasphemy by protesting and boycotting, (and thereby falling into the trap of creating free front page hype and lead story controversy for Sony Pictures to sell more tickets) some Christians who know how Hollywood works have a different suggestion. What reads below came by way of Barbara Nicolosi at Act One, an organization for Christians in Hollywood. And like she says--pass this on!



WHAT ARE YOU DOING MAY 19TH?
May 19th is the date the Da Vinci Code movie opens. A movie based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor. What can we as Christians do in response to the release of this movie? I'm going to offer you the usual choices -- and a new one.

Here are the usual suspects:

A) We can ignore the movie. ........The problem with this option: The box office is a ballot box. The only people whose votes are counted are those who buy tickets. And the ballot box closes on the Sunday of opening weekend. If you stay home, you have lost your chance to make your vote heard. You have thrown your vote away, and from Hollywood's point of view, you don't count. By staying home, you do nothing to shape the decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big screen.

B) We can protest. ........The problem with this option: It doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And again, protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years. (Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)

C) We can discuss the movie. We can be rational and be ready with study guides and workshops and point-by-point refutations of the lies promulgated by the movie. ........The problem with this option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to say already. We'll lose most of these discussions anyway, no matter how prepared we are, because the power of story always trumps the power of facts (why do you think Jesus taught in parables?!). And once again: rational discussion of history does nothing to affect Hollywood's choices regarding what movies to make.

But there's a fourth choice…..on May 19th, you should go to the movies just go to another movie.

Save the date now. May 19th, or May 20th. No later than Sunday, May 21st -- that's the day the ballot box closes. You'll get a vote, the only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down on a box office window on opening weekend.

Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than DVC. If enough people do it, the powers that be will notice. They won't have a choice.

The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and you can take your kids and your friends and their friends in fact, let's all go see it.

Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects -- without protests, without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn, too.

May 19th. Mark your calendars now: Over the Hedge's opening weekend. Buy a ticket.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But there's a fourth choice…..on May 19th, you should go to the movies just go to another movie.


So don't see but dismiss it out of hand... brilliant.

Maybe the 5th choice would be better... "Everyone says it sucks so I probably won't go see it".

[spdirty]

So don't see but dismiss it out of hand... brilliant.

Maybe the 5th choice would be better... "Everyone says it sucks so I probably won't go see it".

But my rule of movies is that when critics hate it, its probably pretty good...which is why I might see it now.

[Garcia Bronco]

oy veh...then don't go see the movie..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Christians Around The World Call For Banning 'The DaVinci Code'

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

This reminds me of when these same loons got into a snit over the movie "Last Temptation of Christ."

As it turned out, that movie sparked an interest in Christianity in many people who would have normally been uninterested, turned-off, or closed-minded about Christianity in general.

[keithbishop]

I'll watch it when it comes out on video. I fail to see the point in protesting a movie, other than to draw more attention to it. BANNING a movie...... the idea is laughable. Under whose authority would it be banned?? This Christian simply chooses to watch the movies I think I'll like....... and not watch movies I don't think I'll like.

[clarker]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

This reminds me of when these same loons got into a snit over the movie "Last Temptation of Christ."

As it turned out, that movie sparked an interest in Christianity in many people who would have normally been uninterested, turned-off, or closed-minded about Christianity in general.I agree. Any attempt to ban in it will have most likely cause the opposite.

It is only movie.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'll watch it when it comes out on video. I fail to see the point in protesting a movie, other than to draw more attention to it. BANNING a movie...... the idea is laughable. Under whose authority would it be banned?? This Christian simply chooses to watch the movies I think I'll like....... and not watch movies I don't think I'll like.
Makes sense to me. :)

[alkemical]

why can't people figure out they can change the channel, turn off the tv, etc?

who cares, it's a fictional book turned into a fictional movie.

[bronco_diesel]

why can't people figure out they can change the channel, turn off the tv, etc?

who cares, it's a fictional book turned into a fictional movie.

hey, i have figured that out :)

[bronco_diesel]

wasn't what you said, but how you said it.

and i got assailed last night by fricken mormans and jevovah's!

I try to be nice and tell them i'm buddist, just to let them know - but nooooo doesn't end there. Fricken fricks!

i had some JW's come to my door the other day.

anyway, i could show you which scriptures to show them, and they'll never bother you again :)

[alkemical]

i had some JW's come to my door the other day.

anyway, i could show you which scriptures to show them, and they'll never bother you again :)


actually they didn't like some of the decorations i had around the house. I'm always wary of certain people seeing somethings - everyone always takes it wrong.

When i told them i was a buddist they then told me about their way, i proclaimed that i wasn't really a buddist but i had no urge to be a JW, and told them that the mormons just left about 45min ago.

[bronco_diesel]

actually they didn't like some of the decorations i had around the house. I'm always wary of certain people seeing somethings - everyone always takes it wrong.

When i told them i was a buddist they then told me about their way, i proclaimed that i wasn't really a buddist but i had no urge to be a JW, and told them that the mormons just left about 45min ago.

wow. did they actually state they were not approving of some of the decor in your house?

[alkemical]

wow. did they actually state they were not approving of some of the decor in your house?


When people don't understand, they often become uncomfortable - and become much more..... rigid in how they percieve things.

(for a quick explanation in the pics below, please see: http://www.nazorean.com/Knowledge/BannersOfTheEastAndWest.html)

[Rascal]

yeah you are going to burn with those things hanging in your house.

LOL

I have no idea what they are.

[alkemical]

yeah you are going to burn with those things hanging in your house.

LOL

I have no idea what they are.


just symbols really - i had made mine - myself.

[bendog]

i had some JW's come to my door the other day.

anyway, i could show you which scriptures to show them, and they'll never bother you again :)
Ben's been dead nearly two years, and the JWs and Mormons still aren't coming up the drive. I miss that old dog.