Brou’ha ha on “The Da Vinci Code”
Mohammad Gill March 28, 2005
#46 Posted by freethinker on April 3, 2005 2:56:04 pm
SR:
Thanks for your informative feedback. Religions are creation of human imagination. That is the reason that there are so many internal conflicts in them. The element of divinity iinjected in the religions has sealed the orthodox mind. Any criticism of religion is considered blasphemous and hence punishable by death.
Christianity, after a long history of tyranny, has lost its tyraannical powers. Consequently, its followers have undertaken research for self analysis and self criticism.
They have started questioning why only four gospels have been included in the New Testament; why not others? Other gospels have been discovered and published which show varying viewpoints and facts from those of the cannonical gospels. At present, I am reading the gospel of Mary Magdalene. She probaby was the wife of Jesus Christ. If it`s true, the concept of Christ`s celibacy goes out of the window. The concept of Son of God is also on the anvil of research and criticism. In spite of all this, people will always believe in divine religions because faith in `divine` fulfills the human need for spirituality, which is okay. The persecution and discrimination on religious grounds should however not be allowed. Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
Thanks for your informative feedback. Religions are creation of human imagination. That is the reason that there are so many internal conflicts in them. The element of divinity iinjected in the religions has sealed the orthodox mind. Any criticism of religion is considered blasphemous and hence punishable by death.
Christianity, after a long history of tyranny, has lost its tyraannical powers. Consequently, its followers have undertaken research for self analysis and self criticism.
They have started questioning why only four gospels have been included in the New Testament; why not others? Other gospels have been discovered and published which show varying viewpoints and facts from those of the cannonical gospels. At present, I am reading the gospel of Mary Magdalene. She probaby was the wife of Jesus Christ. If it`s true, the concept of Christ`s celibacy goes out of the window. The concept of Son of God is also on the anvil of research and criticism. In spite of all this, people will always believe in divine religions because faith in `divine` fulfills the human need for spirituality, which is okay. The persecution and discrimination on religious grounds should however not be allowed. Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#45 Posted by SR on April 3, 2005 2:09:03 pm
Gill sahib,
Thanks for your efforts. Though I am late reading this debate, I`m glad you`ve brought it up. Interesting subject, this one: theological history. Though I agree with those who consider Brown`s book a cheap thriller (liked the ``remix`` analogy that someone gave, except that many of the remixes are actually improvements on the original songs, but that`s another issue)...
I`m glad you cleared the commonly held (mistaken) view among many Muslims that Paul was a couple of centuries after Jesus. It is noteworthy that the teachings of Jesus were also, originally, written down within a couple of decades of his crucifixition, as were, I might add, the teachings of Muhammad within a couple of decades of his death. The confusion probably arises from the fact that none of those very early written records survive today. The earliest manuscripts of the gospels and the letters that survive today are from the second and the third century. These surviving manuscripts are copies of the originals that later got lost. This is now known because after the the church establishment lost its political clout, the European scholars were able to dig deep and bring such details to light. Unfortunately, the Muslim world has not reached that level of political stability where the earlier manuscripts can be publicly discussed. In order to get there we shall first have to ``de-mystify`` scripture.
It would be very instructive, for instance, to read the minutes of the committee meetings (assuming such records were kept somewhere) chaired by Mirwan, in Usman`s reign, wherein the ``authentic`` portions of the Quran were compiled together in ``complete`` form. That was the nearest equivalent to the First Council of Niece in Islam. But no one talks about these things in the Muslim world. It is my understanding that some old Quranic manuscripts -- actually three rival versions -- are preserved, inaccessibly, in the archives of the Al-Ahraam in Egypt. I hope they come to light and are fully studied and examined. That would be the nearest equivalent to the Dead Sea scrolls of Islam.
The Arian controversey was the culmination of a couple of centuries of proliferation of rival views that sprang forth from the ``mystery of Golgotha``... According to Wil Durant, Jesus was probably alive (but unconscious) when removed from the cross by roman centurians. Obviously they must be under Pontus Pilate`s prders. It follows therefore that he later escaped, perhaps with Roman help. From Pontus Pilate`s point of view it would make sense. Appease both sides. The Temple priests were appeased by crucifying the renegade Jew from Bethelham... and his followers were passified by letting his escape. Those few intimate ones who were in the know, connived to spread the myth that he has ``risen``... Mirza sahib of Qadian took it a step further and ended up with him in Kashmir. Personally, I love the idea, though no one can really know what actually happened. However, the cross-polination of ideas that was going on in those days between the ancient cultures` myths and the newer myths, uggests that there was a lot of ``ideological traffic`` between India, Persia and Rome. Judea was just a Roman province at the cross roads of this ``traffic``...
In 255 BC, for instance, after the Third Buddhist council, Ashoke the great sent wave after wave of Buddhist monks to the known empires of the day. Damascus supposedly had a lsizable Buddhist mission as did Alexanderia. I have often wondered, if Paul`s three year disappearance in Damascus somehow coincided with him coming in contact with the Buddhists?
Coming back to c. 300s AD, the evolution of theology worked in jerky steps, back and forth. After the Edict of Milan (313 AD) and the ``Gift of Constantine`` (where churches were exempted from taxation) the church establishment gathered a lot of power and became an important instrument of the state. Constantine`s only interest was in achieveing unanimity of doctrine so as not to risk political instability in his newly re-unified empire. Arius lost the vote and Athanasius won (Bishop Alexander was already dead by the time the council was convened)... but not for long. In 335 when Constantine died and his son`s started a succession war, the ultimate victor was Constantius. It just so happens that Constantius was an Arian and during his almost three decades reign the Arian doctrine was not heresy but was the official creed. God the Father was the creator, and thus superior to God the Son... etc.
It is noteworthy that in the year 342-343 AD more christians killed other christians than the Romans had killed in the preceding three hundred years. All this killing took place because of the stupid dispute over whether God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial and co-eternal or not. One sees a similar fratricide in Islamic history, beginning with Banu-Omiyya vs Banu-Abbas and going on down the centuries.
Even today we burn people alive by setting their houses aflame because some sect says this or that... e.g., the Ahmedi interpretation of the phrase ``khatim-oun-Nabiyeen``.. where the word ``khatam`` is the point of dispute. It`s all very ridiculous and very sad. It is easy to see the absurdities of other people`s religions but most of us are blinded by faith that we cannot see our own absurdities. In this sense you`ve done a favor by bring up this issue of the christian theological absurdities because hopefully some young people may begin to think about their own religion.
Religions evolve and adapt over time. But each generation, devoid of historical perspective, sees their religion as immutable and ultimately truthful. It is useful to show to young people that there is a lot of cross-fertilization of ideologies amongst various rival religions. The early christians used to have the same seven prayer services as does Islam (seven includes ``tahajat`` and ``ishraaq`` along with the regular five) -- so in fact Islam was an improvement at the time, a liberation of sorts... only five prayer services a day in stead of seven as with the christians.
Another example is the dispute between iconoclasts and iconodules (i.e., those who disapproved of pictures and statues vs those who used the images in prayer service). This dispute was also of long standing. Iconoclasts had the upper hand from the Trullan Council of 692 until Empress Irene restored the use of images with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 ... The struggle still went on. In 813 Leo V banned icons again and so it went on until Empress Theodora II, in 842 sided with the iconodules and restored the ruling of the council of 787, the second Council of Nicaea, organized by Empress Irene. Theodora replaced the patriarch who was iconoclast with a patriarch who was iconodule. Thousands dies in this controversey over hundreds of years.
Today the average Muslim sees his own religion as iconoclastic and considers hinduism and christianity as Iconic cults...
At this point I feel like I`ve lost my train of thought... thanx
...SR
Thanks for your efforts. Though I am late reading this debate, I`m glad you`ve brought it up. Interesting subject, this one: theological history. Though I agree with those who consider Brown`s book a cheap thriller (liked the ``remix`` analogy that someone gave, except that many of the remixes are actually improvements on the original songs, but that`s another issue)...
I`m glad you cleared the commonly held (mistaken) view among many Muslims that Paul was a couple of centuries after Jesus. It is noteworthy that the teachings of Jesus were also, originally, written down within a couple of decades of his crucifixition, as were, I might add, the teachings of Muhammad within a couple of decades of his death. The confusion probably arises from the fact that none of those very early written records survive today. The earliest manuscripts of the gospels and the letters that survive today are from the second and the third century. These surviving manuscripts are copies of the originals that later got lost. This is now known because after the the church establishment lost its political clout, the European scholars were able to dig deep and bring such details to light. Unfortunately, the Muslim world has not reached that level of political stability where the earlier manuscripts can be publicly discussed. In order to get there we shall first have to ``de-mystify`` scripture.
It would be very instructive, for instance, to read the minutes of the committee meetings (assuming such records were kept somewhere) chaired by Mirwan, in Usman`s reign, wherein the ``authentic`` portions of the Quran were compiled together in ``complete`` form. That was the nearest equivalent to the First Council of Niece in Islam. But no one talks about these things in the Muslim world. It is my understanding that some old Quranic manuscripts -- actually three rival versions -- are preserved, inaccessibly, in the archives of the Al-Ahraam in Egypt. I hope they come to light and are fully studied and examined. That would be the nearest equivalent to the Dead Sea scrolls of Islam.
The Arian controversey was the culmination of a couple of centuries of proliferation of rival views that sprang forth from the ``mystery of Golgotha``... According to Wil Durant, Jesus was probably alive (but unconscious) when removed from the cross by roman centurians. Obviously they must be under Pontus Pilate`s prders. It follows therefore that he later escaped, perhaps with Roman help. From Pontus Pilate`s point of view it would make sense. Appease both sides. The Temple priests were appeased by crucifying the renegade Jew from Bethelham... and his followers were passified by letting his escape. Those few intimate ones who were in the know, connived to spread the myth that he has ``risen``... Mirza sahib of Qadian took it a step further and ended up with him in Kashmir. Personally, I love the idea, though no one can really know what actually happened. However, the cross-polination of ideas that was going on in those days between the ancient cultures` myths and the newer myths, uggests that there was a lot of ``ideological traffic`` between India, Persia and Rome. Judea was just a Roman province at the cross roads of this ``traffic``...
In 255 BC, for instance, after the Third Buddhist council, Ashoke the great sent wave after wave of Buddhist monks to the known empires of the day. Damascus supposedly had a lsizable Buddhist mission as did Alexanderia. I have often wondered, if Paul`s three year disappearance in Damascus somehow coincided with him coming in contact with the Buddhists?
Coming back to c. 300s AD, the evolution of theology worked in jerky steps, back and forth. After the Edict of Milan (313 AD) and the ``Gift of Constantine`` (where churches were exempted from taxation) the church establishment gathered a lot of power and became an important instrument of the state. Constantine`s only interest was in achieveing unanimity of doctrine so as not to risk political instability in his newly re-unified empire. Arius lost the vote and Athanasius won (Bishop Alexander was already dead by the time the council was convened)... but not for long. In 335 when Constantine died and his son`s started a succession war, the ultimate victor was Constantius. It just so happens that Constantius was an Arian and during his almost three decades reign the Arian doctrine was not heresy but was the official creed. God the Father was the creator, and thus superior to God the Son... etc.
It is noteworthy that in the year 342-343 AD more christians killed other christians than the Romans had killed in the preceding three hundred years. All this killing took place because of the stupid dispute over whether God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial and co-eternal or not. One sees a similar fratricide in Islamic history, beginning with Banu-Omiyya vs Banu-Abbas and going on down the centuries.
Even today we burn people alive by setting their houses aflame because some sect says this or that... e.g., the Ahmedi interpretation of the phrase ``khatim-oun-Nabiyeen``.. where the word ``khatam`` is the point of dispute. It`s all very ridiculous and very sad. It is easy to see the absurdities of other people`s religions but most of us are blinded by faith that we cannot see our own absurdities. In this sense you`ve done a favor by bring up this issue of the christian theological absurdities because hopefully some young people may begin to think about their own religion.
Religions evolve and adapt over time. But each generation, devoid of historical perspective, sees their religion as immutable and ultimately truthful. It is useful to show to young people that there is a lot of cross-fertilization of ideologies amongst various rival religions. The early christians used to have the same seven prayer services as does Islam (seven includes ``tahajat`` and ``ishraaq`` along with the regular five) -- so in fact Islam was an improvement at the time, a liberation of sorts... only five prayer services a day in stead of seven as with the christians.
Another example is the dispute between iconoclasts and iconodules (i.e., those who disapproved of pictures and statues vs those who used the images in prayer service). This dispute was also of long standing. Iconoclasts had the upper hand from the Trullan Council of 692 until Empress Irene restored the use of images with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 ... The struggle still went on. In 813 Leo V banned icons again and so it went on until Empress Theodora II, in 842 sided with the iconodules and restored the ruling of the council of 787, the second Council of Nicaea, organized by Empress Irene. Theodora replaced the patriarch who was iconoclast with a patriarch who was iconodule. Thousands dies in this controversey over hundreds of years.
Today the average Muslim sees his own religion as iconoclastic and considers hinduism and christianity as Iconic cults...
At this point I feel like I`ve lost my train of thought... thanx
...SR
#43 Posted by echoboom on April 1, 2005 12:50:14 pm
AlephNull:
If you can read it:
Somewhere in the middle the columnist has quoted Coomarswamy and the clarification & definition of `myth` is there--just as you explained. The sentence in english says it elegently. Please note.
It is a Figure of speech of figure of thought.
Have you read this definition before?
This is from one of Pakistan`s leading dailies, operated by Madressa educated people of Jam`aat-e Islami.
Far Far superior to our anglo-poxed writers.
If you can read it:
Somewhere in the middle the columnist has quoted Coomarswamy and the clarification & definition of `myth` is there--just as you explained. The sentence in english says it elegently. Please note.
It is a Figure of speech of figure of thought.
Have you read this definition before?
This is from one of Pakistan`s leading dailies, operated by Madressa educated people of Jam`aat-e Islami.
Far Far superior to our anglo-poxed writers.
#42 Posted by BeeJay on March 31, 2005 9:27:07 pm
Freethinker:
Just a few comments:
[They let him off because it was just a silly prank.]
Pre-9/11 world, of course!
[the mystery of Agatha Christys novels,]
Freethinker, you have now got this ardent Agatha Christie fan mad like heck, and the reason is obvious!
[People believe in such myths because of religious rivalry. They have to defend their faith at all costs.]
Really!! Where did this come from?! Completely out of the blue without anything in your text to support it! Pure, unvarnished OPINION! And the switch from description to opinion is not even smooth.
Freethinker, how many articles you need to write before it sinks in that faith requires no supporting structures because it IS the supporting structure and as such, needs no defence.
Sincerely,
BeeJay
#41 Posted by semipreciousme on March 31, 2005 6:44:37 pm
....as i mentioned somewhere else here, this was umberto eco lite... for the real thing try his foucault`s pendulum....
#40 Posted by echoboom on March 29, 2005 6:21:31 pm
AlephNull:39
Yes I did misunderstand you and thanks for a very good return-post indeed. I am also delighted to know that you could understand my post as well. I do not write very well given the spontaneous eddies & swhirls of what I call mistake for thoughts. Too unbridled , too messed-up.
I am not a very well-read person AlephNull but your interacting here gives me the feeling that I was after-all able to sop off , albeit somewhat, such arcane & perhaps ``exotic`` neuronisms. (Just coined it: Couldn`t think of any `right` word)
Yes I did misunderstand you and thanks for a very good return-post indeed. I am also delighted to know that you could understand my post as well. I do not write very well given the spontaneous eddies & swhirls of what I call mistake for thoughts. Too unbridled , too messed-up.
I am not a very well-read person AlephNull but your interacting here gives me the feeling that I was after-all able to sop off , albeit somewhat, such arcane & perhaps ``exotic`` neuronisms. (Just coined it: Couldn`t think of any `right` word)
#39 Posted by AlephNull on March 29, 2005 5:56:44 pm
Echoboom #28
One of us (at least) may have misunderstood some of what the other was trying to say. You be the judge.
You write:
{{Even if there is `historical` existence (of anyone) as opposed to `mythological` existence it is still OUR understanding within the prevailing contexts of Time & Space. It has become our lot. It is US now.}}
I understand this very well; it was implicit in what I wrote. I was using the word myth not in the sense of falsehood/fiction/fabrication but in the sense of a traditional story or collection of motifs that encapsulates the outlook of a people. This is the older and certainly the more substantial meaning of the word. The significance of a myth is not whether it is true or false but that people believe in it. The power of a particular myth is judged by the extent of its hold over the collective imagination of a people. The most powerful myths occurring in multiple cultures - may speak of universals of the human condition.
One could believe a myth literally i.e., say that it narrates in detail events that actually occurred; children fall naturally into this pattern of belief. Alternatively, one might understand that a myth, even if spun around a small kernel of real events, may have been embellished with details, symbols, metaphors, not to be factually accurate but to build up an archetype. I dont think the power of a myth, in this skeptical age, is diminished by the second kind of belief or understanding; if anything, it may be broadened and enriched.
{{Perhaps unbeknown to us a similar Faustian opera is going on around us. Perhaps we have hallowed the priests(not mullahs!) of science to the point of divinity. Maybe a day will come when all this would be ``mythology``.}}
Science is mythology even today. Its more powerful, if abstract, myths include causality, local interaction, evolution by natural selection. The most powerful scientific myths are perhaps belief in existence of an objective reality, and in a simple underlying description of nature. What makes scientific myths beliefs - so powerful is precisely that they seem to describe what actually occurs in such impressive detail. If all this turns out eventually to have been a shadow play, so be it.
{{A whole ``science`` of ids & libidos was concocted and `life` was breathed into them so that they became sacred, hallowed, spiritual in the corridors of ``science``. Whole generations of innocents were crucified at the altar of this religion & on the behest of its `prophet`. The sacraments were Research & Experiment.}}
I dont consider Freuds categories scientific they seem unfalsifiable. They are dangerously seductive metaphors though a new (or updated) mythos whose creation in the recent past is fairly well-documented.
{{Names, names Deconstructionism gives one the illusion of acquiring ``knowledge``. We have become prisoners of the written word & perhaps that is supposed to be our Destiny.}}
Deconstructionism` [in the sense of a currently fashion in academe, which denies a tangible objective reality and regards interpretation of texts as a primary activity] is *not* what I saw myself engaged in. I was describing a plausible reconstruction of what actually happened, what people actually believed in the early centuries of the Common Era. Id known for decades that the Dying God motif in religion preceded the advent of Christianity by several centuries at least. I was also aware of the scantiness of evidence for a historical Jesus. Until recently it made little difference to me beyond strengthening my cynicism towards traditional Christian dogma. The recently published alternative hypothesis of Christianity originating as Judaized paganism ties up lots of loose ends, provides a satisfying reconstruction of the past that doesnt require me to suspend my disbelief, and also shows up the religion in a far better light than hitherto (for me at least). This, too, is myth, and may well be false. Perhaps time will tell.
One of us (at least) may have misunderstood some of what the other was trying to say. You be the judge.
You write:
{{Even if there is `historical` existence (of anyone) as opposed to `mythological` existence it is still OUR understanding within the prevailing contexts of Time & Space. It has become our lot. It is US now.}}
I understand this very well; it was implicit in what I wrote. I was using the word myth not in the sense of falsehood/fiction/fabrication but in the sense of a traditional story or collection of motifs that encapsulates the outlook of a people. This is the older and certainly the more substantial meaning of the word. The significance of a myth is not whether it is true or false but that people believe in it. The power of a particular myth is judged by the extent of its hold over the collective imagination of a people. The most powerful myths occurring in multiple cultures - may speak of universals of the human condition.
One could believe a myth literally i.e., say that it narrates in detail events that actually occurred; children fall naturally into this pattern of belief. Alternatively, one might understand that a myth, even if spun around a small kernel of real events, may have been embellished with details, symbols, metaphors, not to be factually accurate but to build up an archetype. I dont think the power of a myth, in this skeptical age, is diminished by the second kind of belief or understanding; if anything, it may be broadened and enriched.
{{Perhaps unbeknown to us a similar Faustian opera is going on around us. Perhaps we have hallowed the priests(not mullahs!) of science to the point of divinity. Maybe a day will come when all this would be ``mythology``.}}
Science is mythology even today. Its more powerful, if abstract, myths include causality, local interaction, evolution by natural selection. The most powerful scientific myths are perhaps belief in existence of an objective reality, and in a simple underlying description of nature. What makes scientific myths beliefs - so powerful is precisely that they seem to describe what actually occurs in such impressive detail. If all this turns out eventually to have been a shadow play, so be it.
{{A whole ``science`` of ids & libidos was concocted and `life` was breathed into them so that they became sacred, hallowed, spiritual in the corridors of ``science``. Whole generations of innocents were crucified at the altar of this religion & on the behest of its `prophet`. The sacraments were Research & Experiment.}}
I dont consider Freuds categories scientific they seem unfalsifiable. They are dangerously seductive metaphors though a new (or updated) mythos whose creation in the recent past is fairly well-documented.
{{Names, names Deconstructionism gives one the illusion of acquiring ``knowledge``. We have become prisoners of the written word & perhaps that is supposed to be our Destiny.}}
Deconstructionism` [in the sense of a currently fashion in academe, which denies a tangible objective reality and regards interpretation of texts as a primary activity] is *not* what I saw myself engaged in. I was describing a plausible reconstruction of what actually happened, what people actually believed in the early centuries of the Common Era. Id known for decades that the Dying God motif in religion preceded the advent of Christianity by several centuries at least. I was also aware of the scantiness of evidence for a historical Jesus. Until recently it made little difference to me beyond strengthening my cynicism towards traditional Christian dogma. The recently published alternative hypothesis of Christianity originating as Judaized paganism ties up lots of loose ends, provides a satisfying reconstruction of the past that doesnt require me to suspend my disbelief, and also shows up the religion in a far better light than hitherto (for me at least). This, too, is myth, and may well be false. Perhaps time will tell.
#38 Posted by freethinker on March 29, 2005 5:25:31 pm
Interactors:
I apologise for a mistake that I committed in my last post. The sermon was not preached by John Shelby Spong; it was preached by Rev. Scott Shreve of St. Luke Methodist Church, Omaha, Nebraska. The sermon was based on John Shelby Spong`s book ``Born of a Woman.``
Sorry for this mix up.
Mohammad Gill
I apologise for a mistake that I committed in my last post. The sermon was not preached by John Shelby Spong; it was preached by Rev. Scott Shreve of St. Luke Methodist Church, Omaha, Nebraska. The sermon was based on John Shelby Spong`s book ``Born of a Woman.``
Sorry for this mix up.
Mohammad Gill
#37 Posted by DrDr on March 29, 2005 5:21:32 pm
The idea that Jesus was married 2 Mary comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think. The DSS offer a competing & mundane version of Jesus` life - marriage, no resurrection, etc. Ultimately mythologies take on a life of their own & the real-life Jesus is only incidental 2 Xtianity. The religion is the collective work of all the believers.
#36 Posted by freethinker on March 29, 2005 4:55:09 pm
I am intrigued by the story of Mary Magdalene. This story is not trivial as the following quote from John Spong`s sermon shows.
John Shelby Spong is a retired Episcopalian Bishop. In the Sermon that he preached on March 28, 2004, he dealt with Mary Magdalene`s relationship with Jesus Christ. After examining Biblical texts, he said, ``All the hints we have explored are biblically based but not conclusive. Yet, the hints can suggest that Mary Magdalene, as the primary woman in the gospel story itself, could very well have been Jesus` wife, and that this record was suppressed, but not annihilated, by the Christian church before the gospels came to be written. The biblical hints are not conclusive but now have a greater understanding regarding the origin (of) the Mary/Jesus speculation. These hints have found their way into contemporary plays, books and scholarly speculation.``
The possibility that Jesus could have been married to Mary Magdalene, an earthly woman, has devastating consequences for the conventional believers. Can Son of God be married to an earthly woman? Was Mary Magdalene a Goddess? These are strange kind of thoughts which emanate from Jesus` relationship with Mary Magdalene. Yet at the same time they are not very strange. Because religious belief is mythological and out of this world.
Mohammad Gill
John Shelby Spong is a retired Episcopalian Bishop. In the Sermon that he preached on March 28, 2004, he dealt with Mary Magdalene`s relationship with Jesus Christ. After examining Biblical texts, he said, ``All the hints we have explored are biblically based but not conclusive. Yet, the hints can suggest that Mary Magdalene, as the primary woman in the gospel story itself, could very well have been Jesus` wife, and that this record was suppressed, but not annihilated, by the Christian church before the gospels came to be written. The biblical hints are not conclusive but now have a greater understanding regarding the origin (of) the Mary/Jesus speculation. These hints have found their way into contemporary plays, books and scholarly speculation.``
The possibility that Jesus could have been married to Mary Magdalene, an earthly woman, has devastating consequences for the conventional believers. Can Son of God be married to an earthly woman? Was Mary Magdalene a Goddess? These are strange kind of thoughts which emanate from Jesus` relationship with Mary Magdalene. Yet at the same time they are not very strange. Because religious belief is mythological and out of this world.
Mohammad Gill
#35 Posted by sattar2 on March 29, 2005 11:28:43 am
My understanding is that present day Christianity is very much influenced by views of Paul which diverge significantly from the actual teachings of Christ.
Paul, the twelfth disciple
Paul, also referred to as the twelfth disciple of Jesus, came about some time (a few decades?) after crucifixion of Christ. He apparently never met Jesus and seemed interested in religious leadership. Up until then the person of Jesus, his crucifixion, his teachings were non-events in that a man went about telling parables, was crucified, and his body later disappeared no big deal. Significance, or lack thereof, involving Jesus changed as Paul capitalized on it.
Spread of Christianity
Jesus birth, as well as his death remained shrouded in mystery ... he claimed to be son of god and the messiah, and so on. Paul claimed that those who accept Jesus as the Savior will experience Jesus in this very life. Furthermore, Jesus resides in heavens with Father Lord and will eventually return to earth to meet with and save the believers (more on this later).
To further add to mass appeal of Christianity, Paul incorporated notion of vicarious sacrifice: God sacrificed His Son to atone for sins of mankind. Vicarious atonement was commonly practiced by pagans who sacrificed animals and humans as a way to atone for their own sins. The pagan belief was that the sacrificed animal/human pays for the sins of others.
As already mentioned around 300-or-so AD the Council of Nicaea voted to accept Christ as son of God. If I recall reading correctly, the Council also voted on authenticity of several accounts of events regarding crucifixion of Christ. Accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were declared most authentic and termed the Gospels.
Islamic views and mainstream Muslim views
Islam seems to have negated mainstream Christian faith by claiming that God does not have a father or son man is responsible for this own actions Jesus was a prophet and prophets are mortal humans like everyone else etc. etc.
However, sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) added to the complexity of the issue. He reportedly stated that God Almighty will cause Jesus, son of Mary, to return to earth in latter days. This seems to jive at least partly with traditional Christian views. To add to the complexity, some verses of Quran are also interpreted to show that Jesus was physically raised to heavens where he resides in bodily form.
My own views
My understanding is that Jesus was nailed to the cross, was later taken down while still alive, and was nursed to health. He then left Jerusalem and migrated eastward in search of tribes of Israel. He eventually died and is buried in Kashmir. This is based on my understanding of the gospels, Quran, and smattering of research by historians (the Code not being one of them ).
Significance of the issue ...
Christ plays a critical role in three major religions. If it turns out that he was merely a mortal human who survived crucifixion it strikes at fundamental understanding of these religions.
- Jews tried to kill Jesus, in order to prove that he was a blasphemer, and therefore lacked divine support. Jesus surviving crufixion deals a blow to the views of mainstream Judaism.
- Christians accepted Christ, but as the Son of God, who will return later to save the mankind.
- Muslims believe that Christ was a human, a prophet, who resides above the clouds and will one day return to earth to lead Muslims to their ultimate victory.
Books like the Code stir the pot and get under everyones skin for obvious reasons. Efforts at separating truth, from fiction, from creative writing, from speculation can go on and on and hence the uproar everywhere regarding the Code
#34 Posted by Saminasha on March 29, 2005 10:53:50 am
March 27, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Vatican Code
By MAUREEN DOWD
Some may mock the Vatican for waiting until everyone on earth has read ``The Da Vinci Code`` to denounce ``The Da Vinci Code.``
I am not one of them. It`s Easter, and I don`t want to blot my catechism.
It`s a little late, now that the two-year-old thriller by Dan Brown is a publishing miracle - with 25 million copies sold in 44 languages, a cascade of other books inspired by the novel and a movie with Tom Hanks set to start filming this spring - for Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to intone on a Vatican radio broadcast: ``Don`t read and don`t buy `The Da Vinci Code.` ``
But when you think of the history of the Catholic Church, the Vatican is acting with lightning speed. It took the church more than 350 years to reverse its condemnation of Galileo. The Vatican only began an inquisition of the 16th-century Inquisition in 1998. It wasn`t until the reign of Pope John Paul II that the Vatican apologized for the crimes of the Crusaders and offered contrition for the silence of Catholics in the Holocaust. The church has still not apologized for shameful dissembling by its hierarchy on the sex abuse scandal. And America`s Catholic bishops only last week announced they were finally going to get serious about opposing the death penalty.
The 70-year-old cardinal assigned by the Vatican to exorcise the success of the novel is the archbishop of Genoa, a former soccer commentator and a contender to succeed the ailing pope. ``There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true,`` he told Il Giornale.
It evokes the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown flap for a Vatican official to slam Dan Brown`s fictional characters, but a former Vatican reporter explained it this way: ``The church is founded on a story that some people believe and some people don`t, so the Vatican tends to get very threatened by other versions of that story, especially racier ones.``
Mr. Brown`s zippy version has Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having children. This ``perverts the story of the Holy Grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magdalene,`` Cardinal Bertone said. ``It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies.``
The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls ``the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels`` and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker.
For years, female historians and novelists have been making the case that Mr. Brown makes, that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed, that the men who run Christianity obliterated her role as an influential apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.
The church refuses to allow women to be ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. So if Mary Magdalene was a madonna rather than a whore, the church loses its fig leaf of justification for male domination and exclusion.
It`s obvious that Vatican officials did not read to the end of Mr. Brown`s novel or they never would have denounced it.
(Caveat lector: If you have somehow missed reading the blockbuster or are one of the thrifty souls waiting for the paperback to finally come out, do not read further.)
After whipping you into a feminist frenzy over the hidden agenda of the church`s unjustly perpetuating itself as an all-male, all ``celibate`` institution - precepts that have clearly led to some unnatural perversions and attracted a disproportionate number of priests fleeing sexual confusion - Mr. Brown abruptly deflates you at the end, going along with the notion that women should stay silent and submissive, letting the men who run the church continue to run the church with men.
The woman who is the descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus tells Robert Langdon, Mr. Brown`s Harvard symbologist hero, that the secret saga of how the church smeared her ancestor as a slut and swindled all women out of serious roles in the church does not need to be aired. It can continue to remain a secret.
``Her story is being told in art, music and books,`` the woman says, adding that things are gradually changing for women: ``We are beginning to sense the need to restore the sacred feminine.``
No whistle is blown. No alarm is sounded. Talk about an anticlimax for a fantastic ride. As it turns out, Mr. Brown is not the tormentor of the Vatican, but an ally.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Vatican Code
By MAUREEN DOWD
Some may mock the Vatican for waiting until everyone on earth has read ``The Da Vinci Code`` to denounce ``The Da Vinci Code.``
I am not one of them. It`s Easter, and I don`t want to blot my catechism.
It`s a little late, now that the two-year-old thriller by Dan Brown is a publishing miracle - with 25 million copies sold in 44 languages, a cascade of other books inspired by the novel and a movie with Tom Hanks set to start filming this spring - for Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to intone on a Vatican radio broadcast: ``Don`t read and don`t buy `The Da Vinci Code.` ``
But when you think of the history of the Catholic Church, the Vatican is acting with lightning speed. It took the church more than 350 years to reverse its condemnation of Galileo. The Vatican only began an inquisition of the 16th-century Inquisition in 1998. It wasn`t until the reign of Pope John Paul II that the Vatican apologized for the crimes of the Crusaders and offered contrition for the silence of Catholics in the Holocaust. The church has still not apologized for shameful dissembling by its hierarchy on the sex abuse scandal. And America`s Catholic bishops only last week announced they were finally going to get serious about opposing the death penalty.
The 70-year-old cardinal assigned by the Vatican to exorcise the success of the novel is the archbishop of Genoa, a former soccer commentator and a contender to succeed the ailing pope. ``There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true,`` he told Il Giornale.
It evokes the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown flap for a Vatican official to slam Dan Brown`s fictional characters, but a former Vatican reporter explained it this way: ``The church is founded on a story that some people believe and some people don`t, so the Vatican tends to get very threatened by other versions of that story, especially racier ones.``
Mr. Brown`s zippy version has Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having children. This ``perverts the story of the Holy Grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magdalene,`` Cardinal Bertone said. ``It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies.``
The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls ``the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels`` and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker.
For years, female historians and novelists have been making the case that Mr. Brown makes, that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed, that the men who run Christianity obliterated her role as an influential apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.
The church refuses to allow women to be ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. So if Mary Magdalene was a madonna rather than a whore, the church loses its fig leaf of justification for male domination and exclusion.
It`s obvious that Vatican officials did not read to the end of Mr. Brown`s novel or they never would have denounced it.
(Caveat lector: If you have somehow missed reading the blockbuster or are one of the thrifty souls waiting for the paperback to finally come out, do not read further.)
After whipping you into a feminist frenzy over the hidden agenda of the church`s unjustly perpetuating itself as an all-male, all ``celibate`` institution - precepts that have clearly led to some unnatural perversions and attracted a disproportionate number of priests fleeing sexual confusion - Mr. Brown abruptly deflates you at the end, going along with the notion that women should stay silent and submissive, letting the men who run the church continue to run the church with men.
The woman who is the descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus tells Robert Langdon, Mr. Brown`s Harvard symbologist hero, that the secret saga of how the church smeared her ancestor as a slut and swindled all women out of serious roles in the church does not need to be aired. It can continue to remain a secret.
``Her story is being told in art, music and books,`` the woman says, adding that things are gradually changing for women: ``We are beginning to sense the need to restore the sacred feminine.``
No whistle is blown. No alarm is sounded. Talk about an anticlimax for a fantastic ride. As it turns out, Mr. Brown is not the tormentor of the Vatican, but an ally.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
#33 Posted by freethinker on March 29, 2005 9:50:24 am
Delhiwala:
The dates are uncertain but I reproduce a partial list of Christian chronology; see if you can extract information that you needed. Yes, Paul and Jesus Christ were contemporary. Paul converted to Christianity soon after Jesus` death (37 AD). The year of Paul`s death is somewhere between 58 and 67. Jesus was crucified in 36 AD.
Mohammad Gill
Chronology of Christianity (1AD-Present)
Last Update: 28 May 1997 (corrections made)
The purpose of this chronology is to assist Christians of any denomination in their search for knowledge and truth regarding the development of the Christian religion. The primary sources used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster`s New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M. Question marks on dates indicate approximate dates, question marks on other information indicates information which is theoretical and/or not universally accepted as fact.
1AD-36? Life of Jesus Christ
1AD First year in Christian calendar (a.d. = anno Domini) (see 525), Augustus
(Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) is emperor of Rome
6 Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus; Samaria, Judea and Idumea annexed as
province Iudaea under direct Roman administration, cap. Caesarea
6-? Quirinius: Legate (Governor) of Syria, 1st Roman tax census of Iudaea
6-9 Coponius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
7-26 Brief period of peace, free of revolt and bloodshed in Iudaea & Galilee
9-12? M. Ambivius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
12?-15 Annius Rufus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
14-37 Tiberius I emperor of Rome, b. 42BC
25? Assumption (Testament) of Moses, original Hebrew extant Latin (Apocrypha)
26-36 Pontius Pilate: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
27-29? John the Baptist begins ministry (Luke 3,1-2) (15th year of Tiberius)
27-34? Jesus baptized by John the Baptist (Mk1:4-11)
33-34? John the Baptist arrested and killed by Herod Antipas (Luke 3,19-20)
33-36? Jesus` ministry
36? Jesus crucified, Friday, Nisan 14th, March 30th, [Ref: John, Unauthorized
Version/Fox] Last Supper would have been Thursday evening. (7Apr30 &
3Apr33 possible Fri/14/Nisan crucifixion dates)
36?-65? Period of oral tradition in Christianity between the time of Jesus and the time
the first gospel (Mark) is written, original Christians disperse throughout
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8,1ff), Peter leads the new Christian Church,
moves the Church headquarters to Rome
36?-67 Period Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters
from Jerusalem to Rome
36?-37 Paul of Tarsus has Stephen martyred and the Jerusalem church destroyed
37 Paul of Tarsus is converted (Acts 9)
37-41 Gaius Caligula emperor of Rome, declared himself god
37-41? Marullus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
40 Paul goes to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (Gal 1, 18-20)
41-54 Claudius emperor of Rome, killed by poisoning by his wife Agrippina
44 James, brother of John, executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12, 1-3)
47-48 Paul and Barnabas on Cyprus (Acts 13, 4-12)
48-49 Council of Jerusalem, 1st Christian Council, doctrine regarding circumcision
and dietary law is agreed to by apostles and presbyters, written in a letter
addressed to ``the brothers of Gentile origin in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia``
(Acts 15)
48-57? Paul writes Galations
49-50 Paul in Corinth (Acts 18)
50? Peshitta translation begun, Hebrew OT->Syriac Aramaic, (Greek NT in 400)
50? Ascension of Isaiah, original written in Hebrew (Ethiopic Bible)
51-52 Paul writes 1 Thes
51-52 Paul writes 2 Thes
53-62 Paul writes Phil
54-68 Nero emperor of Rome
56 Paul writes 1 Corin
57 Paul writes Romans
57 Paul writes 2 Corin
57 Paul`s last visit to Jerusalem [Acts21]
58 Paul arrested, imprisoned in Caesarea [Acts25:4]
59 Nero kills his mother, Agrippina
60 Paul imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28,16)
61-63? Paul? writes Ephesians
61-63 Paul writes Philemon
61-63 Paul writes Colossians
61-63? Paul? writes 1,2 Timothy, Titus, known as ``pastoral epistles``
62? James written by leader of Jerusalem community? (Gal 2,9?), ``catholic``
epistle
62 Paul martyred for treason in Rome
62 {Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus,
thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and
Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, ``sanhedrin``] of
judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah,
James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had
transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.}
[JA20.9.1,Marginal Jew,p.57]
62 Nero kills his wife Octavia and marries Poppaea Sabina
64 Great fire of Rome, started by Nero and blamed on Christians, {Therefore to
squelch the rumor , Nero
created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom
the common people called ``Christians,`` [a group] hated for their abominable
crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had
been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment,
the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which
originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of
horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge
and are fervently cultivated.} [Tacitus Annals 15.44;Marginal
Jew;Meier;p.89-90]
64-95? 1 Peter written in Rome, by Peter the apostle?, ``catholic`` epistle
65-125 Period in which 4 Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and remaining epistles written
- Peter martyred before 1st Holy Gospel is written, 7 Popes before last
epistle is completed
65? Q written, (German:Quelle, meaning ``source``) a hypothetical Greek text used
in writing of Matthew and Luke
65-150 Didache: Instructions of the Apostles written
65-150 Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Peter
65-150 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 fragments: pub. 1914
65-150 Gospel of Thomas written, based on Q?, pub. 1959, Greek originals: Papyrus
Ox. 1,654-5
65-175 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 fragments: pub. 1908
65-175 Papyrus Egerton 2 (Unknown Gospel) fragments: pub. 1935/87, in Greek
from Palestine, one of the oldest extant Christian texts (~175)
65-250 Papyrus Fayum (P. Vindob. G. 2325) fragments: pub. 1887
The dates are uncertain but I reproduce a partial list of Christian chronology; see if you can extract information that you needed. Yes, Paul and Jesus Christ were contemporary. Paul converted to Christianity soon after Jesus` death (37 AD). The year of Paul`s death is somewhere between 58 and 67. Jesus was crucified in 36 AD.
Mohammad Gill
Chronology of Christianity (1AD-Present)
Last Update: 28 May 1997 (corrections made)
The purpose of this chronology is to assist Christians of any denomination in their search for knowledge and truth regarding the development of the Christian religion. The primary sources used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster`s New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M. Question marks on dates indicate approximate dates, question marks on other information indicates information which is theoretical and/or not universally accepted as fact.
1AD-36? Life of Jesus Christ
1AD First year in Christian calendar (a.d. = anno Domini) (see 525), Augustus
(Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) is emperor of Rome
6 Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus; Samaria, Judea and Idumea annexed as
province Iudaea under direct Roman administration, cap. Caesarea
6-? Quirinius: Legate (Governor) of Syria, 1st Roman tax census of Iudaea
6-9 Coponius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
7-26 Brief period of peace, free of revolt and bloodshed in Iudaea & Galilee
9-12? M. Ambivius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
12?-15 Annius Rufus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
14-37 Tiberius I emperor of Rome, b. 42BC
25? Assumption (Testament) of Moses, original Hebrew extant Latin (Apocrypha)
26-36 Pontius Pilate: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
27-29? John the Baptist begins ministry (Luke 3,1-2) (15th year of Tiberius)
27-34? Jesus baptized by John the Baptist (Mk1:4-11)
33-34? John the Baptist arrested and killed by Herod Antipas (Luke 3,19-20)
33-36? Jesus` ministry
36? Jesus crucified, Friday, Nisan 14th, March 30th, [Ref: John, Unauthorized
Version/Fox] Last Supper would have been Thursday evening. (7Apr30 &
3Apr33 possible Fri/14/Nisan crucifixion dates)
36?-65? Period of oral tradition in Christianity between the time of Jesus and the time
the first gospel (Mark) is written, original Christians disperse throughout
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8,1ff), Peter leads the new Christian Church,
moves the Church headquarters to Rome
36?-67 Period Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters
from Jerusalem to Rome
36?-37 Paul of Tarsus has Stephen martyred and the Jerusalem church destroyed
37 Paul of Tarsus is converted (Acts 9)
37-41 Gaius Caligula emperor of Rome, declared himself god
37-41? Marullus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
40 Paul goes to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (Gal 1, 18-20)
41-54 Claudius emperor of Rome, killed by poisoning by his wife Agrippina
44 James, brother of John, executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12, 1-3)
47-48 Paul and Barnabas on Cyprus (Acts 13, 4-12)
48-49 Council of Jerusalem, 1st Christian Council, doctrine regarding circumcision
and dietary law is agreed to by apostles and presbyters, written in a letter
addressed to ``the brothers of Gentile origin in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia``
(Acts 15)
48-57? Paul writes Galations
49-50 Paul in Corinth (Acts 18)
50? Peshitta translation begun, Hebrew OT->Syriac Aramaic, (Greek NT in 400)
50? Ascension of Isaiah, original written in Hebrew (Ethiopic Bible)
51-52 Paul writes 1 Thes
51-52 Paul writes 2 Thes
53-62 Paul writes Phil
54-68 Nero emperor of Rome
56 Paul writes 1 Corin
57 Paul writes Romans
57 Paul writes 2 Corin
57 Paul`s last visit to Jerusalem [Acts21]
58 Paul arrested, imprisoned in Caesarea [Acts25:4]
59 Nero kills his mother, Agrippina
60 Paul imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28,16)
61-63? Paul? writes Ephesians
61-63 Paul writes Philemon
61-63 Paul writes Colossians
61-63? Paul? writes 1,2 Timothy, Titus, known as ``pastoral epistles``
62? James written by leader of Jerusalem community? (Gal 2,9?), ``catholic``
epistle
62 Paul martyred for treason in Rome
62 {Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus,
thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and
Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, ``sanhedrin``] of
judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah,
James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had
transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.}
[JA20.9.1,Marginal Jew,p.57]
62 Nero kills his wife Octavia and marries Poppaea Sabina
64 Great fire of Rome, started by Nero and blamed on Christians, {Therefore to
squelch the rumor , Nero
created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom
the common people called ``Christians,`` [a group] hated for their abominable
crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had
been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment,
the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which
originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of
horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge
and are fervently cultivated.} [Tacitus Annals 15.44;Marginal
Jew;Meier;p.89-90]
64-95? 1 Peter written in Rome, by Peter the apostle?, ``catholic`` epistle
65-125 Period in which 4 Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and remaining epistles written
- Peter martyred before 1st Holy Gospel is written, 7 Popes before last
epistle is completed
65? Q written, (German:Quelle, meaning ``source``) a hypothetical Greek text used
in writing of Matthew and Luke
65-150 Didache: Instructions of the Apostles written
65-150 Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Peter
65-150 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 fragments: pub. 1914
65-150 Gospel of Thomas written, based on Q?, pub. 1959, Greek originals: Papyrus
Ox. 1,654-5
65-175 Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 fragments: pub. 1908
65-175 Papyrus Egerton 2 (Unknown Gospel) fragments: pub. 1935/87, in Greek
from Palestine, one of the oldest extant Christian texts (~175)
65-250 Papyrus Fayum (P. Vindob. G. 2325) fragments: pub. 1887
#32 Posted by vivek on March 29, 2005 9:25:27 am
Mr. Gill,
Your articles are often very good and informative. Thanks for the information, will comment on it later.
Your articles are often very good and informative. Thanks for the information, will comment on it later.
#31 Posted by delhiwala on March 29, 2005 7:43:51 am
Mr. Gill,
So as per this book, did Paul live at the same time as Jesus did?
I have always heard from my Christian friends and read in religous classes that the first known Bible to Christians only came around 200-300 years after Christ. Most likely Constantine`s wife is considered as isntrumental in documenting it.
Mine information may not be accurate but the fact is, almost all the Chrsitians agree that the present day bible AKA King James verison that is; was written and compiled much later than Christ himself and that is where confusion arises in matters such as Mary Magdelene and Paul`s version.
So as per this book, did Paul live at the same time as Jesus did?
I have always heard from my Christian friends and read in religous classes that the first known Bible to Christians only came around 200-300 years after Christ. Most likely Constantine`s wife is considered as isntrumental in documenting it.
Mine information may not be accurate but the fact is, almost all the Chrsitians agree that the present day bible AKA King James verison that is; was written and compiled much later than Christ himself and that is where confusion arises in matters such as Mary Magdelene and Paul`s version.
#30 Posted by aquaris on March 29, 2005 4:25:31 am
...Somewhere among the posts... its written.....
``We have become victim of the written word ``
.... Have any one heard Old songs..... Now there is a new version of them....its
Called Remixes........
..... without adequate knowledge of Chiristanity......and have not actually read the book...
But have read a lot of reviews........ I consider it as a `` REMIX ``
#29 Posted by nb on March 29, 2005 2:55:13 am
Re: # 23
Now you`ve got to tell me who the female nicks are, I`m curious!!!
Now you`ve got to tell me who the female nicks are, I`m curious!!!
#28 Posted by echoboom on March 28, 2005 10:49:20 pm
AlpaNull:24
Names,Alpha-Null names.
Deconstructionism gives one the illusion of acquiring ``knowledge``. We have become prisoners of the written word & perhaps that is supposed to be our Destiny.
It is his mythology, your cult and my religion.
Even if there is `historical` existence (of anyone) as opposed to `mythological` existence it is still OUR understanding within the prevailing contexts of Time & Space. It has become our lot. It is US now.
A whole ``science`` of ids & libidos was concocted and `life` was breathed into them so that they became sacred, hallowed, spiritual in the corridors of ``science``.
Whole generations of innocents were crucified at the altar of this religion & on the behest of its `prophet`. The sacraments were Research & Experiment.
Perhaps unbeknown to us a similar Faustian opera is going on around us. Perhaps we have hallowed the priests(not mullahs!) of science to the point of divinity. Maybe a day will come when all this would be ``mythology``. When most of the younger generation thinks itself to be `superior` to the one before it, then just imagine how much increasingly stupid would we look to, say, ten generations from now. Maybe the most `advanced` way to live then would be exactly as some aborgines live in the jungles today. Maybe the city dwellers will then be called the equivalents of rats & cockroaches--the lower, downtrodden , trailer-trash ones.
Lots of amybes--but we are intellectuals, word-wizards, calculators. We are burdened by books. How is it possible, we conclude, that without discussions, debates, and `analysis` we can `know` something new. It is beyond us to comprehend that in solitude & without the urban din one CAn read Nature & do so without a purpose, without an ulterior motive, without the urge to exploit & ruin.
We despise the street urchin until he becomes a billionair & wreaks vengeance upon society. Is it not always the ones from outside the `system` , the drop-outs, who end up hiring the Harvard MBA`s or Engineers. We as humans punish those who are capable of independant thought or action. Of course once they out-establish the establishment we wag our tails to get ourselves photographed with him. What does it tell about us? That sir we are really not THAT much interested in knowledge as we[yes that is you & me] fancy ourselves or brag about to the `street-urchins`.
In this two-solitude world of alphabets & numerals, it is these definitions and these digitisation which are really the bane & frustration of humankind. How can that which we created as a convention would be able to reveal to us what our true intent is. The means do not know the End. The tool or instrument does not know the Design.
My point is that we all are a sum-total of our past & no matter what words we assign to what we are trying to say it is the cards we have been dealt with within the Time, Matter & Space capsule called our being and whatever we are endeavouring [Killing as well as Caring] we seem to be not doing it of our own volition.
and I will leave it here lest this musing drifts into my religion.
Names,Alpha-Null names.
Deconstructionism gives one the illusion of acquiring ``knowledge``. We have become prisoners of the written word & perhaps that is supposed to be our Destiny.
It is his mythology, your cult and my religion.
Even if there is `historical` existence (of anyone) as opposed to `mythological` existence it is still OUR understanding within the prevailing contexts of Time & Space. It has become our lot. It is US now.
A whole ``science`` of ids & libidos was concocted and `life` was breathed into them so that they became sacred, hallowed, spiritual in the corridors of ``science``.
Whole generations of innocents were crucified at the altar of this religion & on the behest of its `prophet`. The sacraments were Research & Experiment.
Perhaps unbeknown to us a similar Faustian opera is going on around us. Perhaps we have hallowed the priests(not mullahs!) of science to the point of divinity. Maybe a day will come when all this would be ``mythology``. When most of the younger generation thinks itself to be `superior` to the one before it, then just imagine how much increasingly stupid would we look to, say, ten generations from now. Maybe the most `advanced` way to live then would be exactly as some aborgines live in the jungles today. Maybe the city dwellers will then be called the equivalents of rats & cockroaches--the lower, downtrodden , trailer-trash ones.
Lots of amybes--but we are intellectuals, word-wizards, calculators. We are burdened by books. How is it possible, we conclude, that without discussions, debates, and `analysis` we can `know` something new. It is beyond us to comprehend that in solitude & without the urban din one CAn read Nature & do so without a purpose, without an ulterior motive, without the urge to exploit & ruin.
We despise the street urchin until he becomes a billionair & wreaks vengeance upon society. Is it not always the ones from outside the `system` , the drop-outs, who end up hiring the Harvard MBA`s or Engineers. We as humans punish those who are capable of independant thought or action. Of course once they out-establish the establishment we wag our tails to get ourselves photographed with him. What does it tell about us? That sir we are really not THAT much interested in knowledge as we[yes that is you & me] fancy ourselves or brag about to the `street-urchins`.
In this two-solitude world of alphabets & numerals, it is these definitions and these digitisation which are really the bane & frustration of humankind. How can that which we created as a convention would be able to reveal to us what our true intent is. The means do not know the End. The tool or instrument does not know the Design.
My point is that we all are a sum-total of our past & no matter what words we assign to what we are trying to say it is the cards we have been dealt with within the Time, Matter & Space capsule called our being and whatever we are endeavouring [Killing as well as Caring] we seem to be not doing it of our own volition.
and I will leave it here lest this musing drifts into my religion.
#27 Posted by patwari on March 28, 2005 10:25:52 pm
The Di Vinci Code is like a joke. And really wonder why we are making such a noise about it? It is just good, imaginative fiction that has bothered the Church. So I wonder how many of us go to a church to actually defend it or blast it?
#26 Posted by ballukhan on March 28, 2005 10:09:09 pm
I read this book only because the blurb said it was better than Umberto Eco`s ``The Name of the Rose``. And ofcourse my interests in cryptography made me dwell into it further. However, the pleasant surprise was evident in the end when I found that it was about how Christianity (and other Semitic Religions) may have tried to promote the obvious Tribal Patrairchy of the revealed religions. Ofcourse the theme is old but I liked the treatment as a re-mix of cryptography , semiotics and thriller.
Good thing was that it touched upon the politics behind the great religious orders when they competed for the temporal benefits in the course of the power struggle within the papalry . I welcome this book as it was a nice and credible attempt at an alternative historiography of the sacred religions (after Marx and other Historical Materialists) - a subject of great importance which has always been disregarded by the popular culture of this sub-continent.
Good thing was that it touched upon the politics behind the great religious orders when they competed for the temporal benefits in the course of the power struggle within the papalry . I welcome this book as it was a nice and credible attempt at an alternative historiography of the sacred religions (after Marx and other Historical Materialists) - a subject of great importance which has always been disregarded by the popular culture of this sub-continent.
#25 Posted by DrDr on March 28, 2005 9:04:58 pm
Haven`t read The Code. I have however read Holy Blood Holy Grail which I understand The Code cites extensively.
Christianity is really Paulism 4 it was Paul who made it into a religion and gave it its mythology. John with his apocalyptic vision infused meanspiritedness into an otherwise harmless cult. Now we have all these deluded souls holding candles outside a hospice center in Florida.
Christianity is really Paulism 4 it was Paul who made it into a religion and gave it its mythology. John with his apocalyptic vision infused meanspiritedness into an otherwise harmless cult. Now we have all these deluded souls holding candles outside a hospice center in Florida.
#24 Posted by AlephNull on March 28, 2005 7:29:32 pm
I have not read Browns book and probably wont read it. I suspect that the ruckus over the book is overblown and misdirected. Speculations about the circumstances of Christs birth, his paternity, his relationship with Mary Magdalene, whether he died on the cross etc. are all old hat and have appeared in print before. All this while there is little or no evidence that a historical character corresponding to the Christ of the Gospels ever existed.
The suppressed truth about the origins of the Christian faith may actually be far more scandalous, explosive and damaging to literalist Christianity and its successors than the stuff in The Da Vinci Code. The conventional account of the origins of Christianity can be paraphrased by saying that it arose as a schismatic Jewish sect in Palestine of the first century AD and incorporated elements of Hellenized philosophy and culture over the course of several centuries, while gradually spreading through the Roman empire. This is a view about the history of belief that can be held whether or not one is in any sense a Christian, believes in a historical Jesus, or indeed has any religious faith.
There is an alternative hypothesis, according to which Christianity began - not as a Hellenized version of a 1st century AD Judaic sect but rather, as a Judaized version of the Pagan Mystery religions that predominated in the Roman Empire and in most of the ancient Mediterranean World in the centuries before and after the supposed birth of Christ. In this view, early Christian practioners never regarded the familiar Christian mysteries Virgin Birth of Christ, assorted miracles like changing water into wine, Resurrection after Death on the Cross, Ascension into Heaven, etc. in any but a metaphorical and symbolic sense; they knew very well that there was no historical Jesus. Christian scriptures specifically the Gospels, of which there were over a hundred were meant to be understood as parable and allegorical myth, not as literalist history.
This view neatly accounts for some well-known facts that would otherwise be very difficult to explain causally. The most significant are that the myth of the Mystery god Osiris-Dionysus - god made man, born of a mortal virgin, surrounded by 12 disciples, turning water into wine, crucified, dying to take away the sins of the world, being resurrected etc - prefigured Christianity by several centuries. According to this view, the Hellenized Jew Saul of Tarshish (Paul) was a genuine and key historical figure in the synthesis of the original Christian faith from Pagan mysticism and Jewish tradition. Metaphorical-mythical-mystical gnostic Christianity coexisted with a literalist version for a couple of centuries before that brutal Roman emperor Constantine came down decisively in favour of the literalist camp and made literalist Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.
So its quite likely that Christianity was really intended as a sophisticated metaphorical Pagan religion, not a silly literalist revealed Judaic faith. The supression of this history may have led to untold human suffering over nearly two millennia.
The suppressed truth about the origins of the Christian faith may actually be far more scandalous, explosive and damaging to literalist Christianity and its successors than the stuff in The Da Vinci Code. The conventional account of the origins of Christianity can be paraphrased by saying that it arose as a schismatic Jewish sect in Palestine of the first century AD and incorporated elements of Hellenized philosophy and culture over the course of several centuries, while gradually spreading through the Roman empire. This is a view about the history of belief that can be held whether or not one is in any sense a Christian, believes in a historical Jesus, or indeed has any religious faith.
There is an alternative hypothesis, according to which Christianity began - not as a Hellenized version of a 1st century AD Judaic sect but rather, as a Judaized version of the Pagan Mystery religions that predominated in the Roman Empire and in most of the ancient Mediterranean World in the centuries before and after the supposed birth of Christ. In this view, early Christian practioners never regarded the familiar Christian mysteries Virgin Birth of Christ, assorted miracles like changing water into wine, Resurrection after Death on the Cross, Ascension into Heaven, etc. in any but a metaphorical and symbolic sense; they knew very well that there was no historical Jesus. Christian scriptures specifically the Gospels, of which there were over a hundred were meant to be understood as parable and allegorical myth, not as literalist history.
This view neatly accounts for some well-known facts that would otherwise be very difficult to explain causally. The most significant are that the myth of the Mystery god Osiris-Dionysus - god made man, born of a mortal virgin, surrounded by 12 disciples, turning water into wine, crucified, dying to take away the sins of the world, being resurrected etc - prefigured Christianity by several centuries. According to this view, the Hellenized Jew Saul of Tarshish (Paul) was a genuine and key historical figure in the synthesis of the original Christian faith from Pagan mysticism and Jewish tradition. Metaphorical-mythical-mystical gnostic Christianity coexisted with a literalist version for a couple of centuries before that brutal Roman emperor Constantine came down decisively in favour of the literalist camp and made literalist Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.
So its quite likely that Christianity was really intended as a sophisticated metaphorical Pagan religion, not a silly literalist revealed Judaic faith. The supression of this history may have led to untold human suffering over nearly two millennia.
#23 Posted by temporal on March 28, 2005 7:01:23 pm
(sorry for this digression gill sahib)
hamidm:
click on this link (you will have to sign in on chowk to access) HERE
this is the filth our infamous abdul-hate the purveyor of morality and islam aka as echoboom writes as chusni unprovocatively on the unplugged section of off the walland FYI he also interacts under some female nicks as well
so much for his righteous indignations and call to islam for now .
rgds
t
hamidm:
click on this link (you will have to sign in on chowk to access) HERE
this is the filth our infamous abdul-hate the purveyor of morality and islam aka as echoboom writes as chusni unprovocatively on the unplugged section of off the walland FYI he also interacts under some female nicks as well
so much for his righteous indignations and call to islam for now .
rgds
t
#22 Posted by hamidm2 on March 28, 2005 5:26:54 pm
Re: # 19
gill sahib,
............. you don`t know much fun i could with your revelations about paul !.......... but i won`t because the weatherman has predicted thunderstorms in our area !
..... but as an aside - do you realize how silly we look discussing all this stuff so seriously ?
gill sahib,
............. you don`t know much fun i could with your revelations about paul !.......... but i won`t because the weatherman has predicted thunderstorms in our area !
..... but as an aside - do you realize how silly we look discussing all this stuff so seriously ?
#21 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2005 5:12:02 pm
Delhiwala had mentioned Paul. The following information about Paul is abstracted from Bishop John Shelby Spongs Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. Paul was a first century Jewish convert to Christianity.
Spong wrote (p.82), In time that community would enshrine the letters of this man within the corpus of its own sacred story and call them Holy Scriptures. Then the line that divided the words of this Paul from what was thought to be the Word of God would begin to fade.
Spong opens chapter 7 of his book, The Man from Tarsus, i.e., Paul, with nine quotations from his letters. I give hereunder only one for the sake of brevity:
Let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) (1Cor. 11:6-9)
So Christian veil is older than Islamic hijab.
After giving this quotation, Spong asks, Is this Word of the Lord? As such these verses would certainly present us in this age with problems. But those words make no claim to be words of God. They are rather the words of Paul, a first century Jewish convert to Christianity
Woman was created from Adams ribs while man was created in the image of God. Man-child is baptized while a girl doesnt need any baptism.
Paul was a complex and a tortured man. There is no evidence that he married. He hated women. He had written that if one could not exercise self-control, that person should marry. He had also written that it is wise not to touch a woman.
He himself had strong sexual urges which he wrote about in several letters. Spong theorized that Paul was mortified by homosexual urges although he did not indulge in them. Spong wrote (p.116), The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Pauls sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does? Some have suggested that Paul was sexually impotent. That theory does not fit the data. Others have suggested that Paul may have been sexually abused in his childhood..Still others have suggested that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears.
At another place (p.104) Spong wrote, Pauls words are not the words of God. They are the words of Paul a vast difference. Those who try to elevate Pauls words into being what they cannot be will finally discard Pauls words in the dustbin of antiquity.
Remember Spong was a bishop. Unless we remove the decorative skin covering of the Gospels and view them objectively, the reality will remain hidden.
Mohammad Gill
Spong wrote (p.82), In time that community would enshrine the letters of this man within the corpus of its own sacred story and call them Holy Scriptures. Then the line that divided the words of this Paul from what was thought to be the Word of God would begin to fade.
Spong opens chapter 7 of his book, The Man from Tarsus, i.e., Paul, with nine quotations from his letters. I give hereunder only one for the sake of brevity:
Let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) (1Cor. 11:6-9)
So Christian veil is older than Islamic hijab.
After giving this quotation, Spong asks, Is this Word of the Lord? As such these verses would certainly present us in this age with problems. But those words make no claim to be words of God. They are rather the words of Paul, a first century Jewish convert to Christianity
Woman was created from Adams ribs while man was created in the image of God. Man-child is baptized while a girl doesnt need any baptism.
Paul was a complex and a tortured man. There is no evidence that he married. He hated women. He had written that if one could not exercise self-control, that person should marry. He had also written that it is wise not to touch a woman.
He himself had strong sexual urges which he wrote about in several letters. Spong theorized that Paul was mortified by homosexual urges although he did not indulge in them. Spong wrote (p.116), The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Pauls sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does? Some have suggested that Paul was sexually impotent. That theory does not fit the data. Others have suggested that Paul may have been sexually abused in his childhood..Still others have suggested that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears.
At another place (p.104) Spong wrote, Pauls words are not the words of God. They are the words of Paul a vast difference. Those who try to elevate Pauls words into being what they cannot be will finally discard Pauls words in the dustbin of antiquity.
Remember Spong was a bishop. Unless we remove the decorative skin covering of the Gospels and view them objectively, the reality will remain hidden.
Mohammad Gill
#20 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2005 3:34:05 pm
irfanhamid:
I did not go into the Knights Templar stuff intentionally. It needed a lot of space in order to explain this secret society adequately. I was content to make a short reference to the secret societies. Had I taken Knoghts Templars, I couldn`t have avoided discussing Priori of Sion and Opus Dei. I thought readers like you would bring them out and shed light on them.
Mohammad Gill
I did not go into the Knights Templar stuff intentionally. It needed a lot of space in order to explain this secret society adequately. I was content to make a short reference to the secret societies. Had I taken Knoghts Templars, I couldn`t have avoided discussing Priori of Sion and Opus Dei. I thought readers like you would bring them out and shed light on them.
Mohammad Gill
#19 Posted by irfanhamid on March 28, 2005 2:49:22 pm
Nice treatment of a popular book. Just a couple of observations:
1. Maybe you should have inserted a spoiler warning at the beginning for those who haven`t read the book yet (luckily I had read it before). For someone who hadn`t read the book your article pretty much lays it bare (specially with the reference that the chalice is a woman).
2. You didn`t treat the issue of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon (or the Knights Templar as they are known). It was this Papal order of knights that protected christian pilgrims during the time of the Crusades when they travelled to Jerusalem from Europe. It is they who are supposed to have discovered the holy grail in King Solomon`s lost tomb when they turned it into their secret headquarters. They were later prosecuted and killed by European kings because of their wealth. According to some legends the few surviving Templars changed their name to Freemasons and renounced christianity because the Pope at the time had conspired with the French and British emperors to trap the Templars.
Regards,
Irfan.
PS: Most of the information in point (2) is from a lengthy program on the Knights Templar that was aired on Discovery which I saw about 6 years ago so some of the details may be rusty (or just plain wrong).
1. Maybe you should have inserted a spoiler warning at the beginning for those who haven`t read the book yet (luckily I had read it before). For someone who hadn`t read the book your article pretty much lays it bare (specially with the reference that the chalice is a woman).
2. You didn`t treat the issue of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon (or the Knights Templar as they are known). It was this Papal order of knights that protected christian pilgrims during the time of the Crusades when they travelled to Jerusalem from Europe. It is they who are supposed to have discovered the holy grail in King Solomon`s lost tomb when they turned it into their secret headquarters. They were later prosecuted and killed by European kings because of their wealth. According to some legends the few surviving Templars changed their name to Freemasons and renounced christianity because the Pope at the time had conspired with the French and British emperors to trap the Templars.
Regards,
Irfan.
PS: Most of the information in point (2) is from a lengthy program on the Knights Templar that was aired on Discovery which I saw about 6 years ago so some of the details may be rusty (or just plain wrong).
#18 Posted by hamidm2 on March 28, 2005 1:40:02 pm
gill sahib,
.......it is nice of you to say, ``You are probably on a surer ground than I am.``......... heck no!........ but unlike you, i gave up searching for the truth a long time ago and decided to believe in everything regarless of how outlandish it might seem - there is no point in tempting the gods .....
........... and i do enjoy your articles - keep them coming
.......it is nice of you to say, ``You are probably on a surer ground than I am.``......... heck no!........ but unlike you, i gave up searching for the truth a long time ago and decided to believe in everything regarless of how outlandish it might seem - there is no point in tempting the gods .....
........... and i do enjoy your articles - keep them coming
#17 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2005 1:32:18 pm
hamidm2:
My intention was not to offend you or any body else. I am not expert in Christian history. I am slowly learning my facts. You are probably on a surer ground than I am. My point is that we should scrutinize what we have been led to believe blindly. I am writing this post to assure you that I didn`t intend any offense to you. I might write another post to bring some more facts and issues for consideration and discussion.
By the way, gabby brought the verses which I had quoted in my earlier post that ``God begetes no body...`` Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
My intention was not to offend you or any body else. I am not expert in Christian history. I am slowly learning my facts. You are probably on a surer ground than I am. My point is that we should scrutinize what we have been led to believe blindly. I am writing this post to assure you that I didn`t intend any offense to you. I might write another post to bring some more facts and issues for consideration and discussion.
By the way, gabby brought the verses which I had quoted in my earlier post that ``God begetes no body...`` Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill
#16 Posted by hamidm2 on March 28, 2005 1:19:36 pm
gill sahib,
...... in case you are wondering, i wrote you the earlier letter because you said, ``The biological father of Christ was not known.``............ i was deeply offended but we will let it go for now.....
urstruly,
joseph the carpenter
...... in case you are wondering, i wrote you the earlier letter because you said, ``The biological father of Christ was not known.``............ i was deeply offended but we will let it go for now.....
urstruly,
joseph the carpenter
#15 Posted by paindupastry on March 28, 2005 1:14:54 pm
i read the book a month or so ago and tried to figure out how factual it was and what inaccuracies it had...ill leave my own opinion aside but i wish i`d have found this book in the NON-FICTION section, to give it more credibility against those who oppose it here in boston.
anyways, carry on chowkies. i want to see a conclusion/agreement reached about how factual this book really is...and what part of it is mere speculation and untrue.
anyways, carry on chowkies. i want to see a conclusion/agreement reached about how factual this book really is...and what part of it is mere speculation and untrue.
#14 Posted by hamidm2 on March 28, 2005 12:47:16 pm
gill sahib,
who am i ?...... chopped liver?
look, the twelve wise men entrusted me with mary when she was twelve and she lived in my house till the age of fourteen without me laying a finger - cross my heart and hope to die ..................she was a good girl and a good mother to james ............ i was gone for a couple of months and i came back to find her pregnant ........... i said, ``holy shit!``...........``No``, they said, ``it was the holy spirit!``....... i don`t know shit from shinola but it scared the crap out of me ........... but then gabby appeared on the scene (he has the habit of conveniently appearing whenever a prophet needs him) and he said, ``joseph, son of david, fear not to take mary as thy wife: for she has conceived of the holy spirit; and she will bring forth a son, whose name shall be called jesus``............. ``phew``, isaid, ``that was a close call !``............. you know they used to stone adulterers in those days ..........
urstruly,
joseph the carpenter
who am i ?...... chopped liver?
look, the twelve wise men entrusted me with mary when she was twelve and she lived in my house till the age of fourteen without me laying a finger - cross my heart and hope to die ..................she was a good girl and a good mother to james ............ i was gone for a couple of months and i came back to find her pregnant ........... i said, ``holy shit!``...........``No``, they said, ``it was the holy spirit!``....... i don`t know shit from shinola but it scared the crap out of me ........... but then gabby appeared on the scene (he has the habit of conveniently appearing whenever a prophet needs him) and he said, ``joseph, son of david, fear not to take mary as thy wife: for she has conceived of the holy spirit; and she will bring forth a son, whose name shall be called jesus``............. ``phew``, isaid, ``that was a close call !``............. you know they used to stone adulterers in those days ..........
urstruly,
joseph the carpenter
#13 Posted by delhiwala on March 28, 2005 11:35:00 am
Re: # 6
Gill Saab,
It is not possible to measure a controversial book`s degree. However it is my opinion that this book certainly classifies as A+ controversial book regarding Christ.
Otherwise, why is it on TV every other day, why a movie is being discussed on this subect?
Why did even Boston`s Catholic Diocese had to protest against the PBS program that came few years ago.
This is the first time when somebody has actually tried to make a case for Mary Magdelene and it`s French connection. His case is more stronger these days due to lot of interest in Dead Sea Scrolls and Vatican is trying to win the support of women.
Maybe the writer is just like the one in UK(Behjti type), who wants quick and dirty fame.
Maybe he is speaking the truth, who knows.
Gill Saab,
It is not possible to measure a controversial book`s degree. However it is my opinion that this book certainly classifies as A+ controversial book regarding Christ.
Otherwise, why is it on TV every other day, why a movie is being discussed on this subect?
Why did even Boston`s Catholic Diocese had to protest against the PBS program that came few years ago.
This is the first time when somebody has actually tried to make a case for Mary Magdelene and it`s French connection. His case is more stronger these days due to lot of interest in Dead Sea Scrolls and Vatican is trying to win the support of women.
Maybe the writer is just like the one in UK(Behjti type), who wants quick and dirty fame.
Maybe he is speaking the truth, who knows.
#12 Posted by Fatimah-Y on March 28, 2005 10:52:51 am
Why the hype? I enjoyed the way you answered this question, but you seem to get a bit excited about the code thing yourself.
#11 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2005 10:24:50 am
ShoreSahib:
Thanks for providing a leaf from the history of early Christianity. I had produced the ``motion`` of the First Council of Nicaea in my article from Karen Armstrong`s ``A History of God``. Karen said that the vote did not have majority, the Da Vinci Code says, it had only marginal majority while many others believe there were only two dissenters out of 318. I am concerned as to how can the issues pertaining to divinity be settled by a show of hands?
Do you really understand the doctrine of trinity? I don`t although I have tried quite hard to comprehend it. The biological father of Christ was not known. It was a social slur in those days as it is even today in conservative societies. This gave rise to the conepts of Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Sonship of God and Ascension. It doesn`t make much sense. People were shut up for fear of heresy and consequent death.
Ghalib called Christ Ibn-e-Maryam (Son of Mary).
Ibn-e-Maryam hua karay koi
Meray dukh ki dawa karaay koi
and so did many others.
There are specific verses in Quran which state ``God begets not....`` See in the following:
112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten [Neither did He give birth to any one, nor is He Himself a product of the process of procreation. He has no children (2:116, 6:101, 16:57, 19:35, 112:3), no parents (112:3) and not any wife (6:101). He is the One, Unique, Single (112:1). He has brought into existence every living being through the process of creation (6:101), not by procreation from Him]
112:4 There is none who is or can ever be His equal, His like or comparable unto Him.``
How can Son of God be God? If you read my article ``Bishop Spong`s Critique of the Traditional Christianity`` at chowk (December 20, 2004), you`ll see how a bishop feels about theism, and the above issues. With regards,
Mohammad Gill
Thanks for providing a leaf from the history of early Christianity. I had produced the ``motion`` of the First Council of Nicaea in my article from Karen Armstrong`s ``A History of God``. Karen said that the vote did not have majority, the Da Vinci Code says, it had only marginal majority while many others believe there were only two dissenters out of 318. I am concerned as to how can the issues pertaining to divinity be settled by a show of hands?
Do you really understand the doctrine of trinity? I don`t although I have tried quite hard to comprehend it. The biological father of Christ was not known. It was a social slur in those days as it is even today in conservative societies. This gave rise to the conepts of Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Sonship of God and Ascension. It doesn`t make much sense. People were shut up for fear of heresy and consequent death.
Ghalib called Christ Ibn-e-Maryam (Son of Mary).
Ibn-e-Maryam hua karay koi
Meray dukh ki dawa karaay koi
and so did many others.
There are specific verses in Quran which state ``God begets not....`` See in the following:
112:3 He begets not, nor is He begotten [Neither did He give birth to any one, nor is He Himself a product of the process of procreation. He has no children (2:116, 6:101, 16:57, 19:35, 112:3), no parents (112:3) and not any wife (6:101). He is the One, Unique, Single (112:1). He has brought into existence every living being through the process of creation (6:101), not by procreation from Him]
112:4 There is none who is or can ever be His equal, His like or comparable unto Him.``
How can Son of God be God? If you read my article ``Bishop Spong`s Critique of the Traditional Christianity`` at chowk (December 20, 2004), you`ll see how a bishop feels about theism, and the above issues. With regards,
Mohammad Gill
#9 Posted by hamidm2 on March 28, 2005 9:19:16 am
maureen dowd rocks !
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/opinion/27dowd.html?8hpib
as she points out :``The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls ``the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels`` and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker. ``
.............. i am now waiting for the sequel :`` The Medina Code`` which challenges the myth that muhammad did not have any surviving male offspring ............. it should be a hoot if the author survives ............
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/opinion/27dowd.html?8hpib
as she points out :``The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls ``the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels`` and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker. ``
.............. i am now waiting for the sequel :`` The Medina Code`` which challenges the myth that muhammad did not have any surviving male offspring ............. it should be a hoot if the author survives ............
#8 Posted by ShoreSahib on March 28, 2005 9:12:35 am
Gill Sahib,
As a student who majored in Religious Studies and studied the First Four Centuries of Christianity in much detail, The Da Vinci Code is nothing but erroneous, hyped up, and not to mention fraught with ridiculous theories.
I like the fact that you included the Nicean Creed in your article. In the Seminar I took on Early Christianity as well as my class on Chrisitian Philosophy, the concept of the trinity was discussed and dissected at length.
Here is the Apostle`s Creed,
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God`s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN
A seemingly minor difference in the wording of this simple text had a profound impact on European history. The Nicene Creed, or Symbol of Faith, was written by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E., with additions (the 3rd paragraph and following) by the first Council of Constantinople (381). There is an unresolved controversy over the words `and the Son` (in Latin filioque). This language was added in 587 by the local council of Toledo, Spain, in an attempt to combat the Arian heresy. Pope Leo III (795-816) forbade the use of the filioque version and had it engraved without `and the Son` on the walls of St. Peter`s Basillica. After a failed attempt to unite by marriage Charlemagne`s Frankish holdings with that of the Byzantine Empress, Charlemagne challenged Byzantinium`s claim of universal jurisdiction as the successor to Rome by claiming in 792 that among other things, that the Byzantines had omitted the filioque from the original text. The filioque was finally accepted by the Romans in the year 1014, and the revision has been part of Catholic doctrine ever since. The ``filioque,`` the significance of Roman primacy, and geo-political conflict led to the the Great Schism of 1053. To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the filioque and raise this as one of many reasons that prevent re-unification with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Arian Heresy and the Nicene Creed as the Response:_
At The First Council of Nicea: The first council of Nicaea came to an end on August 25, 325 A.D. Lasting two months, and held in Bithynia, the First Council of Nicea was attended by 318 Church Fathers.
Opposing Images of God: Trinitarian Church fathers Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius believed there were three persons in one god. The Trinitarians were pitted against the Monarchianists, who believed in only one indivisible god, and included Arius, Presbyter in Alexandria, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.
Homo Ousion (same substance) vs. Homoi Ousion (like substance): The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo-ousion, Christ the Son was con-substantial (sharing the same substance) with the Father. Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the SonHe and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God. The opposing Trinitarians believed it diminished the importance of the Son to make him subordinate to the Father.
Constantine`s Wavering Decision : The Trinitarian bishops prevailed. Emperor Constantine was not himself a Christian. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria.
Constantine`s friend Eusebius, who eventually withdrew his objection but still wouldn`t sign the statement of faith, and a neighboring bishop, Theognis, were also exiled -- to Gaul. Constantine reversed his opinion about the Arian heresy, and had the two bishops reinstated three years later (in 328). At the same time, Arius was recalled from exile.
Constantine`s sister and Eusebius worked on the emperor to obtain reinstatement for Arius, and they would have succeeded, if Arius hadn`t suddenly died - by poisoning, probably, or, as some prefer to believe, by divine intervention.
Arianism regained momentum and survived until the reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose set to work stamping it out.
St. Athanasius - Four Discourses Against the Arians: `The essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien(6), and without participation of each other(7)` St. Athanasius - Four Discourses Against the Arians
Anniversary of the Nicene Creed: August 25, 2000 marked the 1675th anniversary of the creation of a controversial document cataloging the basic beliefs of Christians -- the Nicene Creed!
As a student who majored in Religious Studies and studied the First Four Centuries of Christianity in much detail, The Da Vinci Code is nothing but erroneous, hyped up, and not to mention fraught with ridiculous theories.
I like the fact that you included the Nicean Creed in your article. In the Seminar I took on Early Christianity as well as my class on Chrisitian Philosophy, the concept of the trinity was discussed and dissected at length.
Here is the Apostle`s Creed,
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God`s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN
A seemingly minor difference in the wording of this simple text had a profound impact on European history. The Nicene Creed, or Symbol of Faith, was written by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E., with additions (the 3rd paragraph and following) by the first Council of Constantinople (381). There is an unresolved controversy over the words `and the Son` (in Latin filioque). This language was added in 587 by the local council of Toledo, Spain, in an attempt to combat the Arian heresy. Pope Leo III (795-816) forbade the use of the filioque version and had it engraved without `and the Son` on the walls of St. Peter`s Basillica. After a failed attempt to unite by marriage Charlemagne`s Frankish holdings with that of the Byzantine Empress, Charlemagne challenged Byzantinium`s claim of universal jurisdiction as the successor to Rome by claiming in 792 that among other things, that the Byzantines had omitted the filioque from the original text. The filioque was finally accepted by the Romans in the year 1014, and the revision has been part of Catholic doctrine ever since. The ``filioque,`` the significance of Roman primacy, and geo-political conflict led to the the Great Schism of 1053. To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the filioque and raise this as one of many reasons that prevent re-unification with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Arian Heresy and the Nicene Creed as the Response:_
At The First Council of Nicea: The first council of Nicaea came to an end on August 25, 325 A.D. Lasting two months, and held in Bithynia, the First Council of Nicea was attended by 318 Church Fathers.
Opposing Images of God: Trinitarian Church fathers Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius believed there were three persons in one god. The Trinitarians were pitted against the Monarchianists, who believed in only one indivisible god, and included Arius, Presbyter in Alexandria, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.
Homo Ousion (same substance) vs. Homoi Ousion (like substance): The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo-ousion, Christ the Son was con-substantial (sharing the same substance) with the Father. Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the SonHe and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God. The opposing Trinitarians believed it diminished the importance of the Son to make him subordinate to the Father.
Constantine`s Wavering Decision : The Trinitarian bishops prevailed. Emperor Constantine was not himself a Christian. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria.
Constantine`s friend Eusebius, who eventually withdrew his objection but still wouldn`t sign the statement of faith, and a neighboring bishop, Theognis, were also exiled -- to Gaul. Constantine reversed his opinion about the Arian heresy, and had the two bishops reinstated three years later (in 328). At the same time, Arius was recalled from exile.
Constantine`s sister and Eusebius worked on the emperor to obtain reinstatement for Arius, and they would have succeeded, if Arius hadn`t suddenly died - by poisoning, probably, or, as some prefer to believe, by divine intervention.
Arianism regained momentum and survived until the reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose set to work stamping it out.
St. Athanasius - Four Discourses Against the Arians: `The essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien(6), and without participation of each other(7)` St. Athanasius - Four Discourses Against the Arians
Anniversary of the Nicene Creed: August 25, 2000 marked the 1675th anniversary of the creation of a controversial document cataloging the basic beliefs of Christians -- the Nicene Creed!
#7 Posted by echoboom on March 28, 2005 8:36:33 am
After being on the waiting list at the local library (my number? 1400th) I was able to get it much sooner than expected due to `forgot` cancellations. I was waiting for the paperback edition, and I believe it is still not there, and was reluctant to part with 60/70 $ for the one in hardcover.
I am delighted that I did so. The book is for ``pop`` & immediated-gratification crowd who have grown up in the ADD syndrome--the intellectual Belumia of TV-scholarship and TV-dinners.
I am very much fascinated by this subject(s) and have done some sizable reading on it. In fact, the best book I would recommend for beginners is `` The Ark of the Covenant`` [it is what Quran has mentioned & muslims know it as ``taaboot-e-Sakina`` (not the sakeena of Karbala--mind you) by Graham Hancock.
The movie ``Raiders of the Lost Ark was also about it & was based, mainly, on the true story when the western thieves ( heros in the movies) got in the tunnels below the Dome of the Rock by bribing the Turkish security guard.
This book by Dan Brown is very John Grisham-ish. If it was not for the silly ``adventure`` that was spun around the `mystery` and the `search` for what is sometimes referred to as the `holy-grail` (no it is not the wine-cup used by Hazrat Eesa(pbuh)] it would have been an OK book.
The problem with such books(D-code) as these ( & movies) where fiction is presented as fact, lies are muddled and presented as truths, half-truths, and `fiction`, simply to deliberately confuse & confound the reader/viewer is that the unwitting highly ``parrhay-likhhay`` masses accept them as gospel.
Because it is here that it is the last impression that is the lasting impression.
I am delighted that I did so. The book is for ``pop`` & immediated-gratification crowd who have grown up in the ADD syndrome--the intellectual Belumia of TV-scholarship and TV-dinners.
I am very much fascinated by this subject(s) and have done some sizable reading on it. In fact, the best book I would recommend for beginners is `` The Ark of the Covenant`` [it is what Quran has mentioned & muslims know it as ``taaboot-e-Sakina`` (not the sakeena of Karbala--mind you) by Graham Hancock.
The movie ``Raiders of the Lost Ark was also about it & was based, mainly, on the true story when the western thieves ( heros in the movies) got in the tunnels below the Dome of the Rock by bribing the Turkish security guard.
This book by Dan Brown is very John Grisham-ish. If it was not for the silly ``adventure`` that was spun around the `mystery` and the `search` for what is sometimes referred to as the `holy-grail` (no it is not the wine-cup used by Hazrat Eesa(pbuh)] it would have been an OK book.
The problem with such books(D-code) as these ( & movies) where fiction is presented as fact, lies are muddled and presented as truths, half-truths, and `fiction`, simply to deliberately confuse & confound the reader/viewer is that the unwitting highly ``parrhay-likhhay`` masses accept them as gospel.
Because it is here that it is the last impression that is the lasting impression.
#6 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2005 8:25:27 am
delhiwala:
``...to bring to attention of the readers to a most controversial book ever written about Christianity.`` This is a very general and inaccurate statement. Although I haven`t read much about Christianity, I know many other authors, current and old, have written quite critical accounts of Christianity. The Da Vinci`s Code is a fictional story and many unwary readers may not register ite critical content. The Christian readership in the west are however well aware of these issues.
Bishop Spong has written several books criticizing Christianity. One of his books has a title of ``Why Christianity Must Change or Die?`` I had posted an article ``Bishop Spong`s Critique of the Traditional Christianity,`` at chowk on December 20, 2004. Some of his critical ideas are distilled in my article.
Mohammad Gill
``...to bring to attention of the readers to a most controversial book ever written about Christianity.`` This is a very general and inaccurate statement. Although I haven`t read much about Christianity, I know many other authors, current and old, have written quite critical accounts of Christianity. The Da Vinci`s Code is a fictional story and many unwary readers may not register ite critical content. The Christian readership in the west are however well aware of these issues.
Bishop Spong has written several books criticizing Christianity. One of his books has a title of ``Why Christianity Must Change or Die?`` I had posted an article ``Bishop Spong`s Critique of the Traditional Christianity,`` at chowk on December 20, 2004. Some of his critical ideas are distilled in my article.
Mohammad Gill
#5 Posted by ShoreSahib on March 28, 2005 8:09:35 am
Re: # 3
Correction DehliWala Sahib,
This statement of yours is erroneous:-
``It is a unversally accepted fact that First Bible was written by St Paul 250 years after the birth of Christ and there is a good possibility that things were appended/deleted from the original scrolls, safeguarded by faithful Christians of that time. `` Dehliwala
St Paul lived in the same time as Jesus and the other apostles. He is reputed to have written many books now included in the New Testament such as Letters to Corinthians, Letters to Hebrews and letters to Romans. The Four gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were compiled almost 30- 75 years after the cruxifiction of Christ.
Correction DehliWala Sahib,
This statement of yours is erroneous:-
``It is a unversally accepted fact that First Bible was written by St Paul 250 years after the birth of Christ and there is a good possibility that things were appended/deleted from the original scrolls, safeguarded by faithful Christians of that time. `` Dehliwala
St Paul lived in the same time as Jesus and the other apostles. He is reputed to have written many books now included in the New Testament such as Letters to Corinthians, Letters to Hebrews and letters to Romans. The Four gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were compiled almost 30- 75 years after the cruxifiction of Christ.
#4 Posted by amrita on March 28, 2005 8:03:12 am
I think the genius of Brown lies not in his craft, but in his deft use of Christian lore and conspiracy theories, which he wedded to straight fiction. As a classic murder mystery its pretty thin, but that extra bit of spice changed the whole thing around. So you have mainstream fiction with fantasy fiction guidelines.
I dont know what your reading habit`s like, but the next time you want some extra light reading just make your way over to the Fantasy Fiction aisle and look it over. There are so many books inspired by the Abrahamic faiths that it`s startling. You talked about the farcical council proceedings - others in the fantasy genre have noticed it too, David and Leigh Eddings for eg in their Sparhawk stories wherein they recreate Catholic heirarchy.
I dont know what your reading habit`s like, but the next time you want some extra light reading just make your way over to the Fantasy Fiction aisle and look it over. There are so many books inspired by the Abrahamic faiths that it`s startling. You talked about the farcical council proceedings - others in the fantasy genre have noticed it too, David and Leigh Eddings for eg in their Sparhawk stories wherein they recreate Catholic heirarchy.
#3 Posted by delhiwala on March 28, 2005 7:04:11 am
Lately Da Vinci`s code is being on the TV on History Channel. Only protests about this came from Catholics in Boston. Otherwise, mainstream Americans have accepted this book without any anger and it is making Christians to look scientifically and critically at their belief about Christ. They are gaining more acceptance due to fact that Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1940s also speak about Mary Magdelene as being the original 10 Apostles.
It is a unversally accepted fact that First Bible was written by St Paul 250 years after the birth of Christ and there is a good possibility that things were appended/deleted from the original scrolls, safeguarded by faithful Christians of that time.
This article also took my thoughts around to our present day world as my mind just cruised to the plight of Salman Rushdie when he wrote something controversial about Mohammad.
A Muslim could not write anything about his Prophet freely while living in the West due to Fatwa issued by people of the East.
Whereas Mr. Gill, a Muslim living in the West can enjoy the freedom of West to bring to attention of the readers to a most controversial book ever written about Christianity.
God bless the Freedom of the Western World bestowed upon all who are it`s Citizens!
It is a unversally accepted fact that First Bible was written by St Paul 250 years after the birth of Christ and there is a good possibility that things were appended/deleted from the original scrolls, safeguarded by faithful Christians of that time.
This article also took my thoughts around to our present day world as my mind just cruised to the plight of Salman Rushdie when he wrote something controversial about Mohammad.
A Muslim could not write anything about his Prophet freely while living in the West due to Fatwa issued by people of the East.
Whereas Mr. Gill, a Muslim living in the West can enjoy the freedom of West to bring to attention of the readers to a most controversial book ever written about Christianity.
God bless the Freedom of the Western World bestowed upon all who are it`s Citizens!
#2 Posted by Kamath on March 28, 2005 6:41:16 am
I think you were one few Muslims (there are others too but only in the closet and afraid to talk!) who are absolutely honest , courageous and have the humility to examine one`s faith, history, culture, strength and weaknesses.etc. and talk openly!There will be little conflicts in the world if there were more Muslims like you.
Now go back and have a good cup of Darjeeling Tea and think about some new ideas.!
Now go back and have a good cup of Darjeeling Tea and think about some new ideas.!
#1 Posted by nb on March 28, 2005 2:33:31 am
You`re continuing to educate the readership of Chowk! I thought it was a good enough book; I read it soon after it was published in 2003, and the furore over the last year or so has left me bemused. If I had realised that every man and his dog(I don`t mean you, just look around on public transport)would have an opinion on it, I would have seen it differently. It tries to be at least middlebrow, but has been dumbed down considerably in the public discourse. The Church obviously planned to ignore it; it is one of Dan Brown`s biggest feats that they actually came out to denounce it.
As to the historical accuracy of the book, who knows? We do know that there were many other Gospels, and the ones included in the New Testament were edited. I truly appreciate the fact that so many people are trying to get to the truth, if at all there is only one truth; therein lies the greatness of Western civilisation.
As to the historical accuracy of the book, who knows? We do know that there were many other Gospels, and the ones included in the New Testament were edited. I truly appreciate the fact that so many people are trying to get to the truth, if at all there is only one truth; therein lies the greatness of Western civilisation.
Interact Index
Also by Mohammad Gill
Similar Articles
- Freud and Jung and Their Secret Affairs Khalid Sohail
- Pakistan's Nuclear Test - Ten Years Later Pervez Hoodbhoy
- Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India? Murad A Baig
- Akbar and Alexander Murad A Baig
- Late Afternoon at Masjid Wazir Khan Salma Omar
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- masadi: In addition, the white... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: tahmed writes " ZAB reneged... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: that's 3%, not 4%... US Commando Strike in
- tahmed32: bubba: while not wishing... US Commando Strike in
- tahmed32: HP #50 I think... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: Tahmed sahib, salam and... Why Zardari Should Be
- masadi: Hamid writes "the only... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: Hamid writes "the only... There is no ‘honour’
