Da Vinci Code Question

Jen199

I read the book when it first came out a few years back. I'm a bit vague on the specifics now but the one thing that stayed with me from it was it claimed near the start, that Christ was 'chosen' as the son of god from a list of other 'prophets' 200 years after his death. This was around the time that the stink kicked off about the Holy Grail and I was surprised no one ever picked up on this point. For me it was much more controversial. Does anyone have any information on this point, be it in agreement or disagreement?

The Hill Billy

This is one of the many instances where Dan Brown has twisted facts to suit his plot line.

Excerpt from ChristianityToday.com:

Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base ... created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.

Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325...

...Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.

In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."

In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord...1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."

The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific)...

...pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name...

The participating bishops [of the Council of Nicea] merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.


Full text at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html for more info on this.


The truth is out there...

Dades

Hill Billy wrote:

The truth is out there...

I would suggest the truth is back there... never to be seen again.

Isn't the bible somewhat partisan to be quoted in support of Jesus' divinity?

Sapien

The Atheist wrote:

I would suggest the truth is back there... never to be seen again.

Isn't the bible somewhat partisan to be quoted in support of Jesus' divinity?

Yes. ChristianityToday.com unsurprisingly misses the point. The Council of Nicea above all else decided which texts were orthodox and which heterodox. It chose those texts representing the "Fully Human, Fully Divine" theology and rejected all others. That the modern (post fourth century) canon reflects modern theology is something of a truism. Heresy, like history, is determined by the victors.

Browne's version is no more or less historical than that of the Church (apart from being a little more plausible, what with leaving out the whole Resurrection thingummy). The point is that it is another version. The existence of varying accounts and a phase of theological uncertainty in the Early Church is something about which the christian doesn't like to think.

robindch

> The Council of Nicea above all else decided which texts were orthodox
> and which heterodox. It chose those texts representing the "Fully
> Human, Fully Divine" theology and rejected all others.

What's your knowledge of how these texts were chosen from the various ones available to them? I've heard a number of conflicting accounts of the method of choosing, none of which suggest that the Councillors were anything more than human.

Sapien

robindch wrote:

What's your knowledge of how these texts were chosen from the various ones available to them? I've heard a number of conflicting accounts of the method of choosing, none of which suggest that the Councillors were anything more than human.

Precisely. And to suggest that their choices are questionable merely because they may not have been directed by God is a kindness, in my opinion.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

What's your knowledge of how these texts were chosen from the various ones available to them? I've heard a number of conflicting accounts of the method of choosing, none of which suggest that the Councillors were anything more than human.

I am not sure that anyone knows the real answer. Opinions, mine included, favor that it was a gradual process that took place over the 2, 3 4 and 5th centuries. As the church grew and became more organized, and influential, more and more works were considered to be heretical and were subsequently destroyed. Check the link at the bottom out. It gives many references to source materials.

What is know about that time is that the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two main factions. Constantine offered to make the lesser-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

One fact that is documented is that of the 300 bishops present all save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to the new creed, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

Scofflaw

I can't resist this, although it is of no use to anyone - from an article describing the reaction of church groups to the da Vinci Code:

Mail & Guardian Online wrote:

"There's nothing to get whipped up about, even for a member of the Opus Dei," said Marc Aellen, secretary general of a Catholic cinema association.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

I can't resist this, although it is of no use to anyone:

Its very funny, however, for your trouble, Out of the door. Line on the left. One cross. Next:D