dvc

[spacehut1]

does anyone think the da vinci code is real history?

 

[spacehut1]

it's written by Dan brown. don't know much about him. do you?

 

[spacehut1]

what year was it published?

 

[spacehut1]

One of the first blunders I noticed about Da Vinci Code news reports is its’ denial of all history. History is false and unreliable because it’s written by the winners. If that’s true, then we should put all history books in the trash can because it’s false and not reliable (like a novel). For example, the Civil War, World War 2, the American Revolutionary War (c. 1776) – nobody knows what really happened, right? It was “written” by the “winners,” so maybe they never did happen.

 

[spacehut1]

If we hold The Da Vinci Code to its’ own standard, then it also must be false and unreliable because The Da Vinci Code claims to be telling us about history. If The Da Vinci Code is teaching us history, then The Da Vinci Code is automatically false because it’s about history. Nobody knows what really happened, not even The Da Vinci Code, right?

 

[spacehut1]

Dr. Jim Garlow, historian (Ph.D. in historical theology), in his book Cracking Da Vinci’s Code, pp. 104-5, takes notice of The Da Vinci Code’s view of history. Citing The Da Vinci Code: “[H]istory is always written by the winners … As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’(265) ”

 

[spacehut1]

I would like to know how The Da Vinci Code knows Napoleon existed, and that he made that statement. Napoleon is a historical figure – we can read about him in history books. His statement is a part of historical record - Napoleon is not here to say those words; we have to look into history to learn about him, and read what he wrote. The Da Vinci Code relies upon history to establish its’ viewpoint that history is unreliable? That is pseudo-logic, dishonest, and self-contradictive.

 

[spacehut1]

If Dan Brown was honest, he would also question the authenticity of Napoleon and his writings, and writings about him, because it’s history – and history is false and unreliable, right? But, no, he quotes and relies upon history, and then declares history is unreliable. Credibility lost. It’s clear proof of illogic and a double-standard by the Errorist, Dan Brown.

 

[spacehut1]

In The Da Vinci Hoax, pages 27-28, co-author Sandra Miesel (master’s degree in medieval history, University of Illinois) notes that, “He openly questions whether we can even know the truth about the past … The comment, ‘How historically accurate is history itself?’ is nonsensical … Ironically, Brown claims that his book is based on facts and sound historical research.”

 

[spacehut1]

As Dr. Norman Geisler (Ph.D. in philosophy) has stated in regards to agnostic philosophy, “This is like using the laws of arithmetic to prove that arithmetic cannot be trusted” (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 2004, page 56).

 

[spacehut1]

Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Ph.D., theologian (Adjunct Professor of Homiletics), in his book The Da Vinci Deception, pp.1-2, citing The Da Vinci Code to explain its’ view of Christ’s Deity, notes that “In The Da Vinci Code, Brown asserts that by declaring the deity of Christ, Constantine solidified his rule … The emporer convened the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to ratify this new doctrine that would give him the clout he craved. Sir Leigh Teabing, the Holy Grail enthusiast, explains to Sophie that … ‘Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.’ So Constantine ‘upgraded Jesus’ status almost three centuries after Jesus’ death’ for political reasons. [The Da Vinci Code, p. 233] ”

 

[spacehut1]

Jaroslav Pelikan, distinguished scholar, Sterling Professor Emeritus of History (Prof. of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University) and Thomas Robinson, Quandam Professor of Biblical Studies (Union Theological Seminary), as the Principal Advisors and Consultants for the Reader’s Digest After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity (1992), introduce us to the earliest christian figures that stood up to defend the faith against heretics- “ … the Marcionites, a radical group named after their founder, Marcion. Born around 85 in Sinope, in Asia Minor, Marcion moved to Rome sometime in his fifties … He believed that there were two gods – the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus … After Marcion wrote The Antithesis … he was vehemently attacked. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius, and Hippoplytus all wrote diatribes against him. Marcion died about 160, but his sect continued to flourish for more than 200 years” (pp.131-132, The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., New York).

 

[spacehut1]

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, (1997, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom) some Editors include – Howard Kee, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies, Boston University, Eric Meyers, Professor of Religious Studies, Duke University ; page 564: “in their efforts to bring order and unity to Christianity, the primary strategy of perceptive thinkers and leaders in the church … became more urgent, more explicit, and more nearly central in the early-second-century writings of a group of church leaders designated by modern scholars as the Apostolic Fathers. These men were in some sense the successors of the apostles, who had been the original leaders of the Christian movement. Appeal is frequently made in the works of the Apostolic Fathers to the earlier documents that came to be known in the Christian setting as the Old and New Testaments.”

 

[spacehut1]

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (1974, second edition) edited by F.L. Cross, Professor of Divinity (University of Oxford), some contributors include A.G. Dickens, Director of the Institute of Historical Research, University of London, S.L. Greenslade, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, E.O. James, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion, University of London, note on page 281 that “the Gospels indicate that the historical Christ claimed to be both God and Man, and from the Acts and Epistles it is clear that the earliest Christians regarded Him as such … It was only when one-sided distortions of the truth had come into being, such as … the Gnostic view that the Incarnation was purely an appearance of God, without real assumption of humanity, that the Apologists of the 2nd cent. … developed the Logos doctrine put forth in St. John (1. 1-18), contending that the Word, Who is the eternal expression of God, appeared on earth in history as Jesus Christ … ”

 

[spacehut1]

And on page 73, “APOLOGISTS … the Christian writers who (c. 120-220) first addressed themselves to the task of making a reasoned defence and recommendation of their faith to outsiders. They include Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, and Tertullian. They belonged to the period when Christianity was first making converts to the educated classes, and was also in conflict with the State over its very right to exist. Their object was to gain a fair hearing for Christianity and to dispel popular slanders and misunderstandings, and to provide for this purpose some account of Christian

 

[spacehut1]

belief and practice … They devoted much attention to … the position of the divinity of Christ in relation to monotheism … ” (Oxford University Press, London, England).

 

[spacehut1]

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, (fifteenth edition, 2002 [first edition 1768]) Vol. 1, page 486: “In the early church, the Apologists such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian, defended the moral superiority of Christianity over paganism and pointed out Christianity’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies..”

 

[spacehut1]

Religions of the Ancient World, (2004, Harvard University Press) General Editor – Sarah Johnston, Professor of Greek and Latin, Ohio State University, page 236: “While governors such as Pliny took sporadic action against Christians, some members of the community offered apologetic responses. In Rome, Justin (a teacher martyred in 165), Tatian (his pupil), Theophilus of Antioch, and others published tracts refuting various charges … ”

 

[spacehut1]

The Encyclopedia of Religion, (1987) Vol. 8. page 19, chief editor – Mircea Eliade, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of History, University of Chicago: “ … the early Christians … believed Jesus to be personally identified with God. Some passages in the New Testament apply the term God to Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:1, 1:18, 20:28; Heb. 1:8-9) … The prologue of John’s gospel (1:1-18) crowned the christological thought of the first century by announcing the incarnation of the divine Word become flesh.”

 

[spacehut1]

The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, (reprinted 1999) General Editor – John Bowker, a highly regarded authority on religious studies, Gresham College, London, Adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, former Professor of Religion, University of Lancaster, UK: “From the outset, New Testament writers related Jesus so closely to God that he could be seen as the initiative of God in seeking and saving that which was lost, even to the extent of being the manifestation of God so far as that can be seen or conveyed in human form … This led inevitably to questions of how the being of God is related to the humanity of Jesus in such a way that both are truly contained and present in one person.” (page 219)