The Da Vinci Code: Fact Vs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BS DVC04 The Da Vinci Code: Fact vs. Myth p. 1 of 3 The Da Vinci Code: So, What’s All the Hoopla? 1 What follows will be a kind of “fact sheet” on the book, The Da Vinci Code. I will refer to pages in the paperback edition, NOT the hardcover, within square brackets, as follows: [ 135 ]. I will also list first, the “fact”, so called, presented in DVC and follow with the “truth” as found in Scripture or other reliable resources. This study continues with what happened at the 1st council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. 10 – What really happened at the council of Nicaea held in A.D. 325 ? DVC: The Council of Nicaea … the birthplace of the Nicene Creed. … AT this gathering many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon — the date of Easter, the role of bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus. … 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. Not the Son of God. … Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. … the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power. [ch 55 - p 251] Once again Brown has mixed some fact with much fiction. The Council was held in A.D. 325, many important issues facing Christianity were debated/voted upon Constantine requested the council due to the falling out among Eastern Bishops following a severe persecution 1) to help settle the embarrassing dispute among his allies, the bishops 2) to demonstrate he had effectively brought peace to the eastern territories [McGuckin] BUT- The chief issues + outcomes of the Council do not resemble DVC’s claims / Constantine played a minor role the issue of how the Son of God was related to the Father was debated = accurately defining Jesus’ nature as in lesson 1 – the issue of Jesus’ full divinity had long since been a matter of fact, [too: infallibility of Scripture] the council sought to show how Jesus could be confessed as God: that Jesus = the eternal, divine Son of God Council authenticated this truth by a 300:2 vote (the number of votes may have be 250+:2 - a radical majority) Arianism was condemned as a heresy: the denial of the full (absolute) divinity of Christ - Jesus’ own words: ex. = Matt. 10:43; John 10:30; 12:44, 45; 14:9 - The disciples/others: ex. = Jn 1:1-2; 5:17-18; 10:32-33 (cf. their chief proof of his divinity = His resurrection) - Jesus own trial makes it clear His accusers understood his claim to be God (JM) Matt 14:61-62, 64 - Paul the Apostle proclaimed Jesus was God (JM): ex. Rom 1:4, 9:5; Philp 2:6; Col 1:15 The Nicene Creed (see handout) and 20 canons (rules, standards) resulted from the Council Please read this eloquent statement of our faith and it’s remarkable confession of the Trinity (the Creed) Note that it confesses God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost in the divine Godhead; It confesses Jesus as fully God [God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God] and fully man [was made man] Jesus’ divinity and humanity, both, were not created at Nicaea but were, by then, ancient confessions of the church It was at Nicaea that these confessions were put into a enduring statement of faith, used to the present 11 - Just who waged war against whom in those early days of the Church ? DVC - Three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Christ’s followers had multiplied exponentially. Christians began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two. Constantine decided something had to be done. In 325 A.D., he decided to unify Rome under a single religion, Christianity. [ch 55 - p 253] Firstly, as above in #10 – Constantine called for the council for quite different reasons than DVC states here. Scripture/History record that Christians were fiercely persecuted by the Romans early in Church history The Eastern territories had later and just prior to the 4th century, come through a brutal time of persecution The so called “warring” had to do with theological issues which had suffered during the persecution in the East (See above. #10, for the main issues which were causing problems in the Church) the persecution led to the development of heresies and schisms which were dividing the church Constantine had little more than a master of ceremonies / observer role at the council. (see #10 for his concerns) See: Matt. 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 7:54-8:4f and 11:19; 12:1 (esp. Acts 8:1); Gal. 1:13; 2Tim. 3:12; Rev. 2:10 1 I am basing this study on several sources, especially Josh McDowell’s book (The Da Vinci Code: A Quest for Answers) and related Study Guide, a free download. I will use “JM” to identify specific quotes or borrowings from Josh McDowell sources. See: http://www.beyondbelief.com/a_dvquest.spl?sourceid=3107 Words in Italics are Brown’s own emphasis. I have tried to carefully reproduce the exact wording of DVC. ( ) = exceptions for clarity. DVC references are to the paperback version, ex. [ch 62 – p. 288]. BS DVC04 The Da Vinci Code: Fact vs. Myth p. 1 of 3 BS DVC04 The Da Vinci Code: Fact vs. Myth p. 2 of 3 12 – What about DVC’s take on Da Vinci, his paintings, and especially his fresco, The Last Supper ? DVC - (pictures not one cup but that everyone had a cup) … thirteen cups … the cups were tiny, stemless, and made of glass. There (is) no chalice in the painting. No Holy Grail. [ch 55 – 256] … The Holy Grail does indeed make an appearance in The Last Supper. Leonardo included her prominently. … the one seated in the place of honor, at the right hand of the Lord … (as a result of restoration) down to Da Vinci’s original layer of paint … (reveals it) is Mary Magdalene . [ch 58 – 262-63] - I don’t have the pages, but DVC contends the Mona Lisa was a self-portrait and that he titled it “Mona Lisa” after the Egyptian gods Amon and Isis [JM, 61] As for the “Mona Lisa” – there are no definitive portraits of Leonardo; “Mona Lisa” was never used in his lifetime, which makes that a total fraud; Leonardo is always “Leonardo” among artsy people, not “Da Vinci” [JM 61] As for the “Madonna of the Rocks” - the angel is merely pointing, not ‘making a cutting gesture as is slicing the invisible head gripped by Mary’s claw-like hand’; the size and weight of the painting would prohibit Sophie from bending it as a shield, it is over six feet tall and painted on wood, not canvas. As for “The Last Supper” fresco - DVC’s author makes one imagine Leonardo took a picture of the event and then painted it some 15 centuries later; the Gospel accounts only say that “Jesus took the cup” (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-20; 1Co 11:23-25), it doesn’t specify whether there was only one or 13+/- cups; the color scheme is likely Leonardo’s sense of composition; Peter’s threatening gesture toward a supposed Mary with the knife is the author’s own imagination (as are other elements DVC sees in the fresco) – scholars refer to the figure as St. John the Apostle, possibly painted effeminately as Leonardo did with other biblical figures. Other artists of the Leonardo’s period also show a beardless John sitting nex to Jesus. Matt. 26:20 is very clear as to who was present at the Last supper: “When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve.” 13 – Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene and did they have a child(ren)? DVC – “Unfortunately for the early editors (of the gospels), one particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the gospels. Mary Magdalene. More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ.” [ch 58 – 264]; “With the help of Jesus’ trusted uncle, Joseph of Aramathea, Mary Magdalene secretly traveled to France, then known as Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish community. It was here in France that she gave birth to a daughter. Her name was Sarah.” {ch 59 – 276] Teabing says, “I won’t bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union. This has been explored ad nauseam by modern historians” [ ? ]. (there are a several other such references in DVC, let these suffice) As for Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married - The eminent and reliable ancient history scholar, Dr. Paul Maier wrote: “[there is a] total absence of such information in either Scripture or the early church traditions. But there is no such spark — not a scintilla of evidence — anywhere in historical sources … there is no reference that Jesus ever got married (emphases are Maier’s) [JM p. 71] For an Excellent article on Mary M, go to: http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2006/003/6.28.html or handout. As to Teabing’s assertion of “countless references” – there are none ! The four books DVC cites as “cream of the crop” are by authors with no history degrees. [JM 68] As for Mary’s moving to France and giving birth to a daughter – there is no evidence, biblical or historical.