Da Vinci Code controversy

 

Thank you for your continued good info (you might want to tone down the emotion, though!  LOL).  I would add, for Sean's benefit, re "life expectancy" that Josephus, the earliest scholar of Christianity (c. 37-100 A.D.), states that John lived into his 80s, if not his 90s - and Josephus was physically there to corroborate this.

 

Finally, you state that by the "300-400s" there were hundreds of gospels.  Actually, there were perhaps 150 gospels (as well as perhaps 150-200 other writings) circulating by the time of the Council of Nicea in approx. 325 A.D.  As I noted, although there was clearly a "political" aspect of the decision-making of the Council, that was not its primary consideration, and they did not simply "cherry-pick" those gospels that fit some "pre-determined" form of Christianity.  Rather, they were acutely aware of which gospels (and other writings, such as the letters of Paul) had been circulating for the longest time among the broadest population, and that is why Mark and Luke were the first ones included.

 

That Matthew and John were the only other gospels included may or may not reflect the "political" aspect of their decision-making; there is simply no way to know.  However, it is clear that, if one starts with Mark and Luke, and reads the Gnostic and other gospels "against" (i.e., next to) them, one can see that there is an enormous divergence of thought and approach re some of the most basic aspects of the Judeo-Christian construct - a departure far too large to represent a mere "interpretation" of Mark and Luke, which is what one might expect if later gospels came out of the apostolic tradition.  (By comparison, Matthew, and even John, maintain most of the basic foundations found in Mark and Luke).  Rather, the Gnostic and other gospels proffer a completely different set of foundations re knowledge, redemption and salvation - one which not only diverges almost 180 degrees from Mark, Luke and the letters of Paul (i.e., the earliest known writings), but all of which were written - i.e., first created, not simply "re-interpreted" - in 150 A.D. or later.

 

This does not mean that none of the other gospels or other writings have nothing to teach us, or do not have grains of truth.  But they do not represent what the bulk of the earliest Christian writings teach us about Jesus and His ministry - or even what the vast majority of the populace was reading and "following" at the time - even if we have to "read between the lines" of the earliest writings to get a solid idea of the first foundations.

 

Peace.

 

If you wish to simply "agree to disagree," I have no prolbm with that.  However, I must make one comment.

In final defense of your position, you say: "The church works for its own interest, not the truth."  Even if that is true, you seem to be missing one my (and Ghandi's) main points: that the vast majority of scholars we cite have little or no connection to the church; i.e., they are not simply blindly supporting official church doctrine, but base their conclusions (or theories, if you like) on independent research that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the church does or does not believe or claim.

 

This is not a debatable point: it is a hard, cold fact.  Much as you would like to believe that all scholars (except yours, of course...LOL) are somehow little more than "mouthpieces" for the church, that is simply not the case, and never was.

 

Peace.

 

Setting aside websites for the moment, what about books?  I am talking about scholarly books by a wide variety of men and women, with a wide variety of academic and other backgrounds, and a wide variety of beliefs (and non-beliefs).  I have read at least 50-60 books on early Christanity, with perspectives ranging from non-partisan atheist to the narrow "pre-determined" view you ascribe to the Vatican and much of "organized" Christianity; from Jewish kabbalists to evangelical Christians; from experts on the Gnostics to experts on the orthodox tradition.  I have read books by well-known scholars, and obscure scholars.

 

In all my broad-based reading, I have never come across any scholar - respected or otherwise - who has suggested that the apostolic gospels were not written prior to 100 A.D.  It is, in fact, one of the few points of early Christianity on which virtually every scholar - from whatever background or belief (or non-belief) - agrees upon.

 

I would, in fact, be very interested to read a scholar who believes otherwise, so if you can provide a name or two, I would very much appreciate it.

 

That said, you know that I know you well enough to know that you are never disrespectful, only fiercely "protective" of your opinion.  And there is nothing wrong with that - even if your opinion is wrong!  LOL.

 

Peace.

 

If you keep this up gunslinger, I will also have to draw mine

 

I will be forced to look up in the books were I saw evidence of this issue a two decades ago >> and this is why I am backing out a bit , because I HAVE read this quite a while ago  - and it made so much sense I must say that I never even doubted it and it has stayed with me ever since, and whenever I mentioned it to aChristians, they actually never rebuffed me or admitedly nooded to the fact.

 

But to remember exactly where I read this,  is most of the problem (aside of the fact that I would fall into the debate I do not really want to engage into, because chances of "converting" you are next to zero >> proselytism anybody?)

 

Those four texts (New Testaments if I recall they are called) existed in some way or form for sure before the 4th century, I am sure, but the "melting down" was done in  doubtful terms (interpretation etc..) >> Ever wonder why these four guys relate the same facts in the same context and in the same frame of mind as to coincide a little too much, while they had drifted apart after their leader's death....... (Actually only two of them actually witnessed them miracles too, if I remember well. )

 

The Four testaments  where this is the first critcism of the future Islam to be >> the texts were not from the prophet himself >> but from people who had either witnessed (from close or far) or from earsay.

 

 

Read you tomorrow

 

It is a fictional book! That simple! I would go into a long rant but it will probably get me in a lot of trouble.

 

 

All I know is....Dan Brown must look at all this talk and laugh his way to the bank.

 

Is that a quote from The Matrix or the Marillion website?