Huw

Published on 18th August 2009.

Hi all,

Today, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about Dan Brown's immensely-popular "The Da Vinci Code": its claims, its implications, and where, ultimately, its historical "evidence" fails. I have written this blog entry to shed some light on the fictional claims of "The Da Vinci Code", which no doubt will have challenged the faith of many believers.

Fact Vs. Fiction

Firstly, and foremostly, it is important to remember that, although in many senses the subject content of "The Da Vinci Code" is marketed as being thoroughly researched and historically accurate, the book is fictional. The plot is merely a wildly dramatised and corrupted version of the true history of the Bible and the Christian faith.

Reading the book, its rotund prose and sense of articulation can make it easy to be swayed into thinking, "This sounds true, so it probably is.". Whether Dan Brown ultimately believes in what he suggests in the novel or not, he has obviously written the story in such a way as to, at the very least, make the reader think twice about their perceptions of scotomatous historical events.

A Holey Grail

Perhaps the most infamous proposition of The Da Vinci Code is the notion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. Brown initially uses Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" as evidence to support this claim, though he also delves into the Gnostic Gospels and, indrectly, the Bible itself.

Brown, by way of character Leigh Teabing, suggests that Da Vinci's masterpiece shows Mary Magdalene seated at the right hand of Jesus - not the disciple John, as is widely accepted. He notes her feminine complexion, her robes (of which the colours are the inverse of Jesus's) and her orientation with respect to Jesus (the fact that they make an "M" shape, supposedly denoting "Magdalene", and also a chalice symbol, denoting femininity).

"The Da Vinci Code" claims that Da Vinci's "The Last Supper"
shows Mary Magdalene, not John, at the right hand of Jesus.

Brown then goes on to "quote" (which is not a direct quote, but has in fact been "filled in") the Gnostic Gospel of Philip:

"And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on the mouth."

Compare this with the original surviving manuscript:

"And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on the [...]."

Importantly, even if it were assumed that the Gospel of Philip did suggest any sexual connection between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, its testimony would still be questionable. Not least of all, it was written at least a century after Jesus's death, by an unknown author with no eyewitness testimony or involvement. It is also worth noting that, contrary to Brown's claims, the contemporary use of the word "companion" was not analogous to the word "marriage", and, in fact, kissing on the mouth was often used as a friendly greeting between parties.

As we can see, to assume such a marital connection between Jesus and Mary Magdalene would require a leap of faith, indeed.

The Council Of Nicea

At one point in the book, Brown convincingly details how, seeking to unify the traditional paganism of Rome with the newly-arising Christian faith, Constantine the Great (born 27 February c. 272) held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicea. At this gathering, key elements of Christianity were "voted" upon by a panel of bishops, such as the date of Easter, the published content of the Bible, and even the divinity of Jesus himself.

Supposedly, it was the Nicean council who chose what gospels were to be included in the New Testament - gospels which portrayed Jesus as a divine figure were kept, whilst those which gave the "true" message of his unholiness were removed. Afterall, who would place faith in a normal man being the Son of God? Constantine is described by Brown as being a "businessman" of his time, and it is inferred that Constantine wanted desperately to monopolise the very foundations of Christianity so that they worked in his favour.

Original sin, the formation of woman from man, the disallowance of women at the head of the church - all of this was supposedly introduced into Bible scripture by Constantine to promote the inferiority of women in society. It is a dangerously convincing argument, but it is also a false one: a movement to formalise the contents of the New Testament was already well underway by the end of the 2nd century, almost 100 years before Constantine was even born to tell the tale.

Brown suggests that the idea of "original sin"was
invented by the Romans to promote male superiority,
and edited into the Bible according.

All the above said, we do know that the Council of Nicea meeting did take place, albeit under different pretenses. It is true that Constantine met with various bishops to discuss aspects of Christianity, such as the date of Easter, and other formalities. One thing they did not do, however, was to edit Bible canon, and they certainly did not edit any scripture itself.

A Mortal Prophet

Brown's claim that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless," is also false - throughout the New Testament, Jesus is constantly referred to and reaffirmed as the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, Mark 3:11, Luke 4:41, John 1:34), our Lord and Saviour (Luke 2:11, 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 3:18, Jude 1:25), and the only one through which we will be saved (John 3:17, John 10:9, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, 1 John 4:9).

In the words of co-protagonist Sophie Neveu, "How could a secret that big be kept quiet all these years?" - quite simply, because no such secret exists.

Jesus is the one true path to God. He is divine, and more than a mere man. The Bible tells us this over and over again, and we have sufficient evidence to believe that what the Bible says is historically accurate and reliable (I'll be blogging more about this in future).

Further Reading

• How Do We Know The Bible Is True?
• History Vs. The Da Vinci Code
• The Truth About Da Vinci: Gospel Of Philip
• The Council Of Nicea & The Da Vinci Code
• Development Of New Testament Canon

Published on 13th August 2009.

Hi all,

Firstly, greetings from a far corner of the United Kingdom (well, sort of) known as Wales. It's that little country next to England, for those who don't know. My name is Huw (which is pronounced similarly to the English "Hugh"), but you may also know me as Skywatcher from ChristianTeenForums.com. I'm 19, currently studying physics at the University of Nottingham, am a non-denominational Christian, and this is my first contribution to Redemption Radio.

With the start of this blog, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the start of something even more important - the first book of the Bible, known as Genesis.

Genesis 1 tells us only the most important aspects of creation:
that God purposefully made the universe, the Earth and life itself.

A lot of controversy and, perhaps, uneasiness surrounds Genesis 1 and its account of creation. Many people - not least Christians - often assume that there is an incompatibility between what Genesis says, and what mainstream science tells us.

As we (hopefully) all know, Genesis tells us that God created the universe and the Earth...

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.  (Genesis 1:1)

...and all life upon the Earth...

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.  (Genesis 1:24)

...and most importantly, He created us:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  (Genesis 1:27)

So far, so good. Genesis tells us that we were created by an intelligent entity, along with the universe itself, which by intent implies that the same entity (God) also created space, time and matter. Taking another step forward again, we can see that this must mean that God is not bound or affected by space, time or matter itself. So:

• God does not have spacial dimensions (i.e. he is unbound by space);
• God is not a subject of entropy (i.e. he is unbound by time);
• God is not made out of matter (i.e. he is not something that, by nature, we can physically see).

The problems that seem to arise with Genesis are with the more subtle details of the creation story. For example, that God created the universe, Earth and life in 6 "days" (Genesis 1:31), or that He created woman from the rib of man (Genesis 2:22).

There are a multitude of usually quite rational explanations for contentious issues such as these, e.g. translationary (the Hebrew word for "days" also means simply "periods" or "eras", which is a general way of conveying distinct spans of time), or metaphorical aspects.

Perhaps the main rival of the creation account today is the notion of evolution. Now, the process of evolution is proven - we see it happening - but this is not the same as Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution attempts to provide a scientifically-based explanation for how the natural process of evolution takes place, and its consequences. Despite popular misconceptions, the Theory of Evolution does not - nor does it attempt to - explain how life arose on Earth (which is a completely different process, known as abiogenesis).

Like most scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is not proven - by its very nature it can't be - but it is, for now, a collaborative "best guess" as to how life on Earth has matured and changed over time. For the believers amongst us who see evolution as a particular threat to the Christian, I ask you: could not God have started the evolutionary process himself? (Please do not take this as anything more than food for thought.)

Evolution is often confused with abiogenesis, which is defined as the
process by which life begins. As of yet, there is no solid scientific
evidence to support any proposed abiogenetic mechanism.

So, back to Genesis. As Christians, it is important for us to acknowledge that the primary purpose of Genesis was to provide us with the information that we needed about God, and of course our existence. Genesis doesn't pretend to explain every last detail of creation. In fact, its intended purpose was simply to convey the message that we were created, by God, and are not simply an "accident" formed from the natural progression of time, space and/or matter.

Whether one considers the Genesis account of creation literally or not is actually, in my opinion, not a terribly important issue. The fundamental message we must take from Genesis is that God created everything in existence - including us - and, indeed, that such a universal being exists in the first place.

There are two logical assumptions we can draw from the world as to why we and it exist:

1. The universe is the "uncaused cause". The universe had no beginning and has no end; it has always been here, and we are a product of its existence.
2. God is the uncaused cause, i.e. the universe was created, just like us. God had no beginning and has no end; He has always existed and we are a product of His existence.

If we take the Bible into account - whose validity is actually backed up by a lot of historical evidence, even from non-Christian sources (in fact, almost all scientists and historians now acknowledge without a doubt that Jesus was a real man that did exist) - we need not question which of these two assumptions is correct.

God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD.  (Exodus 6:2)

I leave you with the pivotal words of John:

These [things] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.  (John 20:31)