The DaVinci Code, Gospel of Judas, and other Gnostic conspirarcy theories

[Jeff Boler]

I'm going to hold of giving my opinion on this for the moment. I'm curious to see what the general views are here.

As everyone is by now aware, the DaVinci Code, getting a last legal hurdle out of the way, is set to appear on movie screens next month. Also, this week, historians unveiled the Lost Gospel of Judas.

More and more of these Gnostic gospels seem to appear out of nowhere as the years go by. That being said, what is your general views on these "gospels" that were left out of the Bible? Do you believe the various theories mentioned in the DaVinci code (although elaborated on in Holy Blood, Holy Grail)? And....is it herecy to read this material?

 

[Xue Sheng]

As for the Gospels, I have not got a clue.

As for the book the DaVinci Code, it is a work of fiction that apparently has been taken seriously.

Much the same as Oliver stones movie JFK, the most recent movie about Alexander the Great and the movie due to come out about Hannibal, it is loosely based on historic fact but it is for the most part a work of fiction.

 

[Jeff Boler]

The DaVinci Code is a book of fiction, however it is based on several established theories. For a better idea of what the basic beliefs are, visit the following wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes, I know it is based on several well established theories, but they are theories and they are linked by fiction. The book is not a factual report on history. The same goes for the movies I mentioned as well.

Entertaining yes but still fiction.

There was a History Channel show about it as well, but it is still a work of fiction.

 

[RoninPimp]

The DaVinci Code is pure fiction. The Gospel of Judas seems 100% legit by all scholarly accounts. The history of Christianity is not all neat and simple like they teach in Sunday school.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Frankly, the possibility that Judas was a willing participant, rather than unsuspecting doesn't change the nature of Christ's sacrifice. Someone had to give him up and it was Judas. Knowingly or not, no difference.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've watched a number of debunkings of the DaVinci Code. I tend to agree with them. As to the other Gospels, I tend to lean towards the majority of them being as legit as the "traditional" ones.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Having been told many time that he current "new Testiment" was reduced to the number of books we now know a long time ago and that many books whe left out , I always wanted to read the others to see what they said.
Now that more text seem to be being found I am couious as to what is in them.

On holy blood holy grail I have read the book a few times and have a couple copies of it and find some of the things mentioned in it fasinating but would like to see proff or disproof (?) of other facts mention

 

[Jeff Boler]

I believe it was the Council of Trent that determined which books would make it into the New Testament. I believe a couple of the Gnostic Gospels spoke out against the organized church (Gospel of Thomas, I think), which is enough by itself to be excluded by the church leaders. That being said, I would say that certain texts were left out for "political" reasons.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes, like the ones about the Nephilim...

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I'm going to hold of giving my opinion on this for the moment. I'm curious to see what the general views are here.

As everyone is by now aware, the DaVinci Code, getting a last legal hurdle out of the way, is set to appear on movie screens next month. Also, this week, historians unveiled the Lost Gospel of Judas.

More and more of these Gnostic gospels seem to appear out of nowhere as the years go by. That being said, what is your general views on these "gospels" that were left out of the Bible? Do you believe the various theories mentioned in the DaVinci code (although elaborated on in Holy Blood, Holy Grail)? And....is it herecy to read this material?

The Da Vinci Code is fiction, period.

However, I believe there were more competing factions and doctrines during the early Christian era than Church scholars would like people to believe and also that it is unlikely that the early Christians would recognize much from current practice. However, the book upon which the The Davinci Code is based is the thoroughly debunked Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which, IIRC is based largely upon the work of a convicted French conman, Pierre Plantard. Do a Google on Pierre Plantard and you will find much intersting stuff.

 

[still learning]

Hello, This is a good story.....made into a movie.......Aloha

 

[Odin]

Yes, I know it is based on several well established theories, but they are theories and they are linked by fiction. The book is not a factual report on history. The same goes for the movies I mentioned as well.

Entertaining yes but still fiction.

There was a History Channel show about it as well, but it is still a work of fiction.

....when you think about it though the bible isnt really a factual report on history.

To me its just another interesting theory,and as in all theories there must be some truth in it somewhere.......and the book/film is really just about the secret religion that de Vinci and a couple other Important people followed.

 

[Xue Sheng]

....when you think about it though the bible isnt really a factual report on history.

To me its just another interesting theory,and as in all theories there must be some truth in it somewhere.......and the book/film is really just about the secret religion that de Vinci and a couple other Important people followed.

I am purposly trying to avoiding the religious side of this, although it is part of the post. I tend to aviod religious debates whenever possible.

The secret religion of which you speak is part of the fiction. There is no proof of DeVinci's envolvement.

Leonardo DeVinci was an amazing person, incredible artistic and intelligent, but apparently the historical facts are not interesting enough so we add a bit of intrigue like a good spy novel through in a historic fact here and there and BINGO we now have a book, a movie and a faux history that WAY to many people are willing to believe as gosphel (pun intended).

And then we wonder why when kids graduate high school they say things like Benjermin Franklin was the first president of the United States.

 

[michaeledward]

THREAD GANK ALERT

And then we wonder why when kids graduate high school they say things like Benjermin Franklin was the first president of the United States.

When it is obvious, and we all know, that the First President of the United States was John Hanson, from Maryland, right?

END THREAD GANK

 

[Xue Sheng]

When it is obvious, and we all know, that the First President of the United States was John Hanson, from Maryland, right?

WHOA!!! Impressive...you definitely get points for that one

..Damn those Articles of Confederation, if they were only better....but 1-year presidential terms....I don't know...

OK, Washington the 1st Constitutional President.

Regardless, if you know that John Hanson was the first President or George Washington was the 1st or the 8th, it is fictionalized histories that people read, believe and pass on as fact that I have a real problem with. And it is very likely a contributing factor to why a college entrance exam had on it as an answer to who was the first President, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong or Ben Franklin, I am not sure which, I am currently to derailed by the John Hanson response.

 

[heretic888]

More and more of these Gnostic gospels seem to appear out of nowhere as the years go by.

It seems that way to those who haven't researched the subject to any extensive degree, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of "Gnostic" gospels were discovered before the 1950's. Scholars have known about most of them for decades.

In fact, there are English translations for many of them available online.

That being said, what is your general views on these "gospels" that were left out of the Bible?

Well, since the number of "gospels" you are referring to number in the hundreds, many of which have not survived to the present day, it's rather difficult to answer your question adequately.

That being said, my view is that some of the "Gnostic" gospels predate the Synoptic gospels, and some do not. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the oldest, most "primitive" Christian gospel that we have --- and most likely was one of the source materials for the four canonical gospels, especially the Gospel of John. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth clearly had pre-eminence among first and second century Chrisitan communities, much moreso than the Synoptics.

Despite what Church history has handed down to us, some scholars' textual examinations of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord indicate that it is the source material for the Gospel of Luke, rather than the other way around. Marcion was one of the arch-"Gnostics" active around 140 CE. It should also be pointed out that the earliest collections of Paul's letters that we have --- the 7 letters thought to be largely authentically written by him --- all contain what appear to "Marcionite" prologues to them. It is known that the seven churches these letters are addressed to were all "Marcionite" strongholds in the middle of the 2nd century.

Furthermore, no "orthodox" Christian quotes Paul or even mentions him until relatively late, around the year 200 CE with Irenaeus and Tertullian. Justin Martry, for example, lived in the middle of the 2nd century and never mentions him. "Gnostic" leaders like Marcion and Valentinus had drawn on Paul's teachings for decades prior to this time.

Do you believe the various theories mentioned in the DaVinci code (although elaborated on in Holy Blood, Holy Grail)?

No. My own views of historical Christianity are more in alignment with Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? and Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians.

And....is it herecy to read this material?

The Church defines heresy, not me. According to the Church, it is not heretical to read these texts, but it is heretical to accept the theological ideas that they teach.

However, that cursory explanation aside, the fact of the matter is that a number of Christian mystics, sages, luminaries, saints, and theologians over the years have held positions that some could consider pro-"Gnostic". The following, for example, is an excerpt from St. Dionysius:

"Unto this Darkness which is Light, pray that we may come, and may attain unto vision through the loss of sight and knowledge, and that in ceasing thus to see or to know, we may learn to know this which is beyond all perception and understanding - for this emptying of our faculties is true sight and knowledge - and that we may offer the transcendent in all things the praises of transcendent hymnody, which we may well do by denying or removing all things that are - like any person who, carving a statue out of marble, removes all the impediments that hinder the clear perception of that latent image and by this mere removal display the hidden statue itself in its hidden beauty."

It should also be pointed out that an early Christian father, St. Clement of Alexandria, regarded the "gnostic" as the "true Christian".

So, in other words, it's very complicated.

Laterz.

 

[still learning]

Hello, If God can have a child? ...why not Jesus! ... who was the son of
God. .....Aloha

 

[evenflow1121]

As for herecy, I am not a believer, so I guess that doesnt really concern me much. Besides, if God was to exist, and provided God did give man the gift of free will, then wouldnt that being rather you explore as much material as you can and make up your own mind as to God's existence and being, rather than ban anything that cast doubt on God?

As for The DaVinci Code, its a fun read, but fictitious, and should be taken as such a fun read. As for the Gospels, I think its a great thing, but only with respect to historical accounts.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

lol....all I ever say to the conspiracy theories is you never know because it often involves people who have passed away and things that are very hard to support by facts because time has put its stamp on the world.

I don't dismiss them if some decent evidence is shown but I also take a lot of it with a grain of salt. (Even the bible has some points in it that CANNOT be taken literally)