Here is one thing they posted that caught my eye:
By claiming that Jesus was married and there's a huge conspiracy to cover up that fact, Dan Brown is opening the door to doubt on historical fact. He is certainly free to say or write anything he likes, but as a Christian, he would be aware of 1 Corinthians 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak."Christians know that
the story is fiction. I hope that those seeking spiritual truth don't dismiss Christianity on the basis on the theories presented in The DaVinci Code.
I really liked that last part.
Anyway, I posted in the comment section on their blog, and I encourage you to check out their site if you enjoy magic. Plus they are Australian so they have to have cool accents.
6 comments:
I feel that the Bible is absolute, yet may not contain absolutly everything there is to know about Jesus. Jesus lived for many years. The Bible only teaches us about the late years of Jesus. I would hope that while of the flesh,Jesus experienced many things of the flesh. In this way he would know the strength, weakness, desires, and temptations that we humans face every day. We know how Jesus experienced anger and rage, as he tore up that Temple in anger. Why would it not be possible that he also experienced love or sex? Sometimes I wonder why some people see rage as acceptable and sex as unacceptable. Look at the video games and movies of the day. Television shows have rapes, child molestations, murders, etc. Yet, it is illegal to show bare breasts? Hey, I may be old school but I firmly believe that consensual sex is far better that rape or murder. In as much, nobody knows if Jesus ever experienced sex. I'm not partial to a fictional book like The DaVinci Code,but I do not dismiss that there are many things about Jesus that we do not know about. Psychologists are quite accurate when explaining how many times a day a man thinks about sex. Well, Jesus was a man. He walked as a man, felt as a man, and in my mind,thought like a man. We are all accountable to the same God as he was. In all due respect, I would think that at some point in his life he could have possibly experienced sex. Thoughts?
Okay, be honest Derrick. Do you actually know that each of the heterodox ideas of Brown’s work are false, or do you merely suppose as much and find it troubling that Brown is at odds with your cherished beliefs?
Not necessarily a genuine question.
(I will respond in bold
Russ said:
I feel that the Bible is absolute, yet may not contain absolutly everything there is to know about Jesus.
I have no problem with this as far as it goes.
Jesus lived for many years. The Bible only teaches us about the late years of Jesus. I would hope that while of the flesh,Jesus experienced many things of the flesh. In this way he would know the strength, weakness, desires, and temptations that we humans face every day.
I think I can agree with these statements, no problems here. He was human, and He knew of the difficulties of being such. Bible says we have a high priest in Jesus who knows what it is like to struggle
We know how Jesus experienced anger and rage, as he tore up that Temple in anger.
I am not sure I would characterize what He did as rage. Anger, yes; rage, no. Do you have a Bible verse on that so we can look at the context?
Why would it not be possible that he also experienced love or sex?
Those are two entirely different things. I do not see anyone having a problem with Jesus experiencing love. However, to say that He had sex is different, to say the least. Even (or especially in Jewish circles) back then sex outside of marriage was wrong.
So for Jesus to have been having sex, He would have had to have been married, which I think, the evidence is not convincing to me that He was.
Check out these sites if you are interested in arguments critiquing this view. (espcially Mark Roberts for a more in depth-you will have to scroll down a bit to find it.http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/davinciopportunity3.htm#may1206 and http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/historical-Jesus/DaVinci/HJ-davinci-5-questions.htm
Sometimes I wonder why some people see rage as acceptable and sex as unacceptable.
Eph. 4:26 advises that we do not sin in our anger. Rage, I would probably classify as uncontrolled anger. This, I think, is sin. Sex, outside of the marriage situation is sin (fornication, adultery). Sex in marriage is not.
Also, I think your use of (un)acceptable deals more with cultural moreys, not necessarily witht he morality of it. So, I think, that might take us into a different direction.
Look at the video games and movies of the day. Television shows have rapes, child molestations, murders, etc. Yet, it is illegal to show bare breasts?
I think one distinction that may be made is that most rapes and molestations are not shown to glorify it. Whereas to a slightly lesser degree (no pun intended)murder is also not glorified as a good thing (This, too I think can be a longer discussion).
On the other hand, sex sells, and so any showing of cleavage in or out of clothing is to titilate and celebrate.
This has to do with culture, too. In you lived in a culture where woman routinely walked around bare-breasted (like National Geo.), I think it would be different.
Hey, I may be old school but I firmly believe that consensual sex is far better that rape or murder.
In one sense, absolutely. However, the Bible also gives a stern warning and condemnation against extramarital sexual relations. Because sex is more personal.
Paul warns that "all other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" (1 Cor. 6:18) Sex and sexual sins affects the soul more than many realize. I think, that is one reason many, including God, champion remaining pure.
In as much, nobody knows if Jesus ever experienced sex. I'm not partial to a fictional book like The DaVinci Code,but I do not dismiss that there are many things about Jesus that we do not know about.
But it is not enough to simply assert these things, but rather to show evidence and reasons to support those claims. I am not convinced, by some of the evidence I've read (including, but not limited to DaVinci Code).
Check also, Breaking the DaVinci Code by Darryl (sp) Bock and for a non-Christian historian's perspective, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code by Bart Erhman.
If you have evidence or reasons for believeing that Jesus was married, thus having sex (presumably), I would be open to discussing it here.
Psychologists are quite accurate when explaining how many times a day a man thinks about sex. Well, Jesus was a man. He walked as a man, felt as a man, and in my mind,thought like a man. We are all accountable to the same God as he was. In all due respect, I would think that at some point in his life he could have possibly experienced sex. Thoughts?
He was like us, men, in one sense. However, the Bible is also clear that He did not sin, so it would be hard to believe that He thought exactly as we do. Plus, I think there is a difference between thinking about sex and THINKING about SEX.
I don't think I have a problem with the former, but I do not think Jesus did the latter.
Finally, I don't think that even if Jesus were married that it would affect the truth of Christianity or affect His sinfulness. I don't think He was and am currently not compelled to believe such. But if you have something you think can convince me otherwise, I would listen.
Thanks, Russ,
Derrick
Kwame,
After reading different material on the subjects, I am fairly certain (though I could be wrong) that many of the things he (Brown) suggests in his novel are historically false and have been dealt with by many people lately and in the past.
Even some of his art history is suspect.
I am not as concerned for myself and my understanding of Christian history (which is not too extensive in a general sense), and the reliability of the New Testament text.
I am more concerned by those who choose not, for whatever reason, to do any research on the subject. With the novel, it is very difficult to decipher where fiction ends and fact begins. And that is the danger and problem I have with the book.
But I think we have a good opportunity to get into discussions with folks who may be swayed by these ideas.
What are your thoughts, Kwame, have you read the book? Is it a good opportunity?
Derrick
Very well, and so be it.
Haven’t read the book or seen the movie, myself; don’t plan on reading or viewing either. I thought it was pretty interesting though, over a year ago, I was at work and I overhear some guy talking about how he read the book and how he does “know” (spoken with an adamant tone) that the church or the RCC is trying to pull the wool over his eyes WRT claims of the book. But hey, some people will believe everything they read--either that or they are a tad bit inconsistent in whom they will trust implicitly and whom they will not(?).
Okay, let me go read the other comments you wrote now.
Kwame said:
But hey, some people will believe everything they read--either that or they are a tad bit inconsistent in whom they will trust implicitly and whom they will not(?).
I agree that many people who have a cursory knowledge (many folks-Not often a lot of doctrine explicitly taught on Sunday mornings)of Scripture and a leaning toward rebellion from God (All of us) who believe whatever sounds interesting/popular/controversial..
I wonder if it is another case where we don't naturally want to follow God, so we look for any excuse or loophole we can find. I know I am guilty of this.
There are times where it is a struggle to do the right thing. Maybe I am the only one in this, but I highly doubt it.
I notice the more I learn about God (especially Jesus-not generic God--who's not a threat to my comfort) the more I see how meager my efforts and offerings (not necessarily money, but myself)are.
That is when I rest in His provision, and strive to more godly and Christlike. It is real hard sometimes. Though I am certainly thankful for the religious freedoms we have here in the US.
Well, I always intend for my posts to be short, but I always feel it necessary to qualify and clarify my thoughts so I am less likely to be misunderstood. I may still be wrong, but at least, I hope, my position will be understood. :-)
Derrick
Post a Comment