 |
|
 |
|
|
• Home >> And Jesus? >> Historical Truth behind The Da Vinci Code | |
|
 |
 |
In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown has created the ultimate conspiracy novel. In the world of subversive plots, the stakes can go no higher -- hiding aliens in Roswell or the identity of JFK's assassin are but pranks compared to the idea of a conspiring Church hiding the true identity of Jesus Christ and misleading billions of the faithful. Brown's brilliant mixture of fact and fiction provide plausibility, and we are hooked, compelled to follow the clues wherever they lead, whatever the truth. Because historical facts are woven into The Da Vinci Code, fact frequently slides undetected into fiction. As concepts are presented in quick motion on a screen, it's tough to know whether something presented was generated from history or from the filmmaker's imagination. For viewing pleasure it really doesn't matter. But in concluding what is true about the start of Christianity, perhaps it would be nice to look at a few historical facts. For example, did Jesus actually claim to be God? This seems to be incontrovertible, as almost everything Jesus said and did points in this direction. One such example is Lazarus, a close friend of Jesus who died. It had been four days since the burial, but as can be true in the Middle East, the entire town is still in mourning, the men and women still wailing. Jesus, who had been in another part of the country, finally arrives and asks them to take away the stone that's closing the tomb. Most people couldn't get away with a request like that, and some even mention to him the smell that will ensue. But because of Jesus' reputation, they actually did it. Jesus then shouts toward the tomb, "Lazarus, come out!" (If Jesus was trying to be quiet about being God, this certainly wasn't a good move.) Lazarus walks out of the tomb at the amazement of the crowd, and causes a huge political uproar among the religious leaders. The Pharisees gathered the Council and declared, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him..."1 Again, if you were trying to avoid being given the label of "God" you also wouldn't say things like this... "Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered, 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.'"2 In fact, if there was anything ambiguous about what Jesus was asserting, his enemies certainly didn't think so: "'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"3 It is also extremely clear that the disciples and early Christians from the very beginning held Christ's deity a foundational tenet or article of belief. Look at this statement by the apostle Paul: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by him and for him."4 In this passage the apostle Paul describes Jesus as the "image" of God and goes on to identify him as the "Creator." It's important to realize that Paul's letters were written only a few decades after Christ's death. And if the text doesn't flow like prose, that's because it's not. Quoted within Paul's letters are creeds, like this one, which predate the letter and were formulated within the first few years after Jesus' death. These creeds defined what the earliest Christian community held to be true about Christ. His deity is central to them. What about the Gnostic gospels in The Da Vinci Code?The other gospels that Teabing mentions were written, in most cases, a full century or two later, primarily by a group known as the Gnostics. The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was written around 140 A.D.; the "Gospel of Judas" was written about 170 A.D. Though using names of people who lived in Jesus' time, these Gnostic gospels were written long after these people died, and long after Jesus. The Da Vinci Code makes it seem as though the Gnostics did not believe in Jesus' deity. Here we have poetic fiction over fact. In historical terms, the Gnostics actually very much believed in Jesus' deity, but were very imaginative in some of their other theology about Jesus. Whether in Waco, Texas, or the ancient Middle East, there have always been religious sects and cults, peddling their literature door-to-door and promoting a radical "new" interpretation of Christ. What is interesting to note is that a milder, earlier form of Gnosticism existed in the days of the apostles, and therefore some of what is written in the New Testament was actually meant to address their misrepresentation of Christ's identity. This is why the apostle John unabashedly begins his gospel with this statement upholding both Jesus' deity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... ...and his humanity: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."5 It was Jesus' humanity that the Gnostics took issue with, not his deity. So you have John's Gospel emphatically opening with this proclamation that "the Word [Jesus] was God" and that he "became flesh." The Gnostics believed that matter was evil, and therefore it was inconceivable to them that Jesus could have ever been fully human. These Gnostic writings, which Teabing refers to as "other gospels" in the movie, do not actually question Jesus' deity. Just the opposite. The Gnostic writings embellished the divinity of Jesus and marginalized his humanity. Ironically, The Da Vinci Code uses the controversy of the Gnostics, but puts it all on its head, suggesting that the issue was about Jesus' deity. What about the Council of Nicea in The Da Vinci Code?The Da Vinci Code's claim that the deity of Christ was debated at the council of Nicea is very misleading (ok, so here is another illustration of poetic license). Not a problem. Back to history: the debate at Nicea actually was whether Christ was coeternal with the Father. In other words, was there ever a time that Jesus "was not" with the Father? This may seem like, "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin," but at the time it was important to clarify. No one at the council believed Jesus was just a man, or even just a prophet. (By the way, the Council of Nicea overwhelmingly concluded that Jesus was in fact coeternal with the Father.) Again, Jesus himself was very clear on this point of eternally existing with the Father. Jesus took the same name as God's name in the Old Testament scriptures. When Moses asked what name he should use in referring to God, God told Moses, "'I AM' sent you." (And that makes sense -- God has always existed, exists now, and always will exist -- so, "I AM" summarizes it pretty well.) And, Jesus made the same claim. He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."6 Every now and then something comes along that's difficult for humans to classify. It's rather bizarre, for example, that a whale is classified as a mammal. Something that lives its life in the ocean should not wear the label of mammal. In the world of religious leaders, Jesus is a whale, often lumped into the same phylum with other great religious leaders, including Moses, Muhammad and Buddha. But frankly, he doesn't fit. On the surface, he looks like a fish (a wonderful religious leader who has helped shape the world of faith and morals), but he taught and claimed something that, when analyzed, makes him a different species altogether. He claimed to be God. If you would like to know what Jesus revealed and proved about himself, and what he is offering you, please see Beyond Blind Faith. (1) John 11:47,48
|
|
|
|
© EveryStudent.com  HOME  TOP  CONTACT US |