1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

The Davinci Code

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by Tokyo Slim, May 18, 2006.

  1. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    So Alan... have you seen it yet?
    I've read the book. I won't see the movie until it comes out on DVD. I'd rather see X-Men or Mission Impossible 3. When you have three kids you have to pick your spots, and I want Dan Brown to have as little of my money as possible.

    I agree with you that the book and movie expose a lack of informed faith among many Christians.

    If Jesus did not live, die and rise again then His message is useless, and I wouldn't waste my time.
     
  2. j

    j Senior member

    Messages:
    14,914
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    If Jesus did not live, die and rise again then His message is useless, and I wouldn't waste my time.

    This seems a sad thing to say. I'm not a Christian, and I don't know or care whether Jesus lived or died (though I do love Easter ham, so I like the part where "He is risen"), but I can see the value in the message of the Bible regardless of whether it is fact or fiction.

    BTW, if all the churches had agreed to ignore this movie when it came out and not make a big deal out of it, it would not have grossed as much as it did.
     
  3. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    J, I agree with you about ignoring the movie. In fact, earlier I referenced the Catholic priest who had worked on Gibson's Passion movie. He was approached by someone associated with Da Vinci Code marketing who wanted him to lead a boycott of the movie because they knew the controversy would drive ticket sales. I'm not involved in any sort of organized boycott, just doing my part to educate those I can about the errors of the book and movie.
     
  4. Matt

    Matt Senior member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    huge hypothetical follows for you Alan...and please answer it as a hypothetical rather than as a chance to say that 'there is no evidence that...'

    If Christ was married, wasnt a virgin, did have kids etc - but still died on a cross and on the third day rose again - would His marriage make any difference to you, your faith and your teachings?
     
  5. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    Well, that's a hypothetical that I can't answer, really. There is no particular issue with Jesus being unmarried and childless. That's simply what the Bible records to be the case. The necessary ingredients are Jesus' sinlessness, death, burial and resurrection. However, as He had a specific mission that required itinerant preaching, death and ultimately ascension in his early to mid-30s it would have been impractical, and irresponsible, for Him to have been a husband and father.

    Of course, the Bible uses the imagery of God, and in the NT Jesus, as the Husband to His people. The book of Hosea has beautiful language of God wooing unfaithful Israel back to Him:

    Revelation also records that the Lamb (Jesus) is to marry His pure bride (His people, or church):

    So there is symbolic reason for Jesus not being married as well.

    I don't know why everyone is so desperate for Jesus to have been married. There have been a lot of people in history who weren't married and didn't have children.
     
  6. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    I don't know why everyone is so desperate for Jesus to have been married. There have been a lot of people in history who weren't married and didn't have children.

    Depending on your point of view, you could either call them losers, or geniuses.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. j

    j Senior member

    Messages:
    14,914
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I thought rabbis were required to be married. No backup for this, just something I have heard repeatedly.
     
  8. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    I thought rabbis were required to be married. No backup for this, just something I have heard repeatedly.

    Found this...

     
  9. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    I thought rabbis were required to be married. No backup for this, just something I have heard repeatedly.


    no requirement, but they are supposed to be. It would be hard to find an example of a serious rabbi in history who wasn't married.

    but the idea of "rabbi" wasn't really formalized until the past 150 years or so - there has never been a formal curriculum for this, basically if people wanted to study with you, you were a rabbi. but, if they didn't think that you were a "normal guy", they probrably wouldn't want to study with you.

    in jewish law, a nazarene is sort of a monk - a person who has taken vows to separate himself from others to serve god. it is not clear that this is what jesus was, it is not entirely clear if he was jesus from nazerath, or jesus the nazerene, but it gives a potential reason for why he was less "worldy" than most rabbis were expected to be.
     
  10. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    no requirement, but they are supposed to be. It would be hard to find an example of a serious rabbi in history who wasn't married. but the idea of "rabbi" wasn't really formalized until the past 150 years or so - there has never been a formal curriculum for this, basically if people wanted to study with you, you were a rabbi. but, if they didn't think that you were a "normal guy", they probrably wouldn't want to study with you. in jewish law, a nazarene is sort of a monk - a person who has taken vows to separate himself from others to serve god. it is not clear that this is what jesus was, it is not entirely clear if he was jesus from nazerath, or jesus the nazerene, but it gives a potential reason for why he was less "worldy" than most rabbis were expected to be.
    OT: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA: Rheinschifffahrtgesellschaftskapitänsmützenabzeichennähmaschinenkonstruktionsingenieursausbilder Jon.
     
  11. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    'Rabbi' simply means 'teacher' to my understanding. It was not an office to be held but rather, as globetrotter states, one was a rabbi if there were willing students to teach. In modern Judaism, and globetrotter would be more of an authority here, certainly, it has a stricter definition and a formal association with a synagogue.
     
  12. Matt

    Matt Senior member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    ill take you up on it Alan, what the hell [​IMG]

    Well, that's a hypothetical that I can't answer, really. There is no particular issue with Jesus being unmarried and childless. That's simply what the Bible records to be the case. The necessary ingredients are Jesus' sinlessness, death, burial and resurrection.

    so to my original hypothetical, Ill chalk you up as a 'sort of no' then - it is less important to you whether Christ was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else. It is basically irrelevant to a belief in His divinity - and central to your teachings in your clergy is his sinless life, death and resurrection.

    Fair?

    well yeah, but that is true of lots of people though.

    Lump him in with a travelling salesman (nothing like a bit of heresy for heresies sake when Im chatting with a Minister [​IMG] )

    To take it back to Davinci Code, Brown's book has Mary Magdelene pregnant at the time of Christ's death - his blood in her chalice etc - so following his storyline, Christ wasnt actually a father at the time of his death. However point taken, it would have been irresponsible of Him to have impregnated her knowing that his death was looming.

    Maybe the pill let her down, happens to the best of us [​IMG]

    Of course the flip side is that it would have been highly highly irregular for a 30-something Jewish man in that time to have been unmarried, but then, no one ever accused Christ of being 'regular'

    No, Im certainly not desperate for Christ to have been married, Im just kinda curious whether it actually really matters or not. I guess to generations of vow-of-celibacy-priests, who took the vow to emulate Christ's own celibacy, then it may well be a sore point, but otherwise, I not so sure its important at all.

    I dont regard the book as anything other than a very entertaining read, but it certainly has some interesting thoughtstarters in it, so read the above as Matt-is-interested-in-the-topic rather than 'Matt thinks Brown wrote a textbook'
     
  13. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    No, Im certainly not desperate for Christ to have been married, Im just kinda curious whether it actually really matters or not. I guess to generations of vow-of-celibacy-priests, who took the vow to emulate Christ's own celibacy, then it may well be a sore point, but otherwise, I not so sure its important at all.
    Well, I'm not Catholic, am married and have three children.

    The Bible actually is quite negative about attempts to forbid marriage:

    Jesus, in Matthew 19, does make the point that marriage is a choice that you can either make or not, but that if you do you need to be prepared for the commitment of it. Paul points out (1 Cor 7:26) that in that particular time of "distress" (ie, persecution) that remaining unmarried would be a prudent choice.
     
  14. Matt

    Matt Senior member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    Well, I'm not Catholic, am married and have three children.
    yup I know - and gorgeous kids they are too. How is the newest one coming along? Havent seen pics in a while...she must be 6 months or so now, right?
     
  15. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    'Rabbi' simply means 'teacher' to my understanding. It was not an office to be held but rather, as globetrotter states, one was a rabbi if there were willing students to teach. In modern Judaism, and globetrotter would be more of an authority here, certainly, it has a stricter definition and a formal association with a synagogue.

    in the past, "rabbis" usually had a real job - some of the best have been doctors, lens grinders, etc. in the pat 150 years or so, the curriculum has been formalized, and it is more of a career - the rabbi is the employee of a synagogue or temple. very different.
     
  16. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    I see it like this (and pardon me, Alan, for commenting on something that you believe in, I mean no disrespect)

    a number of gospels were written. maybe as many as 10 times as many as were included in the bible. all were written 1-3 generations after the events had occured, and each held slightly different perspectives. each included what they knew and what they considered relevant and important about the events and about jesus. at one point, some of these were included, and many were not, in the bible.there would be a debate as to wether the final editor was divinly guided, or not. the various churches have a stake in protecting the idea that the "right" gospels were included - if not, this raises the possibility of weaknesses in the whole story.

    so, I don't see it so much as a problem of what if jesus had a family, as much as "what if we chose the wrong books to include in the bible?" this would freak me out, too.
     
  17. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    I see it like this (and pardon me, Alan, for commenting on something that you believe in, I mean no disrespect)

    a number of gospels were written. maybe as many as 10 times as many as were included in the bible. all were written 1-3 generations after the events had occured, and each held slightly different perspectives. each included what they knew and what they considered relevant and important about the events and about jesus. at one point, some of these were included, and many were not, in the bible.there would be a debate as to wether the final editor was divinly guided, or not. the various churches have a stake in protecting the idea that the "right" gospels were included - if not, this raises the possibility of weaknesses in the whole story.

    so, I don't see it so much as a problem of what if jesus had a family, as much as "what if we chose the wrong books to include in the bible?" this would freak me out, too.


    i've just got the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, it will be an interesting read. it's about just such a question. Indeed, it is well known that the text of the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory in many places. Adding to this vexatious problem is the fact that hardly any of the text is "original scripture"; in other words it has been transcribed, translated, and interpreted many times by many people from many eras, spanning hundreds of years. There is absolutely no way to know what the original, so-called 'inspired' text was.

    And we base our current religious beliefs on this. Not a big deal for most christians, but to the evangelicals and fundamentalists, who believe in the literality of it...

    For example, what if Judas was not 'the betrayer', but rather, as his recently-discovered gospel suggests, was merely playing his part in helping fulfill the prophesy? This would seem to be a radical new way of looking at the crucifixion story. Did the right books get picked for inclusion in the canon? Did the right translations and interpretations get made? How far removed are we, exactly, from the true Word of God?

    In the end, the bible is a book for humans, written by humans. Belief creates its truth, not the other way 'round.

    humbly submitted,

    /andrew


    ***edit - just to keep it on topic, i haven't read the DV Code. it sounds like a fun book though. i don't care if it's fiction or if it claims facts that aren't true. (same way i don't care if the bible is fallible or even *gasp* fiction.)
     
  18. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    For example, what if Judas was not 'the betrayer', but rather, as his recently-discovered gospel suggests, was merely playing his part in helping fulfill the prophesy? This would seem to be a radical new way of looking at the crucifixion story. Did the right books get picked for inclusion in the canon? Did the right translations and interpretations get made? How far removed are we, exactly, from the true Word of God?

    But the so-called Judas Gospel is not "his gospel". No one argues that he wrote it. It is a Gnostic gospel written 150+ years after Judas. It would be like me writing a gospel narrative of, say, John Wilkes Booth, and calling the 'Gospel of Wilkes' and then insisting it tells the real story.

    There is actually a phenomenal amount of documentary evidence for the NT (and OT for that matter) writings, and their historical integrity, moreso than any other ancient documents. We have portions of Biblical texts that extend at least to the early 2nd Century, which is amazingly early for an ancient document. We have Biblical quotes within the writings of early Christian writers dating to the very early years of the 2nd Century. These quotes and early fragments match up with the known texts. The reality is there is very little question about the integrity of the Biblical texts, perhaps 2% have some question about them and almost none of those passages have doctrinal import.

    The idea that there was some sort of systematic attempt to change Scripture is quite frankly ridiculous. Any such attempts would be checked by the sheer volume of Biblical documents out there.

    As for the process of developing the canon, it too was not the decision of some council hundreds of years after the fact, but was rather the recognition of what were already accepted books. There are early canon lists from the 2nd Century that match up very closely with what have today, and where those don't match up it's because they were more exclusive than our current list, not less. Sure, some books were excluded, but this was based on authorship, etc. If Bob the Crackpot ran up with a book that he just wrote it's likely it would be excluded. Not everything has equal claim to consideration. We recognize that in every aspect of our lives.

    I would suggest taking a look at The New Testament Documents by F.F. Bruce and The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger.
     
  19. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    Apostle: Please go away!
    Comicus: All right all right! Jesus!
    Jesus: Yes?

    Judas: No. No. Leave us alone!
    Comicus: All right, all right! Jesus!
    Jesus: Yes.
    Comicus: What?
    Jesus: What?
    Comicus: What?
    Jesus: Yes.
    Comicus: Jesus!
    Jesus: Yes.
    Comicus: What?
    Jesus: What?
    Comicus: You said what.
    Jesus: Yes.
    Comicus: Nothing.

    Jon.
     
  20. AlanC

    AlanC Senior member

    Messages:
    7,805
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Location:
    Heart of America
    Where 'Da Vinci' meets Style Forum:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by