• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Da Vinci Code

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sorry Kol,for highjacking your thread,really wasn't a cat fight at all.At least not on my part,I maybe mistakenly felt HMW,was being snotty,already apologised for that.
 
HMW...it kinda like you state once before.... I gotta a life....can't keep up with every sentence and time stamp here!!! :wink: :wink: :)
 
Watch out smalltime.....you just put a traget on yer back!!! :lol: :lol:

Welcome to " that" club!!!

I'm not sure if anyone knows/remember that the actual tangible book called the " Bible" wasn't actually arranged and compliled until the reign of Constantine.

Until that time it was just a jumble of stories throughout a region told by different people in different lands in different languages.
 
I have heard the movie is bad......but then every movie I like gets bad reviews from the critics so it is prob a good movie. I will wait till its on stars (DTV) I want to read the book after seeing the different shows about it. Just have to find the time LOL.
I have always said God has a sense of humor and I know what we say and do sometimes tickles him and He has to giggle at us. Kinda the way parents do to small children, ok and teenagers. :wink:

I believe there were 12 disciples for a reason......They were all different and reacted differently. Peter was quick with his sword in the defence of Jesus. Thomas had to see it or touch it. Kinda like how we all react to questions about "our" faith. Its not bad or wrong to ask questions we have to understand and accept the different ways others react.
I am the first to admit I am Peter through and through. Quick with my sword ready to defend and to give the "hard truth". I think if we all step back and see deep down we all believe the same basic thing we will stop fighting or misunderstanding among ourselves.

ok off my soapbox
Kolan let me know what you thought of the movie I trust you over the critics.
 
MsSage....haven't seen the movie as of yet, life is BUSY, but will within the next wk or so.

BUT...the book you can't put down once you start it...so make sure you have a weekend dedicated for that alone!!! I thought that the book was great!
 
kolanuraven said:
I'm not sure if anyone knows/remember that the actual tangible book called the " Bible" wasn't actually arranged and compliled until the reign of Constantine.

Until that time it was just a jumble of stories throughout a region told by different people in different lands in different languages.
Click to expand...

It was never just a jumble of stories but it was and is the inspired word of God. Your demeaning tone is offensive. Since you have so many history degrees and are so smart, you obviously know that Constantine didn't cannonize scripture as we know it....but reading your post one would almost think you were meaning that.

The New Testament Canon: When, Why and How?
by M. James Sawyer, Ph.D.
It may surprise some Christians to learn that Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, is right when he declares that the New Testament "did not arrive by fax from heaven."

But was it a result of Emperor Constantine throwing out dozens of books as he sought to suppress the true story of Jesus, as The Da Vinci Code claims? It may surprise some skeptics of Christianity that this is false.

Before there was a New Testament, the early church spoke only of the 39 books of the Old Testament as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-16). As the need arose, the apostles and their associates wrote various gospels, letters and other documents. In due time, these were assembled into one book which we call the New Testament. Neither the process of assembling these books nor the recognition of them as Scripture was immediate.

What Do We Mean by "Canon"?
The term "canon" (Greek kan?n) means "rule" or "standard." The New Testament canon is the final rule or standard of authority for the church. As William Barclay said, "The New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so." Bruce Metzger concurs: "The Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church." Thus, their authority was intrinsic and was discovered by the church rather than imputed by the church.

Criteria of Canonicity
The ancient church used three criteria to discover the authority of these books: apostolicity, orthodoxy and catholicity. Was a book written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle (apostolicity)? Did it conform to the teachings of other books known to be written by apostles (orthodoxy)? Did a majority of churches accept it (catholicity)? Only if a book met these criteria was it worthy of being considered part of the canon.

Formation of Canon
Several factors prevented the church from immediately recognizing the New Testament books as Scripture:

(1) One cannot recognize what one does not know: Almost from its inception, the church was spread over a wide geographical area.

(2) Christianity's illegal status made the circulation of its documents somewhat difficult.

(3) While the apostles' writings were not at first seen as being on a par with the Old Testament, they were viewed as having some authority. The recognition process was beginning even within the New Testament itself.

In one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, Peter declares that Paul's letters are "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15–16). One can understand the reticence on the part of early Christians to accept New Testament books as Scripture. After all, to the first Christians the Bible was the Old Testament, completed over 400 years earlier. The canon had been closed for centuries. How could anyone say that the canon was now open again?

What ultimately caused them to reexamine this notion, however, was Jesus Christ himself. If he was God in the flesh, then whatever he said, and whomever he appointed as his apostles, must be viewed as authoritative.

The earliest known canonical list was compiled by the heretic Marcion (c. 140 A.D.). He accepted only an extensively edited copy of Luke and ten heavily edited Pauline letters.

Marcion's list pressed the church to deal with the issue of its canon. The fact that Marcion used only books that would later be included in the orthodox canon testifies that these books were already highly regarded in the mid-second century. Although Marcion's doctrine was docetic (he believed that Jesus only appeared to be human) with Gnostic leanings, none of the so-called Gnostic gospels appear in his canon. This strongly suggests that the Gnostic books such as The Gospel of Thomas were not yet written — or, if written, they would have been suspected of being of recent origin (and thus non-apostolic).

The Muratorian Canon (late 2nd century) includes the four Gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 letters, Jude, Revelation, 1 John and at least one of John's two other letters. Thus, at least 21 of our 27 canonical books are recognized as authoritative before the end of the second century. This canon list also noted that numerous other books fell into one of three other categories: disputed (often because they were short letters and not widely circulated); edifying but not authoritative; and heretical. Bruce Metzger notes:

Though the fringes of the New Testament canon remained unsettled for centuries, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained within the first two centuries among the very diverse and scattered congregations not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.
A century and a half later (c. 325 A.D.), Eusebius distinguished three similar categories of books circulating within the churches: 1) the recognized books; 2) the disputed books — accepted by many, still doubted by some (including James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John); and 3) books rejected because of heresy or recent origin. At that time, 22 books were undisputed, recognized as canonical.

How does this stack up against the claim of The Da Vinci Code that Constantine imposed his canonical decision upon the church? That's sheer literary fiction. The full 27-book canon was not even recognized in Constantine's lifetime. He didn't have the power to close the canon. The most obvious evidence of this is that the earliest complete canon list did not appear until 30 years after Constantine's death — composed by a man Constantine had exiled!

Further, instead of the church limiting the Gospels to four from over 80 candidates (as Dan Brown alleges), by the early fourth century the books recognized as canonical were fewer, not more, than the finally received number of 27.

In 367 A.D., Athanasius provided the first list that includes all and only the 27 books of the New Testament. In the Greek-speaking East, Athanasius' list ultimately prevailed. In 393 A.D., Augustine endorsed the same list in the Latin-speaking West, and Jerome included these in his translation of the Vulgate.

From this point on, the canon was effectively closed for the majority of the church: closed by consensus, not the pronouncement of an emperor or council. The fact that no emperor, no church council, no official pronouncement closed the canon underscores an earlier point: the canon is a list of authoritative books that were discovered to bear this authority because of their intrinsic worth. Or, as Barclay said, "The New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so."
 
kolanuraven said:
Anyone seen it? I'll see it next week after crowds back off a bit....I LOVED the book...but I'm a quadruple history major from college days anyway, so that is right up my alley of interests.

Do any of you see " the conflict" in the book or movie?
Click to expand...

OMG I loved it too! And the music at the end.. Ohh.
Conflict?
 
I haven't seen the movie but did read the book.
To my way of thinking, historical novels should try to
portray history as closely as possible to the truth. That didn't happen
in this book. So, though it was an exciting novel, I wouldn't
give it high marks for historical authenticity. It only succeeded
in making history murkier.
 

Latest posts

Top