Originally Posted by roswell1947
Don't plan to read the book or see the film. It contradicts everything that the Bible has told us and the Bible is the truth. And while it is a work of fiction, there are those who can sometimes take fiction and use it to start questioning a lot and soon they start to believe what fiction tells them. (trust me I know, I've been there)

The above comment is a typical reaction of many to the Da Vinci Code a novel which contains references to theories as to the origins of Christianity.

The book uses as part of its story line references to a theory that Jesus may not have been divine and the Church may be involved in a cover up to hide this from the masses.

In fact the above theory is not new but for people who do not read history or mythology or who follow Christianity literally and do not feel the concept of divinity can be questioned, this may seem threatening and therefore in need of censorship.

However it is important people keep an open mind and understand that any dialogue as to the origins of Christianity and the role the Church may be playing does not mean people are trying to put down the religion.

The choice to believe in Jesus as divine and the Bible as being a literal translation is your choice.

However information should be discussed as to where this literal version of Christianity originated and why many Christian and non Christian scholars alike question the origins of Christianity.

To start with the concept of a son of God being born to perform miracles is not unique to Christianity nor did it begin with Christianity.

Krishna (India), Wittoba, Osiris (Egypt), Attis, Indra,
Promietheus, Mithra (Persia), Dionysius (Greece), Heras, Aesculapius, adonis, Apollonius and Tyana
are all belief systems promulgated long before Christianity using this theme. Then of course there is the use of Moses in Judaism and Muhammed in Islam as humans with superior powers and enlightenment to save people falling just short of divinity.

The contravery over the origins of Christianity has arisen since the religion itself began and one only need to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls (which I had the fortune to see in Ottawa) to see the huge difference in Christianity when it started, as to what it evolved to as we know it today.

Indeed most Christians today do not know the original form of their own religion and the fact that it started off as quite "gnostic" in approach viewing the story fo Jesus as only meant to be symbolical and NOT to be taken literally as it is today.

For gnostic Christians the story was simply meant to be a symbol to try help understand the concept that holds that each of us on an individual level, not a singular collective level, can achieve union with God or the larger spiritual entity from which we came from.

In this version of Christianity, we are seen as a spark of energy that originates from God and this is similiar if not identical to the concepts in the Jewish mystical books called the Kabal and similiar to many Eastern disciplines.

It was a believe that celebrated God through the appreciation of nature and saw God as being both female and male, and yes it sounds like Paganism because Paganism predated Christianity and Judaism.

In fact what then happens is a different wing of Christianity develops which wants to view the concept of Jesus being divine as being the literal truth and not to be questioned.

The literal or fundamentalist movement openly challenged the gnostics and thus we see the movement towards the Christianity of today where the Bible is considered the gospel or unquestionable truth.

But what is the gospel?

The four books referred to as the gospel, Mathew, Luke, John and Mark is where all the references of what Christ did, where he was born, lived, come from. They were allegedly written sometime between 70 CE and 140 CE and then first referred to by Irenoeus about 180 CE.

The original manuscripts of these 4 books are not what is in the Bible. In fact these are versions of what may have been originally written and could have been subject to as many as 3,000 different manuscripts of rewrites as to what they said.

The Church saw itself as having the cuty to remake and retell the story of Jesus and so commissioned hundreds of ghost writers to intercept, screen, censor and edit many manuscripts.

In fact these 4 books were originally considered the work of heretics until they were rewritten.

The Church's role was quite clear. It felt for the sake of the religion's well being, it had to flush out any
idea that spirtituality and connection with God is to be practiced on an individual level. The Church used the Bible's preachings and doctrine to establish a monopoly on how Christianity should be prayed.

The Church's role was to establish itself as the central agent of control and it created itself as the
agent to think and represent God on behalf of everyone.

The Church went about censoring and deleting any references by Jesus as to spiritually and the idea of achieving Christ consciousness being something we call can do as individuals.

In fact the Church's version of Christianity is the one that advances the idea that if you do not believe in Jesus as being divine and the only way to reach heaven and believe in God, then you are damned.

It is this literal version of Christianity that then ushers in the thousands of years of bigotry towards Jews, women, and anyone not considered Christian.

This literal version of Christianity introduces the concept of the womb (otherwise celebrated as a beautiful source of lfie) as a dirty thing that must be controlled and repressed. It is this Church that takes the concept of sexual intercourse (otherwise viewed as the union of man and woman and seen as the way to achieve an understanding of God through this unification) as dirty and evil unless simply used to procreate.

Again the last thing the Church wanted is people celebrating life and the beauty of nature on an individual level.

There are many lost manuscripts that historians believe the Christian Church may have destroyed to prevent its followers from finding out the wrong
concepts.

It also appears the Vatican is in possession of 63 manuscripts referring specifically to Jesus in oriental languages and referring to him having lived in India.

Now in the official version of Jesus we have to go to Mathew, Luke, John and Mark, but these books all contradict each other as to when and where he was born, what he did and how he died.

They claim he died at the age of 33 around 29 or 30 DA.

However those 63 manuscripts and many other manuscripts found outside the Christian Bible refer to Jesus having left the Middle East after he suppsedly was crucified and travelling and preaching in Persia, Afghanistan and then settling in Kashmir as a farmer, shepherd and carpenter.

Outside Christianity he is referred to as Issa and Yuz Asaf and it appears he may have lived another 50 years after his alleged death.

One theory is that he did not die and in fact was removed while he was unconscious. He was then nursed back with herbs and salves and after saying his goodbyes moved on.

Some believe he had travelled to India BEFORE the crucifixion and had learned yoga and had the ability to put himself in a trance and lower his heart rate others believed there may have been an arrangement to fake his death and let him go in return for his promising to leave and not come back.

All of this of course flies in the face of the literal translation of the divinity doctrine.

Interestingly in hostory there is no detailed history of events leading up to, during and after Christ's alleged death.

The divinity concepts and literal method of accepting divinity evolve about 400 years after his alleged death.

So to many historians and scholars, Christian and non Christian, the debate as to whether to take Christ's life as told in the Bible as literal or symbolic has been going on since the very beginnings of Christianity.

It only seems like the literal method of interperatingt he Bible is the only one because most Christians do not have access or would not think to look up the origins of their religion.

They also have no idea of the role Emperor Constantine of Rome had.

Constantine of course found himself trying to rule Rome at a time when Pagans and Christians were at logger heads, and where the literal Christrians wished to get rid of the gnostic Christians.

at the Council of Nicoaea around 325 CE he was able to forge an alliance with the literal Christians. To do this he deliberately had the Church incorporate into the bible numerous Pagan rituals such as worshipping mass on SUN day, or celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25, the birth date of other pagan sons of God, and not Christ himself who was probably born at the end of March or sometime in April given the constellation of the Stars at the time of his alleged birth.

The references to Pagan beliefs through-out the Bible are widely known to those who study mythology and symbols.

Now all this talk of the Knights Templar refers to the fact that they may have stumbled across information that Jesus lived and moved to India and have sat on it
for these thousands of years in an effort to either protect the Church or black-mail the Church.

Some say the Masons are Satan worshippers, others say they found out the truth from the Templars and celebrate a gnostic series of rituals celebrating the Sun and that views spiritual attainment something one must achieve individually. So some would argue Masons are really a kind of sect that practices what gnostic Christianity may have looked like had it survived, others, especially devout fundamentalist Christians say its devil worship.

What I say is its ridiculous to try censor the debate. any religion's origins should be questioned.

Even if we take this to its logical extreme and found out for a fact Jesus was not divine, so what? If you are a gnostic Christian it changes nothing. To them it doesn't change a thing he preached to others, all it does is challenge one precept the Church used to justify its own existence as a the way all worship to God must be managed. Challenging divinity would become a political debate as to whether Christians need a Church to pray to God or whether they could
pray as individuals.

If you are a literal Christian this can not be and you either believe Jesus literally is the son of God and you must accept him as your saviour, otherwise down to hell you go.

I personally question all religions including Judaism the exact same way. I can not on an intellectual level take Judaism literally. I question the deeds of Moses as I would the ones of Jesus. Do I believe Moses actually had God part the sea? No. But this does not mean it can not be appreciated as a symbolic story.

All the above is my attempt to add to the debate and not insult anyone or impose my veiws on anyone.

I deeply respect anyone's right to believe in the divinity of Christ and accept the Bible as divine and absolute truth not subject to questioning.

I am an atheist and antitheist, so discovering the origins of Christian mythology and practice will not have any particularly devastating personal consequences for me. However, framing this discussion in light of The Da Vinci Code is perhaps not the best idea. The Da Vinci Code, the book and film, is just pulp fiction. (Although Dan Brown is probably laughing all the way to the bank. Why can't I write a few hundred pages of rubbish like that?)

Hey Rube I wish some of our leaders had the courage to be that honest. Nice work!

A most interesting piece of writing Rube. Can you offer any more information as to the above quote that was in your Thread starter? What additional information is in the manuscripts and who claims that they exist? What was the Sub-Continent's reaction to Issa? I know that there have been gnostic claims that the Apostle Thomas went to India to preach - could he have remet Issa in India and had this been recorded in the manuscripts?

All the best - Joe

I noticed in the movie that they say that the pios group was around at the time of Davinci... Say what??? its was started in the 1920's or 30s....

Tom hanks is a movie actor and the film is nothing like the book; its pure fiction, whereas the book at least has some truths, but im not sure where these truths are in the book-I was lost after the dollar sign appeared in this authors plagerism eyes...!!!!!!!

It really shows how ficklethe public can be, now people are claiming the church has hidden this and other conspiracys for centuries. I guess if I bought out a book saying that an apple was the only thing you need to eat that many people would stop eating food and just eat apples,if my book was worded in a way to scare you from processed food...by claiming, lets see, oh yeah...that food is actually an anti DNA/oldage recipe where by eating anything but apples your dna will eventually kill you years earlier than if you just ate apples all your life....

Im definitely eating apples fro breakfast lunch and tea now, as ive discovered the truth on food and DNA manipulation, so there haha...no wait tis actually true arghhhhhhhh now I need anew theory...

Its well known he at least visited India and also visited japan, japan has a city where the entire town is dedicated to jesus-shrines and his images everywhere on every house and street, they even have a shrine where he is claimed to have been buried.... He was more than likely an Essean as well...they believed in resurections as well.

my thought here. i dont see what the big deal would be about if jesus was married and had children. its that why we are supposely here to do. procreate? so why would he not married and carry out the will of his father also to love and bear children and to pass on his wisdom. why shouldnt jesus be included in this blessed union also? i myself find it easier to believe in him because of the way i feel makes him more believeable to me, not some one who was perfect.that is unrealistic. just my opinion here.

Glad to see you're back Rube. Good post by the way.

The thing is when you bring the above up to Christians they will say that only Jesus is the true Messiah and any suggestion otherwise is being a spokesperson of Satan. Trust me I've been told as much.

First of all I am by no means original. Most of what I repeated is off the top of my head from reading other stuff over the years. Its not my own info. Now to answer you specifically Joe, type in google the following, " ancient tibet buddhist manuscripts of Jesus" and then follow the trail!

You will see numerous references and books referring to lost manuscripts allegedly found at an ancient Tibet Buddhist Himis Monastery in Ladak.

In 1894, a Russian explorer Nicholas Notovitch says he found them and ws able to translate them. Now whether they are authentic or not depends on who you believe.

Unfortunately over the years some very dubious people have waded into the debate and twisted what was said for their own purposes.

The on-going discussions as to Jesus's lost years from say 13 to 29 and then allegedly after he arranges his departure from the Middle East are subject to
many books and studies.

One interesting book I found is The Lost Sutras of Jesus: Unlocking The Ancient Wisdom of the Xian Christian Monks by Ray Riegert and Thomas Moore, published in Berkley California, Seastone Press, 2003, ISBN 1569753601, OCLC 51855373.

Now from what I understand there were as many as 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament. Some believe despite that sheer no., they remain true to the original copies they were based on. Others believe they are necessarily distorted from the originals which no one can find.

What we do know is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contradict some of the info in the New Testament that could suggest things deviated or were amended as the New Testament was revised.

I leave that to Christian scholars to debate whether the rewrites were not corupted intentionally or unintentionally.

What we do know however is that many gospels did not make it to the Bible and/or were discarded or lost.

They include;

The Gospel of Prefection, Andrew, Eve, Matthias, Appelles, Barnabas, Harmony of Basitides, Cerinthus, According to Hebrews, Ebionites, Nazarens, Mani, 12 Apostles, According to Peter, Of the Lord, Lucius, Life, Legal Priesthood of Christ, Elleaisites, Thaddeus, Tatian and apparently there are many more. If you go to ww.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html, you will find a good synopsis of them.

I think what appears to have happened is that none of us really know what happens in the lst century after Jesus died in terms of how original Christianity evolves. Its all guess work. Its around the 2nd century that info starts to surface.

Some would disagree but there does appear to have been a split between gnostic type belief of Christianity and literal divinity type belief of Christianity vis a vis how you view Christ's role.

I am by no means a theologian but I think it is accurate to say that where literal Christianity is known for its emphasis on the role of faith and works in salvation, and salvation of both body and spirit, the gnostic version would have differed greatly in that it would have taught that the soul's salvation depended on the individual possessing quasi-intuitive knowledge (gnosis) of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulas.

I think the gnostic approach and indeed what many feel can be found in the 63 lost manuscripts from Tibet or say in the Dunhuang Manuscripts (the alleged Lost Sutras of Jesus) and in many of these rejected gospels or other gnostic sources of Christianity would be a Jesus teaching that divinity was not exclusive to him but in fact the ability to connect with God is in each and every human as we are all sparks of God so to speak.

If you are the Church teaching that the only way to God is one way through Jesus, the concept that any human can directly connect to God and in essence be divine is not compatible with the trilogy and literal concept of divinity. In the literal divinity path, the Church is the central organ of power of thought and prayer, but in the gnostic one, you pray or develop your divine essence on an individual level sort of like Eastern mystics.

If in fact Jesus did travel to India, etc., before and after his alleged death, the blending of Eastern thoughts with Judaism and the mystical teachings of Judaism (kabal) would make perfect sense.

The idea of Jesus simply saying he was the only way to God with due respect, could be argued to have been a re-write of what he actually said and studied.

Which brings us back to the original debate. If Jesus in fact said we were all children of God and all were connected to God and we all had the potential to form a connection with God as opposed to him saying it could only be done through belief in him, it really is a minor difference that then evolved into this huge monumental arguement. To me it does not detract one iota from any teachings it simply raises a debate as to the role of the Church and whether the divine literal version fo Christianity came about because alleged religious elders and experts felt people on an individual level were not capable of reaching a state of divinity within and needed an organ or cental body to oversee this spiritual journey.

Its the ancient debate as to whether one should be spiritual with other humans in an organized setting, or do it alone on an individual level.

Is God something external you pray to, or is it something internal your reach through meditation.

And of course if you are an atheist, this is all just a bunch of humans writing things and fighting with each other over whose version gets to prevail.

As for those who claim if you do not believe Jesus is devine and preach anything to say he is not, that this is Satanic or evil, that would appear to
be a tad simplistic as gnostic Christianity and Paganism often portrayed as evil by devout literal fundamentalists is not the same but depicted as the same by many who do not take the time to find out what the differences are.

Some pagan belief systems have rituals and symbols often confused with and represented as being Satanic, particularly the ceremonies with sex or the use of pentograms.

The point is whether you believe in God through an individual means of attainment or through the belief in attainment through a specific person you believe was born to be your conduit to assist in that spiritual attainment should not lead to religious intolerance for either way's method of worship. Hopefully the debate flowing from the Da Vinci code is not about putting down anyone's belief, simply learning more about where concepts have originated from and what can happen when one is intolerant of others beliefs, views or individuality,

What comes out of this debate for me is the following:

1) The Roman Catholic Church via its Leader need to publicly apologize for all the persecutions that they have conducted;

2) Make all secret documents and manuscripts relating to the personage of Jesus publicly available;

3) Reverse their doctrines of hatred towards women and allow their priesthood to marry. To publicly renounce their bitter and twisted viewpoint as sex being sinful.

4) To abandon their claim that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and to not lie to people that he has the right, to excommunicate believers or cause laws to be enacted that are binding and absolute on the Church.

Only then, and only then will the Roman Catholic Church begin to redeem themselves from a stinking and sordid history and a repugnant fascist ideological stance.

I don't see how the Da Vinci code suggests that Jesus was not Divine. He was given the body of a man and therefore the ability to pro-create.

Now if he did pro-create with mary before he died then I guess its possible that The Holy Blood line lives on.

The fact that non of this is mentioned in the Bible could be to do with the jealsousy and animosity felt towards Mary Magdeline by the other diciples and therefore she was censored out of the Bible all together.

The point is the Bible may not mention such things because they may have been edited out by the Church.

That said, The Da Vinci Code is just a fiction. Its a mystery novel. It has some inaccurate references. For example there are no Monks in Opus Dei like the Albino murderer in the book. The Dead Sea Scrolls could be misunderstood to be "Christian " if one reads the book literally and they are of course "Jewish" if anything.

The book is considered a threat and an insult by those Christians who feel you can not question the Bible, the Church or the concept of divinity. To them its like questioning whether the holocaust existed. It triggers the same string emotional reaction.

Whether we like it or not however the book has hit a nerve with the a portion of the public that instinctually and intuitively feels there is more to the story of Jesus then what the Church or particular Christian preachers and leaders of many sects not just the Catholic Church would want or have us believe.

Some see the CatholicChurch as a cult and a secretive dangerous cult that has deliberately engaged in lies and repression and hatred so as to preserve its element of control over the masses - others see it as a benevolent organization protecting the truth for those who do not know better or who would otherwise be seduced by evil and lose their way and be unable to connect to God.

What is clear is there is much information, many manuscripts, many works of literature, art and theology out there and the longer the Church or anyone other sect or preacher tries to repress their existence or explain them away as heretic or works of Satan, the more people will push for the truth.

Like any debate that trys to repress a side of the arguement, the repression can continue only so long until the elements and information being repressed swell and eventually burst forth like water trying to find its place back to where it was dredged from. (this is why the Taoists say for example truth flows like water, if you try dam it up, you can only do so temporarily-truth can not be blocked forever)

The Church as is the case with all organized religions will always face movements from within and externally to reform, evolve, change, explain, come clean and to strip layers of secrecy.

My theology professor Ronald Reeve an Anglican Minister was one of millions of Christians searching for answers and not afraid to question the divinity concept and search the lost manuscripts and look at the gnostic works of Christianity. For him it did not challenge his beliefs as much as it did make him more flexible as to his approach towards conceiving things. It may have challenged for him certain precepts he held dearly but it opened up other wonderful concepts for him about Jesus. I suppose its all in how you look at things. Some people are not afraid to challenge and question others are. What makes some people push and want to know and others simply satisfied to keep things as they are and not want to know is an individual choice of faith.

How and what it means ultimately to Christians will of course be decided by Christians. For those who have suffered as a result of Christian intolerance they can only look on and wonder if Christians will do to each other what they did to those they felt were not Christian and "evil". I for one hope not.

I for one hope Christians can engage in health debate and come to new udnerstandings and not let such things simply cause negative reactions.

I can only tell you that on a personal level with my religion, I could not take it literally and follow it verbatum for the simple reason I do not view women as inferior, deaf people as incapable of being married or gay people or adulterers needing to be stoned to death. I find much of my religion questionable and I openly challenge it. I am considered by many in my religion not to be a true follower of the religion because I am not a fundamentalist and orthodox. I really don't care though.

And while I obviously have strong biases in favour of what B Joe said because I approach my own religion in the same activist manner, I also deeply respect the right for Christians to handle this in their own time and in their own way.



I read the Old Testament as I would the New Testament or any other work of religion - with perspective.

The sad thing about the Da Vinci Code is that for many, it will be the only time they might hear a concept other then the one they have come to accept without thinking. It may trigger some to want to read about the origins of the religion and it may cause others to recoil and what I call "turtle"
turn inword and resist and hurl angry accusations back that such talk is blasphemy.

What I will say is this. Any religion that allows itself to grow to the point it has so many secret layers and power concentrated to so few who are beyond the accountability or detection of the masses, is necessarily corupted by its power and will if it feels threatened engage in murder and whatever else it takes to preserve its power.

Millions have died in attempt to get truth revealed. Millions more may have to before this is over.

As for someone like me, I fully admit my distrust of all organized religions simply because part of my work requires I investigate sexual abuse and violence that takes place within such institutions and so for me to simply have confidence in organizations to tell me what the truth is, has become an impossibility if not absurdity.

But for those who choose to turn to organized religion for that comfort, it is there perfect right.

BlackJ's comments are shared by many Christian reformers. I myself out of respect can not comment directly on them although my biases in favour of them are rather obvious.

You have so many points in your posts, yet no references. Plus you mentioned most of it is from memory, so does that leave room for any errors that may be found in your passage? Please list some sources from where you got your information. Thanks!

The above posts were my opinions not a research paper and so I did not make foot-notes. There is a book entitled The Orthodox Suppression of Original Christianity by Joseph P. Macchio I read a year or so ago that basically contains the same info but in better detail so you may ant to track down that book. Here are also some other web-sites with similiar info;

www.nullens.org/content/view/10/49
www.mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm
www.givesharre.org/bablylon/paganismsurviving/
www.jesusneverexisted.com/source.html
www.sabbatarian,com
www.infinityfoundation.com/mendala/h_es/elst_salvation.htm.

Also if you want the classic traditional arguement that everything I said is totally wrong go to;

www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp.


Or simply do what I do, type in; "Pagan influence on Christianity" or "Gnostic Christianity" or "Lost Years of Jesus" or "lost Christian Gospels" and simply cruise from there you will see tons of info sources on this topic and you can find those that reject the Pagan influence and dismiss the gnostic origins if you want.

Hope that is of help.

Meh, I'm looking more forward to "Superman Returns" this summer, now there's a movie that will be good.

Sounds divine.

Wo