It is truly shocking that anyone would accept Dan Brown's book as a legitimate challenge to historical Christian claims that Jesus is Lord and Christ. Let’s examine Brown's central assertion: "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false."
This statement is made because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea. Brown asserts that these church leaders, in an attempt to consolidate power, created a view of Christ and infallible Scripture that never existed prior to that time. Is that true?
The Council at Nicea is an important event. The early church was at a crossroads of sorts. Alexandrian theologian, Arius, was arguing that Jesus was a remarkable leader but not God in the flesh. Arius, like many today, attempted to prove his assertion by twisting Scripture. It’s the old “tail looking for a dog to wag!” He has an assertion. He tries to find support for it by taking Scriptures out of context!
Brown wrongly assumes Arius’ view is an accurate portrayal of early Christians' view of Christ. And, if Scripture had no authority, why would Arius attempt to use Scripture to give credence to his view?
Early Christians worshipped Jesus as the risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted official doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of summaries termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed the truth that Jesus was divine. The canon of a prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took this view from 1 Corinthians 8:6:
"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
The Greek term here—Lord, Kyrios—was used by the Greeks to denote divinity. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it for their emperor. The first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused the term for the emperor for one reason: only God himself was kyrios.
Christians took over the term kyrios and applied it directly to Jesus. They did this from the earliest days of the church. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians quotes the Old Testament blatantly substituting the name for God with the name of Jesus! Early Christians did also in the early extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book you will find even the early Aramaic-speaking Christians referring to Jesus as Lord.
So, Brown's claim that Scripture was altered AFTER Nicea is historically inaccurate!
Pre-Nicene Christians petitioned God in Christ's name and baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit proving once again that early Christians acknowledged Jesus as God. The Council of Nicea only affirms pre-existing and standard Christian beliefs.
Brown’s book is correctly classified. It is fiction!
|
At a very high-level, I find it odd that the bible is given so much weight when it was in fact written and edited several hundred years after the death of Jesus. If someone in 2300 were to look back on the year 2000, they would have much more "hard" evidence of what life was like than 320 looking back on 20, yet I would guess that they would still be WRONG on many counts. Further, while I don't know the text of the omitted scriptures, I suspect they were left out based on the objective creating consistency (I believe there is some question as to whether the current scriptures were actually in part written based on one another). One cannot escape that the council of Nicea had to be as much about power and control as any altruistic desire to know the "truth" and share the "good news".
So, while the Da Vinci code may be full of bull, it may also illuminate the possibilty that just maybe the bible and Christianity is not necessarily THE ONLY TRUTH. Just a thought.
The way I see it is that for 2000+ years people have been trying to prove Jesus was a fraud. That is a long time to with stand anything being subject to constant review. Just think about that point. Everybody with a brain and a notion is coming from a different place and time suggesting that Jesus is not who he claimed to be.
With all that information and speculation - No one has come up with anything to prove it false. But we prove that historical cities are where they are suppost to be and artifacts are found to substanuate the stories told in this book. These stories and prophecies of Jesus keep proving that it is not a lie. As much as it has been tried - people still keep finding that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
That in itself - because nothing has been found to disprove it, is some strong evidence in proving the fact. Good news travel fast - but bad news travels faster. With everybody looking for the bad news - No one has been able to find any proof yet and has failed completely in trying to find the claim that Jesus is Not God. Many disbelievers have said, due to lack of anyother evidence, it stands to reason that Jesus Must be God. Some say it can be proven - but most say it can not be shown to be a lie.